Stanislawa Bahonko v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

[2011] HCASL 141

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2011] HCASL 141
M48/2011

1. On 24 September 2010, the Supreme Court of Victoria (Mukhtar AsJ) granted the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria ("the Attorney-General") leave to commence proceedings for an order under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant ("the declaration proceedings"). On 23 and 24 September 2010, the applicant sought, among other things, summary dismissal of the Attorney-General's application as being "vexatious, malicious and frivolous" along with referral of the Attorney-General and others to the Director of Public Prosecutions for criminal investigation. On 27 October 2010, Mukhtar AsJ made orders in the declaration proceedings including, relevantly, referring determination of the remedies sought by the applicant to the Court hearing the declaration proceedings. The applicant appealed against these orders ("the impugned Orders").

1. Whilst the applicant did not specify any grounds of appeal in her Notice of Appeal against the impugned Orders, at the oral hearing she made various submissions contending, among other things, that the impugned Orders should not have been made as the declaration proceedings involved a miscarriage of justice.  On 31 March 2011, Emerton J declined to dismiss or stay the declaration proceedings.  Her Honour found that the applicant simply advanced wide-ranging allegations of a conspiracy against her by the Attorney-General and various other public and private institutions for which no proof was provided.

2. On 31 May 2011, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for a stay of Emerton J's orders and rulings.  Tate JA (with whom Whelan AJA agreed) concluded that the grounds advanced by the applicant constituted "little more than a sustained and acrimonious attack on the integrity of Emerton J" which was "entirely unsupported".  Her Honour found there was no proper basis for vacating the hearing of the declaration proceedings and, furthermore, the purported appeal from Emerton J's decision should be permanently stayed as vexatious and an abuse of the Court.

3. The application to this Court does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal.  It largely concerns matters of practice and procedure.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.

4. 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	S.M. Kiefel
8 September 2011