IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
COMMON LAW DIVISION	 Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication	
Appeals and Post Sentence Applications List

Case No. AP-24-0899

MICHAEL RUZICKA	Plaintiff	
		
v		
		
ZOE HANCOCK	Defendant	

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers	
DATE OF RULING:	21 November 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ruzicka v Hancock (Ruling)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1874		

RULING
---

Subject:	Application to set aside order striking out appeal for failing to appear
Catchwords: 	Personal safety intervention order appeal – strike out proceedings – appeal to set aside strike out order and reinstate proceedings
Ruling:	Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Applicant	No appearance		
			
For the Respondent	No appearance		

HIS HONOUR:

1	This is an application by Mr Ruzicka to set aside an order striking out his appeal.
2	His appeal was from orders made by Magistrate Prior on 3 July 2024 granting a personal safety intervention order in favour of the current respondents. Those orders were made by consent after Mr Ruzicka had received advice from a solicitor.
3	Mr Ruzicka then appealed to this Court. The matter was subject to timetabling orders made on 12 September 2024. The Appellant sought time to obtain legal advice which was granted. The matter was listed for mention on 10 October 2024. On that date Mr Ruzicka did not appear when the matter was called on. The matter was called outside of Court and he still entered no appearance. The matter was struck out. 
4	Mr Ruzicka appeared at Court shortly afterward.
5	The Appellant now seeks by application to have his matter reinstated. 
6	The guiding principles as to reinstatement seem to me to be (1) that there is an adequate explanation for the underlying reason for his non–appearance and (2) whether there is a real or arguable case.      
7	Here there is no reason for the failure to attend set out by Mr Ruzicka in his application.  
8	Turning to assess the second limb, as to whether there is a real or arguable case. It is to be remembered that the matter is an appeal in which the Appellant must demonstrate a legal, factual or discretionary error.  In circumstances where the Appellant had legal advice (as set out in his application) and entered into orders by consent before Magistrate Prior I consider there is no arguable case to be made on appeal. 
9	The application for reinstatement is denied.