Markisic and Anor v Vizza and 16 Ors [2002] NSWCCA 53

Markisic and Anor v Vizza and 16 Ors [2002] NSWCCA 53

The Court of Criminal Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders made in the Supreme Court’s inherent/common law jurisdiction, not summary jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed with costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Oliver Markisic; Second Applicant: Dragan Markisic; 1st Respondent: Gina Vizza; 2nd Respondent: Doreen Muirhead; 3rd Respondent: Nan Levett; 4th Respondent: John McGinness; 5th Respondent: Tim McDonald; 6th Respondent: Charlie White; 7th Respondent: Lily Anthony; 8th Respondent: Robbie Flohm; 9th Respondent: Mark Twohill; 10th Respondent: Centacare Pty Ltd; 11th Respondent: Helen O'Brien; 12th Respondent: Jan Robertson; 13th Respondent: Christine Robertson; 14th Respondent: Mike Robertson; 15th Respondent: Jenny Hurst; 16th Respondent: Alison Bareet; 17th Respondent: Qantas Airways Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Costs, Jurisdictional Competence, Child Abduction
Criminal Law Family Law Procedure Summary Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Costs Jurisdictional Competence Child Abduction

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Markisic

First Applicant

Dragan Markisic

Second Applicant

Gina Vizza

1st Respondent

Doreen Muirhead

2nd Respondent

Nan Levett

3rd Respondent

John McGinness

4th Respondent

Tim McDonald

5th Respondent

Charlie White

6th Respondent

Lily Anthony

7th Respondent

Robbie Flohm

8th Respondent

Mark Twohill

9th Respondent

Centacare Pty Ltd

10th Respondent

Helen O'Brien

11th Respondent

Jan Robertson

12th Respondent

Christine Robertson

13th Respondent

Mike Robertson

14th Respondent

Jenny Hurst

15th Respondent

Alison Bareet

16th Respondent

Qantas Airways Limited

17th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offences alleged by the applicants were capable of prosecution in the summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was competent
  3. 3 Whether the costs order made by the Supreme Court was within its summary jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Criminal Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders made in the Supreme Court’s inherent/common law jurisdiction, not summary jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Applicants ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on a party and party basis