Stanislawa Bahonko v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

[2012] HCASL 46

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2012] HCASL 46
M7/2012

1. The respondent commenced proceedings in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking an order that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The proceedings were originally set down for hearing on 6 June 2011. On 2 June 2011, the applicant sought leave to adjourn the proceedings. An adjournment was granted until 27 July 2011. On 26 July 2011, a further adjournment was sought. On 27 July 2011, after hearing oral submissions from the respondent, J Forrest J rejected the application for a further adjournment. The applicant was informed the matter would be heard at 2:15pm that day.

2. At 2:15pm on 27 July 2011, J Forrest J heard the matter ex parte and found, upon analysis of the history of proceedings instituted by the applicant, that a number of the proceedings could properly be described as vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action or hopeless.  His Honour also found that the length of time over which such proceedings were brought and their regularity established that the conduct of the applicant was persistent. Orders were entered in favour of the respondent.

3. The applicant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 16 December 2011, the Court of Appeal heard an application seeking to set aside the orders of J Forrest J. Section 17(A)(4)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) requires a party appealing an interlocutory decision, which the order of the trial judge was held to be, to obtain leave from the Court. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

4. The application for special leave to this Court, accompanying draft notice of appeal and applicant's summary of argument, each filed 10 February 2012, make extensive complaints about the decision of the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. 

5. However, the application to this Court does not advance any ground that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave to appeal is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel