Kowalski v Repatriation Commission

[2010] FCAFC 142

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCAFC 142

Citation:		Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCAFC 142
Appeal from:		Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 409
Parties:		KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number:		SAD 55 of 2010
Judges:		DOWSETT, COWDROY AND LOGAN JJ
Date of judgment:		22 November 2010
Date of hearing:	22 November 2010
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	Error! Reference source not found.
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Maharaj QC and Mr RJ Wallace
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 55 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	KAZIMIR KOWALSKI Appellant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGES:	DOWSETT, COWDROY AND LOGAN JJ
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2010
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. The appellant seeks leave to amend his notice of appeal to include an appeal against the primary Judge’s failure to disqualify himself.  We consider that the application should be refused.  The appellant is unable to say with any certainty that he raised the question before the primary Judge.  In those circumstances it would, in our view, be an abuse of process to allow him to amend.  We may give slightly expanded reasons when we finally dispose of this appeal.

2. The appellant also seeks to lead further evidence on appeal.  We consider that this application should also be refused.  Again, we will give more detailed reasons at a later stage.  Primarily, we consider that the evidence is not relevant to any issue properly before this Court.  The appellant may have a basis for seeking to re-open his claim, but the evidence does not seem to concern or raise any question of law with which the primary Judge was concerned, or with which this Court should be concerned.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Dowsett, Cowdroy and Logan.

Associate:

Dated:        25 March 2011