Markisic v AEA Ethnics Publishers Pty Ltd & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 582

[2007] HCATrans 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S47 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

DRAGAN MARKISIC

Applicant

and

A.E.A ETHNICS PUBLISHERS PTY LTD

First Respondent

IGOR PAVLOVSKI

Second Respondent

TONI PAVLOVSKI

Third Respondent

BLAJER ZLATKO

Fourth Respondent

LJUPCO STANKOVSKI

Fifth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.25 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HEYDON J:   The applicant, who is unrepresented, applies for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.  His draft notice of appeal propounds 32 grounds spread over eight pages.  Those grounds centre on complaints that the Court of Appeal failed to find error in the conduct of the trial judge hearing the applicant's proceedings for defamation (Simpson J). 

Those proceedings are one set of several sets of proceedings brought in relation to three separate but similar publications in Macedonian newspapers alleging that the applicant had abducted his daughter in Albania and taken her to Australia against her mother's will.  The applicant was unrepresented before Simpson J and the Court of Appeal.  The applicant's complaints centre on the failure of Simpson J to permit his legally unqualified brother to represent him, on her bias, on the Court of Appeal's bias, on Simpson J's refusal of adjournments, setting aside of subpoenas served by the applicant, continuation of the hearing in his absence, and on her handling of various legal issues. 

We do not doubt that difficulties arise in the conduct of such a trial without a legally qualified representative.  We have therefore endeavoured to look beyond the defects in the applicant's written argument to see if there is any error which this Court could and should cure.

However, the papers filed by the applicant are prolix, discursive and in a technical sense embarrassing.  There is no prospect of success in an appeal were special leave to be granted.  The applicant requires the period within which his application should have been filed to be extended.  Without examining why it was not filed in time, it is sufficient to say that even if time were extended the application would have to be dismissed.

We dismiss the application.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kirby and myself.

AT 9.27 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED