Stanislawa Bahonko v Casey City Council - [2012] HCASL 25

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
CASEY CITY COUNCIL
[2012] HCASL 25
M168/2011

As long ago as 3 August 2006, judgment was entered in favour of the respondent against the applicant for unpaid council rates. This led to further litigation. One aspect of that litigation concerned costs orders made against the applicant in the Supreme Court of Victoria by Daly As J, Williams J and the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought an injunction to prevent the call-over, on 22 September 2009, of the taxation of bills of costs in respect of those costs orders. The injunction was sought until this Court had determined the applicant's application for special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal decision, and pending an application which the applicant proposed to make for a grand jury to be convened pursuant to s 354 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (since repealed). The respondent consented to an adjournment of the call-over until after the special leave application had been determined. The applicant opposed the making of any consent order, but Davies J directed that the call-over not take place until the special leave application had been determined.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Mandie JA and Judd AJA). That Court refused an adjournment application and an application that Mandie JA disqualify himself. The applicant failed to advance any submission in support of the application for leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal dismissed that application on the ground that no question of error arose and no injustice had been caused since Davies J's orders gave the applicant substantially what she wanted.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The papers filed in support of that application are vexatious, embarrassing and abusive. They attack, in an irrelevant, scurrilous and unsubstantiated way, not only Mandie JA, but many other judges and other persons prominent in Australian life. They seek orders which neither this Court nor the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to grant. They do not endeavour to grapple with the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
The application has no prospects of success. It is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
J.D. Heydon V.M. Bell
29 February 2012

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stanislawa Bahonko v Casey City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] HCASL 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stanislawa Bahonko versus Casey City Council, the applicant, Ms. Bahonko, sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed her application for leave to appeal against a costs order made in her favour. The case originated from a judgment entered against Ms. Bahonko for unpaid council rates in 2006, leading to further litigation over costs orders made against her in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. The legal issues in this case revolved around the dismissal of the applicant's application for leave to appeal and the costs orders made against her.

The Court was required to decide whether the application for special leave to appeal had any prospects of success and if the costs orders were appropriate in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the application on the grounds that no question of error arose and no injustice had been caused, as the orders made by the trial judge gave the applicant substantially what she wanted. The Court of Appeal also noted that the application for leave to appeal was not supported by any submissions and was, therefore, dismissed.

In considering the application for special leave to appeal, the Court noted that the papers filed in support of the application were vexatious, embarrassing, and abusive. They contained irrelevant, scurrilous, and unsubstantiated attacks on various judges and other prominent individuals in Australian life. Furthermore, the application sought orders that neither this Court nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant. The Court found that the application had no prospects of success, and it was dismissed. The Court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was handed down on 29 February 2012 by Justices Heydon and Bell.

Orders