Stanislawa Bahonko v Moorfields Community

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
MOORFIELDS COMMUNITY & ORS
[2013] HCASL 106
M22/2013
M23/2013

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Whelan JA and Vickery AJA) dismissing her two applications for leave to appeal to that Court.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the applications fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
The applicant advances no arguable ground of appeal in either case and an appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.

K.M. Hayne
26 June 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Stanislawa Bahonko, the applicant, who sought special leave to appeal against the decisions made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Whelan JA and Vickery AJA. The applicant was contesting the dismissal of her two applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court was required to determine whether the applicant had advanced any arguable grounds for appeal and if the appeal would have a prospect of success. Given the applicant’s lack of legal representation, the matter was handled under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established any arguable grounds for appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether an appeal to the High Court would have any prospect of success. These assessments were crucial in determining whether special leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court found that the applicant had not advanced any arguable grounds of appeal in either case. It was determined that an appeal to the High Court would enjoy no prospect of success. Consequently, the Court concluded that there were no valid grounds to grant special leave to appeal. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing each application. The decision was signed by K.M. Hayne on 26 June 2013, and S.M. Crennan concurred with the outcome.

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