Vasiljkovic v The Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 2)

In the case of Vasiljkovic v The Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 2), the appellant, Mr. Vasiljkovic, sought to challenge decisions made in the process of his extradition from Australia to the United States. The appellant had previously been the subject of multiple judicial reviews and determinations regarding his extradition, and in this case, he sought to raise new claims in relation to those decisions. The respondents, including the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and others, sought a summary dismissal of the appellant's proceeding, arguing that the claims were res judicata, had been merged in previous judgments, and ought to have been raised earlier. The court was required to determine whether the appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, whether they had been merged in previous judgments, and whether raising them in the present proceeding amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the appellant's claims were res judicata, having been previously determined in earlier proceedings. The court held that the issues necessarily involved in the earlier determinations could not be challenged at a later stage, as they had become closed events. The court further found that the appellant's claims had been merged in previous judgments, and that raising them in the present proceeding amounted to an abuse of process. The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and that the proceeding ought to be dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, third and fifth respondents. The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and that the proceeding amounted to an abuse of process. The court found that the issues necessarily involved in the earlier determinations could not be challenged at a later stage, and that the appellant's claims had been merged in previous judgments. The court held that the proceeding ought to be dismissed, and that the appellant was liable for the costs of the respondents.