Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCAFC 142 Citation: Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCAFC 142
Appeal from: Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 409
Parties: KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number: SAD 55 of 2010
Judges: DOWSETT, COWDROY AND LOGAN JJ
Date of judgment: 22 November 2010
Date of hearing: 22 November 2010
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Maharaj QC and Mr RJ Wallace
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION SAD 55 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
Appellant
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGES: DOWSETT, COWDROY AND LOGAN JJ DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 2010 PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 The appellant seeks leave to amend his notice of appeal to include an appeal against the primary Judge's failure to disqualify himself. We consider that the application should be refused. The appellant is unable to say with any certainty that he raised the question before the primary Judge. In those circumstances it would, in our view, be an abuse of process to allow him to amend. We may give slightly expanded reasons when we finally dispose of this appeal. 2 The appellant also seeks to lead further evidence on appeal. We consider that this application should also be refused. Again, we will give more detailed reasons at a later stage. Primarily, we consider that the evidence is not relevant to any issue properly before this Court. The appellant may have a basis for seeking to re-open his claim, but the evidence does not seem to concern or raise any question of law with which the primary Judge was concerned, or with which this Court should be concerned. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Dowsett, Cowdroy and Logan.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate