Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2014] NSWSC 581

Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2014] NSWSC 581

None of the orders sought in Mr Dragan Markisic's October 2013 motions could be made because no appeal had been filed to justify a stay, no basis was shown for a jury trial or for appointing a judge from another jurisdiction, no sufficient cause was shown that the September 2013 judgment was given irregularly, illegally or against good faith, and the matters relied on did not establish actual or apprehended bias.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) / Interlocutory Applications by Notice of Motion Filed in October 2013
Outcome
The orders sought by Mr Dragan Markisic in the motions filed in October 2013 were refused; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion' 'temporary Stay Pending Appeal' 'trial by Jury' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'setting Aside Judgment' 'case Management' 'subpoenas' 'conflict of Interest']
['civil Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings'] ['notice of Motion' 'temporary Stay Pending Appeal' 'trial by Jury' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'setting Aside Judgment' 'case Management' 'subpoenas' 'conflict of Interest']

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

Proceedings Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) / Interlocutory Applications by Notice of Motion Filed in October 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be temporarily stayed pending any appeal against the decision on the motions.' 'Whether the notice of motion should be tried by jury.' 'Whether another judge from another jurisdiction should be appointed to hear the case.' 'Whether the judgment given on 2 September 2013 should be set aside.' 'Whether Schmidt J should disqualify herself from further hearing the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the orders sought in Mr Dragan Markisic's October 2013 motions could be made because no appeal had been filed to justify a stay, no basis was shown for a jury trial or for appointing a judge from another jurisdiction, no sufficient cause was shown that the September 2013 judgment was given irregularly, illegally or against good faith, and the matters relied on did not establish actual or apprehended bias.

Court Disposition

The orders sought by Mr Dragan Markisic in the motions filed in October 2013 were refused; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The orders sought by Mr Dragan Markisic in the motions filed in October 2013 are refused.' 'The usual order as to costs is that they follow the event. The Court will hear the parties on costs, which are reserved.']