Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 375

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 375

The applicant failed to satisfy the two limbs required for leave to appeal interlocutory orders: the orders were not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Stanislawa Bahonko; First Respondent: Kosta Sterjov; Second Respondent: Susanna Sterjov; Third Respondent: Lisa Miller; Fourth Respondent: La Kosta Child Care Centre and Kindergarten Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Apprehended Bias, Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Apprehended Bias Practice and Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanislawa Bahonko

Applicant

Kosta Sterjov

First Respondent

Susanna Sterjov

Second Respondent

Lisa Miller

Third Respondent

La Kosta Child Care Centre and Kindergarten Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders made by Jessup J
  2. 2 Whether refusal by Jessup J to disqualify himself amounts to apprehended bias
  3. 3 Whether procedural decisions (joinder of parties, trial dates, contempt warnings, counsel conflict) caused substantial injustice to applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the two limbs required for leave to appeal interlocutory orders: the orders were not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against each of the orders made respectively on 7 February 2007 and 23 February 2007 by Justice Jessup be refused.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.