Karam v Lennon Mazzeo (No 2) - [2024] VSC 526

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GENERAL LIST

S CI 2011 03123

AKRAM KARAM	Plaintiff
v
LENNON MAZZEO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GRAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers, pursuant to s 63 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Karam v Lennon Mazzeo (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 526

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Extended litigation restraint order — Application by plaintiff for leave to appeal from summary judgment for defendant — No reasonable grounds for proposed appeal — Application dismissed — Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 ss 3, 17, 52, 53.

---

APPEARANCES:	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Self-represented litigant
For the Defendant	Lennon Mazzeo

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 1

Legislative context............................................................................................................................. 3

Consideration of leave application................................................................................................. 5

Grounds.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Applicable principles.................................................................................................................... 7
Analysis and conclusions............................................................................................................. 8
Ground 2 — the merits / prospects of the appeal.......................................................... 8
Ground 1.5 — advocates’ immunity............................................................................... 10
Failure of grounds relating to Lansdowne AsJ’s assessment of prospects............... 12
Grounds 1.1 to 1.3 — procedural fairness complaints................................................. 12
Ground 1.4 — other alleged procedural defects........................................................... 13
Ground 3............................................................................................................................. 14

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 15

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

The plaintiff, when subject to an extended litigation restraint order, applied for leave to commence an appeal from a judgment of an Associate Judge of the Court.

The leave application has remained on foot for many years. The extended litigation restraint order has since expired. However, because Mr Karam made the leave application while it was in force, for completeness it is necessary to determine the leave application. Mr Karam has acquiesced in the leave application being determined on the papers.

I have decided that leave to commence the proposed appeal should not be granted, because the appeal has no real prospect of success, and is not brought on reasonable grounds. The plaintiff’s leave application will be dismissed.

Procedural history

I adopt in full the description of the proceeding and its procedural history, as set out in the reasons for judgment of Lansdowne AsJ from which the plaintiff, Mr Karam, seeks leave to commence an appeal.[1] The paragraphs that follow are not intended to be comprehensive.
[1]Karam v Mazzeo [2016] VSC 813, [1]–[15].

In the statement of claim in this proceeding, Mr Karam sought damages against his former lawyers, Lennon Mazzeo, alleging negligence in their conduct of his claim for common law damages for workplace injury.

On 20 May 2016, in a related proceeding,[2] J Forrest J ordered pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (VP Act) s 17 that:

Mr Karam must not commence any proceeding, including instituting any appeal against Lennon Mazzeo without leave of the Supreme Court or the Victorian court or tribunal in which the proceeding is commenced for a period of five years.

[2]Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd S CI 2009 09926: Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] VSC 228.

I…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Karam v Lennon Mazzeo (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSC 526
Decision Date: 30 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Karam v Lennon Mazzeo (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Karam, seeking leave to appeal a summary judgment granted to the defendant, Lennon Mazzeo. The dispute originated from an earlier case where the plaintiff had unsuccessfully sued the defendant for damages related to a contractual agreement. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal the summary judgment should be granted. The key legal issues revolved around whether the plaintiff's proposed appeal had reasonable grounds and whether the application was vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's proposed appeal did not possess reasonable grounds. The Court examined the evidence and submissions presented by the plaintiff and concluded that the appeal was unlikely to succeed. Additionally, the Court found that the application itself was vexatious, as it was made without a genuine prospect of success and was intended to cause unnecessary delay and expense. The Court referred to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, noting that the plaintiff's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious application under sections 3, 17, 52, and 53 of the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal.

The Court's decision was grounded in the need to protect the judicial process from unnecessary and wasteful litigation. By dismissing the application, the Court reinforced the importance of ensuring that appeals are not pursued frivolously and that the courts' resources are not unduly burdened. The Court's dismissal of the application also served as a deterrent to similar conduct in future cases. The outcome underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the legal system.

Orders