Muriniti v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 159

Muriniti v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 159

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error or issue of principle in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge, who correctly found an abuse of process in pursuing serious allegations without proper pleading and in seeking to delay the proceeding indefinitely. The summary dismissal and associated costs orders below were appropriate exercises of discretion.

Parties
First Applicant: Leonardo Carlo Muriniti; Second Applicant: Robert Newell; First Respondent: Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Elissa Baxter; Third Respondent: AAI Limited (ACN 005 297 807); Fourth Respondent: De Costi Seafoods (Holdings) Pty Ltd (ACN 064 186 410); Fifth Respondent: De Costi Seafoods (Franchises) Pty Ltd (ACN 103 324 812); Sixth Respondent: George Costi; Seventh Respondent: Androulla Costi; Eighth Respondent: Andrew Thorpe; Ninth Respondent: Stephen Stanton; Tenth Respondent: Michael Holmes; Eleventh Respondent: Juliana Ng; Twelfth Respondent: David Shnider; Thirteenth Respondent: Deborah Searle; Fourteenth Respondent: Phillip Doyle Gray; Fifteenth Respondent: Louise Thompson; Sixteenth Respondent: Bruce Yeldham; Seventeenth Respondent: Mary Vitalone; Eighteenth Respondent: David Lloyd; Nineteenth Respondent: Wendy Blacker; Twentieth Respondent: Rory O'Connor; Twenty First Respondent: Geoffrey Watson; Twenty Second Respondent: Nicholas Andrew; Twenty Third Respondent: Frank Theodore
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; applications dismissed; directions issued for costs submissions.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Summary Dismissal, Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Personal Costs Orders, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Summary Dismissal Pleadings Abuse of Process Personal Costs Orders Interlocutory Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonardo Carlo Muriniti

First Applicant

Robert Newell

Second Applicant

Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Elissa Baxter

Second Respondent

AAI Limited (ACN 005 297 807)

Third Respondent

De Costi Seafoods (Holdings) Pty Ltd (ACN 064 186 410)

Fourth Respondent

De Costi Seafoods (Franchises) Pty Ltd (ACN 103 324 812)

Fifth Respondent

George Costi

Sixth Respondent

Androulla Costi

Seventh Respondent

Andrew Thorpe

Eighth Respondent

Stephen Stanton

Ninth Respondent

Michael Holmes

Tenth Respondent

Juliana Ng

Eleventh Respondent

David Shnider

Twelfth Respondent

Deborah Searle

Thirteenth Respondent

Phillip Doyle Gray

Fourteenth Respondent

Louise Thompson

Fifteenth Respondent

Bruce Yeldham

Sixteenth Respondent

Mary Vitalone

Seventeenth Respondent

David Lloyd

Eighteenth Respondent

Wendy Blacker

Nineteenth Respondent

Rory O'Connor

Twentieth Respondent

Geoffrey Watson

Twenty First Respondent

Nicholas Andrew

Twenty Second Respondent

Frank Theodore

Twenty Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from summary dismissal and related orders should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amended notice of appeal and substantive grounds reveal an arguable error or question of principle
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in finding an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error or issue of principle in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge, who correctly found an abuse of process in pursuing serious allegations without proper pleading and in seeking to delay the proceeding indefinitely. The summary dismissal and associated costs orders below were appropriate exercises of discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; applications dismissed; directions issued for costs submissions.

Orders

  • Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Notice of motion filed 24 June 2022 dismissed.