Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1556

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1556

The appellant was entitled to electronic access, at the Court's expense, only to the viva voce evidence before Jessup J because that evidence would facilitate preparation and conduct of the appeal. The stay application failed because an appeal does not itself stay costs orders and the appellant identified no proper basis for a stay. The applications to remove the respondents' legal representatives and to pursue contempt claims were dismissed because the allegations were unsupported, insupportable, scandalous, vexatious or misconceived, and previous refusal of filing under O 46 r 7A was not appealable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application in a Pending Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 20 September 2007
Outcome
Notice of motion granted only to the extent of providing electronic transcript of viva voce evidence; otherwise dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['access to Transcript for Purposes of Appeal' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal' 'removal of Legal Representatives' 'leave to Initiate Contempt Proceedings' 'scandalous and Vexatious Allegations']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs' 'contempt of Court'] ['access to Transcript for Purposes of Appeal' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal' 'removal of Legal Representatives' 'leave to Initiate Contempt Proceedings' 'scandalous and Vexatious Allegations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Application in a Pending Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 20 September 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be provided with transcripts of proceedings in VID 114/06 and VID 756/06 for the appeal.' 'Whether the costs orders made by Jessup J on 31 August should be stayed until the appeal is fully determined.' "Whether the respondents' counsel and solicitor should be required to step down from legal representation in the appeal." "Whether the appellant's contempt claims should be heard and determined before the appeal and deemed commenced."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was entitled to electronic access, at the Court's expense, only to the viva voce evidence before Jessup J because that evidence would facilitate preparation and conduct of the appeal. The stay application failed because an appeal does not itself stay costs orders and the appellant identified no proper basis for a stay. The applications to remove the respondents' legal representatives and to pursue contempt claims were dismissed because the allegations were unsupported, insupportable, scandalous, vexatious or misconceived, and previous refusal of filing under O 46 r 7A was not appealable.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted only to the extent of providing electronic transcript of viva voce evidence; otherwise dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appellant be provided, at the expense of the Court, with a copy of the transcript in an electronic form of the evidence of the following persons before Jessup J in VID 114/2006: the appellant; Lisa McEwan; Kosta Sterjov; Esther Keji Matthew; Snezana Sterjova; and Wieslawa Kurasik.' 'The notice of motion dated...