Kowalski v Dolphin (No 2)

[2011] FCA 779

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kowalski v Dolphin (No 2) [2011] FCA 779

Citation:		Kowalski v Dolphin (No 2) [2011] FCA 779
Parties:		KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v STEVEN PETER DOLPHIN, LIESCHKE & WEATHERILL, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS and QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
File number:		SAD 12 of 2011
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		14 July 2011
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	The respondents did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 12 of 2011

BETWEEN:

KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
Applicant

AND:

STEVEN PETER DOLPHIN
First Respondent

LIESCHKE & WEATHERILL
Second Respondent

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS
Third Respondent

QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 JULY 2011
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s notice of motion dated 2 June 2011 not be accepted for filing.

2.Leave to issue the notice of motion dated 2 June 2011 be refused.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 12 of 2011

BETWEEN:

KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
Applicant

AND:

STEVEN PETER DOLPHIN
First Respondent

LIESCHKE & WEATHERILL
Second Respondent

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS
Third Respondent

QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	14 JULY 2011
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has lodged a notice of motion in the Registry of the Court in which he seeks a declaration that an order made by Mansfield J in proceeding SAD 12 of 2011 is ‘ultra vires, a nullity, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever’. The applicant also seeks an order that there be summary judgment against the first, second, third and fourth respondents in proceeding SAD 12 of 2011.

2. A brief chronology of events is as follows. By application issued on 18 January 2011 the applicant commenced proceeding SAD 12 of 2011 against Steven Peter Dolphin, Lieschke and Weatherill, ‘Certain Underwriters at Lloyds’ and QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited. Certain interlocutory orders were made by Mansfield J on 2 March 2011 and again on 21 March 2011. I do not need to set out the details.

3. On 7 April 2011, Stone J, in proceeding SAD 75 of 2010, made orders on the application of the Registrar of the Federal Court against the applicant in the following terms:

   THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

   1.Kazimir Kowalski, the respondent in this proceeding, has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in this Court.

   THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

   2.Kazimir Kowalski, the respondent in this proceeding, not institute any further proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court.

   3.Any proceeding instituted prior to this order by Kazimir Kowalski, the respondent in this proceeding,…