Talacko v Talacko

[2009] VSC 98

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7393 of 1998

HELENA MARIE TALACKO, ALEXANDRA BENNETT, MARTIN TALACKO, ROWENA TALACKO AND MARGARET HELEN TALACKO	Plaintiffs
v
JAN EMIL TALACKO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Kyrou J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10-11 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Talacko v Talacko
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 98

---

Stay – existence of parallel proceedings in Czech Republic – effectiveness of undertaking to not prosecute the parallel proceeding.

Order 50, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – special referee – whether special circumstances required – valuation of properties located overseas and controlled by defendant.

Discovery – production for inspection of documents located in Czech Republic would allegedly breach Czech law – directions to deal with Czech law.

Costs – application for order for advance payment of portion of costs due to be taxed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S J Howells	Holding Redlich
For the Defendant	Mr R L Berglund QC with Mr D J Williams	Findlay Arthur Phillips

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. I conducted a directions hearing in this matter on 10 and 11 March 2009 pursuant to liberty to apply reserved by Osborn J in his order of 22 August 2008.    

1. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant sought orders. The principal orders sought by the plaintiffs were for the appointment of a special referee pursuant to Order 50 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) (“Rules”), further discovery and the payment of costs previously incurred and not ordered to be paid as well as payment on account of costs that are the subject of previous costs orders and which are due to be taxed on 1 June 2009. The principal orders sought by the defendant were for a stay of the proceeding based on the existence of parallel proceedings in the District Court for Prague 1 (“Czech proceeding”), variations to the orders of Osborn J made on 22 August 2008 consequent upon the stay, and costs.

1. At the conclusion of the directions hearing on 11 March 2009 I pronounced orders on some of the issues and gave brief reasons orally.  In these Reasons, I set out those orders  and  reasons  with some further elaboration of the reasons where appropriate.  On 11 March 2009, I reserved my decision on the remaining issues, which I deal with in these Reasons. 

Background

1. The background to this proceeding is set out in the reasons for judgment of Osborn J dated 24 April 2008, where his Honour decided, as a preliminary issue, that the defendant had breached the terms of settlement dated 23 February 2001 between the parties (“Terms”) and that the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable compensation pursuant to cl 6 of the Terms. [1] 

   [1]Talacko v Talacko [2008] VSC 128. Osborn J decided that the issue of penalty be determined at the final hearing. Although his Honour concluded that cl 6…