Sale!
,

Foundation Law Assignment: 1031Law

$30

There are two legal consideration by the court:

  1. Whether the P has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings (Is P a person that defined in the dictionary of the Vexatious Proceeding Act 2005?).
  2. What is the threshold of vexatious proceedings (Frequency: P is a person frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia? ).

Markan v Bar Association of Queensland Case Note

 

Procedural History

Markan’s (‘P’) appeal was refused second time in a row and  brought proceeding against the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Queensland Police Service and Bar  Association Queensland (‘D’). He also brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed.

 

Facts

P was convicted by grievous bodily harm of his colleague and sentenced four years imprisonment with parole date fixed after two years. He hired two solicitors who are engaged with Mr Tim Carmody SC (present Chef Justice)and Mr Paul Smith (Honour)of counsel but both appeal were dismissed by the High Court. P sued  BAQ for breaching by failing to find in his favour and requests $10,000,00013 which are calculated of compensatory, consequential, aggregated, exemplary, parasitic and restitution damages. However, his appeal was dismissed.

 

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “Foundation Law Assignment: 1031Law”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *