Rosaria Kezic v St John of God Health Care Inc

ROSARIA KEZIC
v
ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC
[2016] HCASL 29
P49/2015
P50/2015
P51/2015
P52/2015

These are applications for special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissing appeals from costs orders made by Stone DCJ on 7 May 2015 in four separate matters involving interlocutory decisions of arbitrators in relation to workers' compensation claims by the applicant against the respondent.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the applications fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
None of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal enjoys sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and no question of principle would fall for determination in any of these applications. To the extent that the applicant relies on complaints advanced below, she has not advanced any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's rejection of those complaints.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.

G.A.A. Nettle
6 April 2016 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rosaria Kezic filed an application for special leave to appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The Court of Appeal had dismissed her appeals from the costs orders made by Stone DCJ on 7 May 2015. These orders related to four separate matters, each involving interlocutory decisions of arbitrators in workers' compensation claims that Kezic had lodged against St John of God Health Care Inc. Kezic, who was unrepresented, had to have her applications dealt with under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The primary legal issues in these cases revolved around the merits of the appeals from the costs orders and whether they warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court needed to assess whether the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient prospects of success and whether any questions of principle would fall for determination. The Court also had to consider the applicant's complaints about the decisions of the Court of Appeal and whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of those rejections.

The Court found that none of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court also determined that no question of principle would fall for determination in any of these applications. The Court of Appeal's rejection of the applicant's complaints had not been called into question by Kezic, and thus, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of those rejections. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established