Stanislawa Bahonko v Casey City Council

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
CASEY CITY COUNCIL
[2013] HCASL 69
M7/2013

The applicant is the subject of orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria declaring her to be a vexatious litigant under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and prohibiting her, without leave, from commencing any legal proceeding in that Court.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Whelan JA and Hargrave AJA) dismissing her appeal against orders of the Supreme Court (Kyrou J) dismissing certain summonses she had filed after a hearing and determination on their merits. The Court of Appeal held that the institution of the appeal without leave was contrary to the orders declaring her to be a vexatious litigant and determined that leave should not be given. The Court of Appeal described the notice by which the appeal was instituted as an abuse of process and the complaint she sought to make as entirely without foundation.
The reasons for decision of the Court of Appeal are unimpeachable and the orders made by it were plainly appropriate. The documents filed by the applicant in support of her application for special leave to appeal are largely incomprehensible. To the extent they are comprehensible, they are abusive.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanislawa Bahonko, an individual subject to orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria, sought leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissing her appeal against the orders of the Supreme Court. These orders had declared her a vexatious litigant and prohibited her from commencing any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court without leave. Bahonko's appeal was against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal against the Supreme Court's dismissal of certain summonses she had filed. The Court of Appeal had determined that the institution of the appeal was contrary to the orders declaring her a vexatious litigant and found that leave should not be granted. The Court of Appeal further held that the notice by which the appeal was instituted was an abuse of process, and the complaint she sought to make was entirely without foundation.

The legal issues the court had to decide involved whether the Court of Appeal's orders dismissing Bahonko's appeal were correct, and whether she should be granted leave to appeal against those orders. The court had to consider the orders made by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the nature of the orders declaring Bahonko a vexatious litigant, and whether her appeal was an abuse of process. Additionally, the court had to assess the documents filed by Bahonko in support of her application for special leave to appeal to determine their comprehensibility and propriety.

The High Court found that the reasons for decision of the Court of Appeal were unimpeachable and that the orders made by the Court of Appeal were appropriate. The Court determined that the documents filed by Bahonko were largely incomprehensible and, to the extent they were comprehensible, were abusive. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court found that the appeal was an abuse of process, and there were no grounds to grant Bahonko leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal.

The final orders of the Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal's orders were appropriate and that there were no grounds to grant Bahonko leave to appeal against those orders. The Court further found that the documents filed by Bahonko were largely incomprehensible and, to the extent they were comprehensible, were abusive. As a result, the Court dismissed the application, and the orders of the Court of Appeal remained in place, prohibiting Bahonko from commencing any legal proceedings in the Supreme Court without leave.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established