Stanislawa Bahonko v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

[2011] HCASL 138

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2011] HCASL 138
M33/2011

1. On 8 September 2010, the respondent commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria ("the Court") seeking to have the applicant declared a 'vexatious litigant' pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) ("the declaration proceedings"). By a summons dated 8 November 2010, amended on 15 November 2010 ("the Summons"), the applicant sought an injunction restraining the respondent from continuing the declaration proceedings, injunctive relief against a number of non-parties, and leave to appeal orders made by Mukhtar AsJ on 27 October 2010 ("the impugned Orders").

2. On 14 December 2010, the Court (Osborn J) refused to grant the relief sought in the summons and further ordered, relevantly, that the proceedings be fixed for a trial on 6 June 2011 and that the appeal of the impugned Orders be adjourned to 4 March 2011.  Osborn J held, amongst other things, that there was a triable basis for the declaration proceedings, which were being brought in significant part to constrain the demands upon public resources imposed by proceedings instituted by the applicant and that there was no satisfactory evidence to support many of the allegations made by the applicant.

3. On 1 April 2011, the Court of Appeal (Redlich and Bongiorno JJA) rejected the applicant's appeal, or insofar as leave was necessary, application for leave to appeal against Osborn J's orders.  Bongiorno JA (with whom Redlich JA agreed) held that of the 15 questions of law that the applicant raised in her application, only four were potentially relevant to the application, and that the affidavit material and outline of submissions filed by the applicant were not relevant to the application and mostly unintelligible.  Even where intelligible and relevant, no basis was shown to justify the grant of leave to appeal.

4. In this Court, the applicant has not advanced any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  The applicant's submissions do not articulate any legal argument that would cast doubt on the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.  The applicant's summons seeking expedition of the hearing of the application for special leave and a stay of Osborn J's orders should be dismissed on grounds of futility.

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

W.M.C. Gummow	S.M. Kiefel
8 September 2011