Kotev v Federal Government of Australia

[2010] QCA 296

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kotev v Federal Government of Australia & Ors [2010] QCA 296

PARTIES:

ERIC KOTEV
(applicant/appellant)
v
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA &
VICTORIA STATE GOVERNMENT &
AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY &
AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL PARTY &
PRESIDENT OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF MELBOURNE
(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9468 of 2010
SC No 8482 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Queensland – Jurisdiction and generally  –  Generally – appellant sought to file originating application, claim and statement of claim – registrar referred originating process to the Court pursuant to r 15 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) – primary judge directed pursuant to r 15(2)(b) UCPR that registrar refuse to issue originating process without leave of the Court – appellant applied for leave to issue claim and statement of claim – primary judge refused application for leave – whether judge erred in refusing application

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the respondents

1. MMURDO P: Eric Kotev sought to file the following originating application, claim and statement of claim in the Supreme Court registry at Brisbane:

1. This originating application, claim and statement of claim were accompanied by a bundle of supporting material comprising about 130 pages.  It is impossible to make sense of these documents, but they suggest that Mr Kotev may have a number of grievances.  One may relate to a personal injury he sustained in a motor vehicle accident outside Queensland.  Another may relate to the breakdown of his marriage and his relationship with his children.  Another may relate to criminal charges brought against him in Victoria.  Another seems to concern his unsuccessful attempt to register a political party.  Many of these grievances appear to be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland, but in any case he has not articulated any of his claims in a coherent way and certainly not in a way which complies with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld (UCPR). Further, some of the references in the material appear to be racist.[1]

   [1]See, for example, para 6 and para 20 of the statement of claim.

1. The registrar considered that the originating application and associated material may be an abuse of the process of the court or may be frivolous or vexatious and referred it to a judge of the Trial Division of this Court under UCPR r 15 which provides as follows:

"(1) If the registrar considers an originating process appears to be an abuse of the process of the court or frivolous or vexatious, the registrar may refer the originating process to the court before issuing it.

(2)    The court may direct the registrar—

(a) to issue the originating process; or

(b) to refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court."

1. The judge directed, pursuant to UCPR r 15(2)(b), that the registrar refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court. Mr Kotev then applied for leave to issue the claim and statement of claim in these terms:

1. At the hearing of Mr Kotev's application the judge invited him to make submissions in support of it. Mr Kotev's oral submissions were incoherent, incomprehensible and nonsensical. The judge explained to him that, if his complaint was a criminal matter, he should go to the police. The judge also explained to him that, if his claim involved a civil dispute, he must set it out in a proper form which complied with the UCPR and that, to assist him in this respect, he should obtain legal advice. Mr Kotev did not respond rationally. Ultimately, the judge refused Mr Kotev's application for leave.

1. This appeal is from that order.  Mr Kotev contends:

1. Mr Kotev has filed written submissions in support of his appeal.  He appeared and made oral submissions at the hearing of his appeal and also handed up a large bundle of material.  Nothing that has been placed before this Court has demonstrated that the primary judge erred in any way in refusing Mr Kotev's application for leave.  The appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER:          Appeal dismissed.

1. MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by McMurdo P.

1. CULLINANE J: I have had the opportunity to read the draft reasons of the President in this matter.  I agree with the reasons and the orders proposed.