//
[2024] VSCA 32
General information, not legal advice.
Court of Appeal (Vic)
2024-03-13
Ginnane J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] This does not include the goods that were removed from the storage facility during a break-in allegedly conducted by the applicant (as set out further below).
[2] Iloski v State of Victoria [2023] VSC 321 ('Reasons').
[4] Reasons, [13]-[15] (citations omitted).
[5] Reasons, [16] (citations omitted).
[7] Hynard and Lerch, 'The Tort of Collateral Abuse of Process' [2021] UNSWLawJl 25; (2021) 44(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 714, 715.
[8] [1940] HCA 20; (1940) 63 CLR 691, 710 (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ).
Iloski
State of Victoria & Anor [2024] VSCA 32
[2023] VSC 321 (Justice Ginnane)
EVIDENCE - Where applicant had regained possession of some goods as a result of a break-in at a storage facility - Whether judge failed to place weight on the fact that the charges against the applicant relating to the break-in were withdrawn as evidence that the goods were the property of the applicant - No error found in judge's reasoning - Helton v Allen [1940] HCA 20; (1940) 63 CLR 691, considered - Leave to appeal refused.
(1940) 63 CLR 691