MARKISIC v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES OF NSW & ORS [2007] NSWCA 30

MARKISIC v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES OF NSW & ORS [2007] NSWCA 30

The history of the present and satellite proceedings, including repeated insubstantial, unnecessary and misconceived interlocutory applications and superfluous complexities, showed abuses of the Court's processes and imposed an oppressive and unjust burden on the opponents and the Court; therefore controls equivalent to those already imposed in the Common Law Division should be imposed in the appeal proceedings by requiring leave of a Judge of Appeal before further notices of motion or oral applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Proceedings Concerning Opponent Notices of Motion to Restrain Further Applications as an Abuse of Process / Post Judgment Hearing of Notices of Motion Filed by the First and Second Opponents, Fourth Opponent and Fifth Opponent
Outcome
Orders made restraining Dragan Markisic from filing or serving any notice of motion, or making any oral application, in the proceedings without leave of a Judge of Appeal, with costs to the respondents on the relevant Notices of Motion.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'repeated Interlocutory Applications' 'vexatious or Oppressive Applications' 'inherent Power of the Court' 'leave Requirement for Further Notices of Motion']
['practice and Procedure'] ['abuse of Process' 'repeated Interlocutory Applications' 'vexatious or Oppressive Applications' 'inherent Power of the Court' 'leave Requirement for Further Notices of Motion']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Proceedings Concerning Opponent Notices of Motion to Restrain Further Applications as an Abuse of Process / Post Judgment Hearing of Notices of Motion Filed by the First and Second Opponents, Fourth Opponent and Fifth Opponent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dragan Markisic should be restrained from filing or serving further notices of motion, or making oral applications, in the appeal proceedings without leave of a Judge of Appeal.' 'Whether the history of the appeal, satellite appeal and Common Law Division proceedings showed abuse of process through insubstantial, unnecessary and misconceived applications.' 'Whether the burden on opponents and the Court justified controls on further interlocutory applications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The history of the present and satellite proceedings, including repeated insubstantial, unnecessary and misconceived interlocutory applications and superfluous complexities, showed abuses of the Court's processes and imposed an oppressive and unjust burden on the opponents and the Court; therefore controls equivalent to those already imposed in the Common Law Division should be imposed in the appeal proceedings by requiring leave of a Judge of Appeal before further notices of motion or oral applications.

Court Disposition

Orders made restraining Dragan Markisic from filing or serving any notice of motion, or making any oral application, in the proceedings without leave of a Judge of Appeal, with costs to the respondents on the relevant Notices of Motion.

Orders

  • ['Order that Dragan Markisic is not to be allowed to file and is hereby restrained from filing and also from serving any notice of motion, and is not to be allowed to make and is hereby restrained from making any oral application in these proceedings without the leave of a Judge of Appeal.' 'Order that in case...