KAZIMIR Kowalski v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd

[2013] HCASL 118

KAZIMIR KOWALSKI

v

MITSUBISHI MOTORS AUSTRALIA LTD

[2013] HCASL 118
A11/2013

1. The applicant was employed by the respondent.  Between 1989 and 1998, the applicant claimed worker's compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent.  Following a mediation in October 1998, the applicant and the respondent executed a settlement agreement.  This did not bring an end to matters.  Thereafter the applicant brought a number of proceedings in the South Australian Workers Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In 2004, the respondent commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia seeking an order prohibiting the applicant from instituting further proceedings against it without the permission of the Supreme Court[1].  On 19 April 2005, Bleby J made orders including an order prohibiting the applicant from bringing any further proceedings against the respondent in any prescribed court.  An appeal from that order was dismissed on 22 November 2005. 

   [1]Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 39.

2. In 2011, the Attorney-General for South Australia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking orders that the applicant be prohibited from instituting any proceedings against any person without the permission of the Court.  The applicant has filed applications seeking to have Bleby J's order revoked in the proceedings brought by the respondent and by the Attorney-General.  Kourakis CJ made orders on 20 March 2013 prohibiting the applicant from taking any further step in those applications until he satisfies certain costs orders.  Kourakis CJ refused the applicant permission to appeal from the making of that order.  The applicant applies for special leave to appeal.  Nothing in the prolix materials filed in support of the application identifies a basis upon which this Court would grant leave to appeal from the making of a discretionary order on a matter of practice and procedure. 

3. The application is dismissed.

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

V.M. Bell
14 August 2013 S.J. Gageler