Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1717

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1717

Leave to appeal was refused; all applications dismissed as no sufficient doubt attended the orders, no injustice would arise, the legal arguments were misconceived or incompetent, and unsupportable allegations were made. No appeal lies from interlocutory refusal of leave. Judicial independence prevents amending another judge’s reasons. There is no basis or evidence for contempt charges or joinder of Commonwealth. Costs to be paid by applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision on Leave and Related Applications
Outcome
Applications dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'contempt Proceedings' 'joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Reasons' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'contempt Proceedings' 'joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Reasons' 'costs']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision on Leave and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders refusing stay and refusing leave to appeal' 'Whether an appeal lies from a decision granting or refusing leave' 'Whether power exists to amend reasons of another judge' 'Whether leave should be granted to initiate contempt proceedings where previously denied' 'Whether Commonwealth of Australia should be joined as a party']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused; all applications dismissed as no sufficient doubt attended the orders, no injustice would arise, the legal arguments were misconceived or incompetent, and unsupportable allegations were made. No appeal lies from interlocutory refusal of leave. Judicial independence prevents amending another judge’s reasons. There is no basis or evidence for contempt charges or joinder of Commonwealth. Costs to be paid by applicant.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion as amended on 1 November 2007 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding."]