Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 375 STANISLAWA BAHONKO v KOSTA STERJOV, SUSANNA STERJOV, LISA MILLER AND LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE AND KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD VID 111 OF 2007
RYAN J
15 march 2007
MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 111 OF 2007
BETWEEN: STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant
AND: KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent
SUSANNA STERJOV
Second Respondent
LISA MILLER
Third Respondent
LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE AND KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J DATE OF ORDER: 15 march 2007
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. 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. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 111 OF 2007
BETWEEN: STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant
AND: KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent
SUSANNA STERJOV
Second Respondent
LISA MILLER
Third Respondent
LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE AND KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE: 15 march 2007
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 By a notice of motion dated 27 October 2006 in proceeding numbered VID 756 of 2006, the present applicant, Stanislawa Bahonko, sought the following orders; '1. Applicant is given leave to issue Subpoenas of Documents and to give Evidence upon the Respondents and persons who are I he [sic] possession of the relevant Documents and Evidence.' 2 After one or two adjournments, the motion was heard by Jessup J on 7 February 2007 when his Honour also entertained a further motion on notice by the applicant dated 5 February 2007 in proceedings numbered VID 114 of 2006. By that notice the applicant sought; '1. Counsel for the Respondents M G McKenney stands down from representing Respondents' in this matter due to conflict of interest. 2. The Respondents are given warning in relation to the contempt of the Court. 3. The jurisdiction of the Court be extended to include criminal jurisdiction and defamation law.' 3 On 7 February 2007, his Honour made the following orders for which he published reasons of the same date; '1. The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 27 October 2006 be dismissed. 2. The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 5 February 2007 be dismissed. 3. The respondents have leave to file and serve their Further Amended Defence on 25 January 2007. 4. The Further Amended Defence filed and served by the respondents on 25 January 2007 stand as their Defence herein. 5. The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22 September 2006 be adjourned to 9.00 am on 23 February 2007. 6. The proceeding be listed for trial on 2 April 2007 with an estimate of 3 days. 7. Costs be reserved.'
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate