Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kowalski v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd [2011] FCA 631 Citation: Kowalski v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd [2011] FCA 631
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Soden v Kowalski [2011] FCA 318
Parties: KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v MITSUBISHI MOTORS AUSTRALIA LTD AND ORS; KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v WARWICK SODEN (IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
File numbers: SAD 70 of 2011 SAD 71 of 2011
Judge: FLICK J
Date of judgment: 7 June 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious litigant – leave to institute appeal – leave refused
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Federal Court Rules Order 21 rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Cases cited: Ah Toy v Registrar of Companies (1985) 10 FCR 280, cited Attorney-General (Cth), Re; Ex parte Skyring (1996) 135 ALR 29, considered Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111, cited Cambridge Consolidated NL v Zephyr Minerals NL (1999) 88 FCR 147, cited Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia (No 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246, cited Commonwealth Bank v Heinrich (No 2) [2003] SASC 436, considered Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397, cited Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 28, referred to Fiorentino v Irons (1997) 79 FCR 327, cited Granich & Associates v Yap [2004] FCA 1567, cited Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423, cited Jarrett v Seymour (1993) 46 FCR 557, cited Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1572, 104 FCR 564, cited Jones v Skyring (1992) 109 ALR 303, referred to Jones Lang Lasalle (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dart [2005] FCA 1614, referred to Kay v Attorney-General (Vic) [2000] VSCA 176, 2 VR 436, considered King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 1773, 116 FCR 509, cited King v Wilson; Ex parte Kisch (1935) 52 CLR 248, considered Klewer v Attorney-General (NSW) [2010] NSWCA 219, referred to Licul v Corney (1976) 180 CLR 213, referred to Luck, Re [2003] HCA 70, 203 ALR 1, referred to Mayne Nickless Limited v Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1620, 114 FCR 108, cited Pedler v Hunters Hill Municipal Council [1976] 2 NSWLR 411, referred to Ramsey v Skyring [1999] FCA 907, 164 ALR 378, considered Rawson Finances Pty Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 139, cited Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2009] FCA 415, cited Shaw v Mcginty [2006] WASCA 231, cited Sharp v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 ATR 908, 88 ATC 4184, referred to Soden v Kowalski [2011] FCA 318, considered von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 1108, referred to von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCAFC 97, 177 FCR 531, referred to Yap v Granich Partners [2008] FCA 1380, considered Yap v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2009] FCA 1159, referred to
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