Stanislawa Bahonko v Casey City Council

[2012] HCASL 25

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

1. 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the applicant proposed to make for a grand jury to be convened pursuant to s 354 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (since repealed).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.

2. 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. 

3. 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.

4. The application has no prospects of success.  It is dismissed.

5. 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