Stojanka Slaveska v Dragan Elenchevski

[2014] HCASL 46

STOJANKA SLAVESKA

v

DRAGAN ELENCHEVSKI

[2014] HCASL 46
M135/2013

1. The applicant commenced proceedings in the County Court of Victoria for damages in relation to the purchase of a house and land in Macedonia in 1986.  The applicant alleged that under an agreement with the respondent, she was sold an area of 485 square metres of land, but that in 2003, she became aware that the respondent had subdivided the land and transferred 149 square metres of the property to his brother.  The applicant claimed damages of $17,204.12, being the difference in value between the land transferred and the land she claimed she was entitled to under the contract.  The applicant had already failed to establish the same claim in Macedonia, where the Bitola Court of Appeal held that the disputed 149 square metres of land was public property and therefore "could not be subject to trade" in any event.

2. The County Court of Victoria (Judge Anderson) struck out the proceedings instituted for want of prosecution.  His Honour noted that the applicant had not filed a reply to the respondent's defence.  He considered that her pleadings with respect to the allegation of fraud were inadequate and that her claim would have no real prospects of success.  His Honour further considered that the interests of justice would not be served by allowing the applicant to file an amended statement of claim.

3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Warren CJ, Neave and Priest JJA) dismissed an appeal from the orders of Judge Anderson.  The Court held that Judge Anderson had correctly stated the principles relating to the dismissal of proceedings for want of prosecution, and applied them correctly to the facts in this case.

4. The applicant's draft notice of appeal and written case in this Court make unparticularised assertions of bias, denial of natural justice and error of law.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.  The application is dismissed.

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

V.M. Bell
12 March 2014 S.J. Gageler