Akram Karam v Lennon Mazzeo

[2012] HCASL 147

AKRAM KARAM

v

LENNON MAZZEO

[2012] HCASL 147
M60/2012

1. The respondent is the former solicitor of the applicant.  The applicant brought proceedings against the respondent alleging professional negligence.  In those proceedings, the applicant filed a summons seeking default judgment on the ground that the respondent's defence was not filed in time.  The Supreme Court of Victoria (Zammit AsJ) rejected that application for want of evidence, Cavanough J dismissed an appeal, and the Court of Appeal (Nettle and Osborn JJA) dismissed a purported appeal, which required leave to appeal.  They refused leave on the ground that no error was demonstrated.

2. The applicant also sought summary judgment on the ground that the defence did not answer the substance of the allegations in the applicant's statement of claim and lacked foundation.  The defence admitted a duty of care but advanced a "bare denial" of breach and loss.  It did not plead to the particulars of the applicant's substantive allegations.  Zammit AsJ considered that this was a deficiency, but that it did not merit a complete striking out of the defence:  it was better for two pending Court of Appeal decisions in other proceedings to be determined before the defence was amended.  Cavanough J appeared to regard the defence as technically satisfactory, while considering that in due course the issues between the parties would need to be defined better.  Cavanough J dismissed an appeal on the basis that the matter should be case managed by an Associate Justice.  The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.  It agreed with Cavanough J's reasoning and the course his Honour proposed.

3. The applicant has now filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  It is a ridiculous application.  The papers filed reveal a mindless concentration on irrelevant and trivial side issues.  The application has no legal merit whatever.  Even if it did, it would lack any utility.  An appeal in this Court would have no prospects of success.

4. The application is dismissed.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order      dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell