KAZIMIR Kowalski v Stanley and Partners

KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
v
STANLEY AND PARTNERS & ANOR
[2016] HCASL 270
A34/2016

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly, Peek and Lovell JJ). Accordingly, an appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
The applicant's summons filed on 23 September 2016 seeking leave to file additional authorities in support of his application for special leave is dismissed. The additional authorities do not support a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle
10 November 2016 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kazimir Kowalski v Stanley and Partners & Anor involved an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The nature of the dispute centred on the applicant's request for special leave to appeal, with the applicant seeking to file additional authorities to support the application. The applicant, Kazimir Kowalski, aimed to challenge the decision of the Full Court, which had already been delivered by Kelly, Peek, and Lovell JJ.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The Court was tasked with assessing the merits of the applicant's case, considering the arguments presented and the authorities cited, to determine if there was a reasonable chance that the appeal would be successful. The Court also had to examine the relevance and impact of the additional authorities proposed by the applicant to support the appeal.

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision, and therefore, the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success. The Court was not persuaded by the additional authorities proposed by the applicant, which did not strengthen the case for a grant of special leave. Consequently, the applicant's summons to file additional authorities was dismissed. The Court's decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and legal arguments, concluding that the appeal would not likely result in a different outcome.

The final orders of the Court dismissed the applicant's summons to file additional authorities and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was made under rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established