Kowalski v Dolphin (No 2) [2011] FCA 779

Kowalski v Dolphin (No 2) [2011] FCA 779

Leave to file the notice of motion must be refused because the applicant is subject to orders restricting proceedings by vexatious litigants, and the Court is not satisfied that the application is not an abuse of process or that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding.

Parties
Applicant: Kazimir Kowalski; First Respondent: Steven Peter Dolphin; Second Respondent: Lieschke & Weatherill; Third Respondent: Certain Underwriters at Lloyds; Fourth Respondent: QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application / Post Interlocutory, Order on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Leave to issue the notice of motion refused; notice of motion not accepted for filing.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Proceedings, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Recusal
Civil Procedure Vexatious Proceedings Leave to Institute Proceedings Abuse of Process Recusal

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazimir Kowalski

Applicant

Steven Peter Dolphin

First Respondent

Lieschke & Weatherill

Second Respondent

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds

Third Respondent

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Post Interlocutory, Order on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file a notice of motion challenging Mansfield J's order
  2. 2 Whether the notice of motion can be accepted for filing given the applicant is subject to vexatious litigant orders
  3. 3 Whether the proposed application is not an abuse of process and discloses a prima facie ground

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the notice of motion must be refused because the applicant is subject to orders restricting proceedings by vexatious litigants, and the Court is not satisfied that the application is not an abuse of process or that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Leave to issue the notice of motion refused; notice of motion not accepted for filing.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion dated 2 June 2011 not be accepted for filing.
  • Leave to issue the notice of motion dated 2 June 2011 be refused.