Kowalski v Stanley & Partners

KOWALSKI
v
STANLEY & PARTNERS & ANOR
[2019] HCASL 167
A8/2019

The applicant seeks an extension of time so as to enable his application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Kelly, Peek and Lovell JJ) to proceed. On 10 November 2016, Nettle and Gordon JJ refused an application for special leave to appeal from the same decision: Kowalski v Stanley and Partners [2016] HCASL 270.
The application discloses no reason to revisit the decision of Nettle and Gordon JJ. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought and special leave to appeal should be refused.
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.

V.M. Bell
15 May 2019 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kowalski v Stanley & Partners, the applicant, Kowalski, sought an extension of time to allow his application for special leave to appeal to proceed. This application was directed against a decision made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which comprised Kelly, Peek, and Lovell JJ. The matter arose from a previous application for special leave to appeal the same decision, which had been dismissed by Nettle and Gordon JJ in November 2016.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an extension of time should be granted to Kowalski, allowing his application for special leave to appeal to proceed. This required the court to consider the reasons behind Kowalski's request and whether there were any grounds to revisit the earlier decision dismissing his application. The court had to assess the merits of the application and determine if there was any new information or circumstances that warranted a change in the earlier decision.

The court found that the application disclosed no new reasons to reconsider the decision made by Nettle and Gordon JJ. Given that the previous application had already been dismissed, and there were no new grounds presented in this application, the court concluded that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought by Kowalski. As such, the application for special leave to appeal was refused. The court further directed the Registrar to draft, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, in accordance with 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