Dimitrov v The Supreme Court of Victoria [2017] HCA 51

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDELMAN J

PETER MICHAEL DIMITROV PLAINTIFF

AND

THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA & ORS DEFENDANTS

Dimitrov v The Supreme Court of Victoria [2017] HCA 51 1 December 2017 S204/2017

ORDER

1. The plaintiff's application for an order to show cause, filed 2 August 2017, be dismissed, pursuant to r 25.03.3(a) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

2. The plaintiff pay the costs of the third, fourth, ninth, tenth, 13th, 14th, 15th and 17th defendants.

Representation

R E Dubler SC with Q A Rares for the plaintiff (instructed by Sasha Ivantsoff, Solicitor)

A C Archibald QC with F I Gordon for the third, fourth, ninth and tenth defendants (instructed by Allens Lawyers)

G K J Rich SC with B K Lim for the thirteenth to fifteenth defendants (instructed by Arnold Bloch Leibler)

T W Marskell for the seventeenth defendant (instructed by Moray & Agnew)

Submitting appearances for the first, second, eleventh, twelfth and sixteenth defendants

No appearance for the fifth to eighth defendants

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Dimitrov v The Supreme Court of Victoria

Practice and procedure – Original jurisdiction – Where plaintiff applied for order to show cause why prohibition, certiorari and injunction should not issue in respect of orders in Supreme Court of Victoria – Where orders of Supreme Court approved settlement by group proceeding plaintiffs with nunc pro tunc authority of group members – Where settlement deed purportedly released defendants in group proceedings from all claims – Where plaintiff contended orders made in federal jurisdiction beyond power as not involving a "matter" – Where various defendants to plaintiff's application sought dismissal or summary dismissal – Where plaintiff did not attempt to appeal impugned orders –Where some issues raised pending in District Court of New South Wales – Where issues raised in original jurisdiction would not arise if plaintiff sought leave to appeal in Supreme Court – Whether Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of Victoria has power to entertain an appeal – Whether appropriate to invoke original jurisdiction of High Court.