MARKISIC (DRAGAN) v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES & ORS [2006] NSWCA 149

MARKISIC (DRAGAN) v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES & ORS [2006] NSWCA 149

The summons was dismissed because, to the extent the proposed appeal challenged findings that persons had not committed contempt, the Court had no jurisdiction and the claimant had no right of appeal; in any event the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success because the contempt charges were unsupported by evidence and wholly misconceived, and no error was shown in the challenged procedural, costs or restraining orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Contempt Motions / Summons Before the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'jurisdiction to Appeal Contempt Findings' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs' 'restraining Further Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigant']
['civil Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'jurisdiction to Appeal Contempt Findings' 'abuse of Process' 'indemnity Costs' 'restraining Further Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigant']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Contempt Motions / Summons Before the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claimant had any right of appeal, or could obtain leave to appeal, from findings that persons had not committed contempt.' 'Whether the contempt charges were supported by evidence or were wholly misconceived.' 'Whether Grove J erred by refusing to disqualify himself, refusing an adjournment, and refusing cross-examination sought by the claimant.' 'Whether the indemnity costs order and order restraining further proceedings should be disturbed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because, to the extent the proposed appeal challenged findings that persons had not committed contempt, the Court had no jurisdiction and the claimant had no right of appeal; in any event the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success because the contempt charges were unsupported by evidence and wholly misconceived, and no error was shown in the challenged procedural, costs or restraining orders.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed with costs.' 'Costs of the First, Second, Third and Fifth Opponents to be payable on an indemnity basis.' 'Costs of the Fourth Opponent to be payable on a party and party basis.']