Attorney-General v Kowalski (No 6)

The case of Attorney-General v Kowalski (No 6) involved an application by Kazimir Kowalski under section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) to reinstate or file a fresh appeal against the dismissal of a professional negligence action against RJ Cole & Partners. The dispute centred around the dismissal of Kowalski's action for professional negligence against his former solicitors. Kowalski had been employed by Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited from 1964 to 1994, and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) applied to his case. Kowalski claimed that his former solicitors had been negligent in their handling of his case, particularly in relation to the preparation for trial and the assertion of claims. The central legal issues were whether the solicitors breached their duty of care in their professional conduct and if Kowalski's claims had sufficient merit to warrant the reinstatement of his appeal.

The court examined whether the dismissal of Kowalski's professional negligence action against RJ Cole & Partners was justified. It focused on the adequacy of the preparation for trial and the solicitors' failure to obtain detailed instructions and corroborative evidence. The court found that it was reasonably arguable that the solicitors did not take sufficient steps to ensure proper trial preparation and that a competent solicitor would have acted differently. The court held that Kowalski's claims regarding the solicitors' inadequate trial preparation were sufficiently arguable to warrant the reinstatement of his appeal. The court concluded that Kowalski had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, particularly in relation to the recovery of costs charged by RJ Cole & Partners.

The outcome of the appeal was that permission was granted to Kowalski to reinstate or file a fresh appeal against the dismissal of his professional negligence action. The court ordered that the appeal be reinstated on the condition that it was limited to the claim for recovery of costs charged by RJ Cole & Partners. The court did not find merit in Kowalski's other claims and did not grant permission for those claims to be pursued on appeal.