Kowalski v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Staff Superannuation Pty Ltd

[2008] HCATrans 99

[2008] HCATrans 099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A18 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

KAZIMIR KOWALSKI

Applicant

and

MITSUBISHI MOTORS AUSTRALIA STAFF SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.24 AM 

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant was an employee of Mitsubishi Motors Australia and ceased work in 1991 claiming work-related injuries.  Extensive litigation ensued concerning his entitlement to payment for disablement from the respondent.  On 19 April 2005 the Supreme Court of South Australia restrained the applicant from instituting proceedings against Mitsubishi Motors or any related corporation.  On 19 April 2006 a Master of the Court gave the applicant leave to institute a proceeding in the District Court against the respondent for a claim to disability benefits.  On 1 June 2006 Doyle CJ revoked that order.  His Honour held that there was power to do so and that leave should have been refused because the applicant had not put material before the Master to show that the claim was tenable.  On 22 June 2006 the applicant was granted leave to appeal against that order.

The application to this Court is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1. We would not make this order. The applicant has not explained why he has not pursued his appeal to the Full Court. In any event he has not identified any error in the reasons of Doyle CJ.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish the disposition signed by Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.26 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED