Mr Kotev’s Case

July 5, 2011

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently had to deal with Eric Kotev who described himself as “defender of Australia” and his statement of claim commenced with “This claim by the son of god, as are al [sic] his children”. The claim in full is set out in the judgment Kotev  v Federal Government of Australia & Ors [2010] QCA 296

In dismissing his appeal (against a decision to strike out his pleadings as frivolous or vexatious) the court found:

[2] This originating application, claim and statement of claim were accompanied by a bundle of supporting material comprising about 130 pages. It is impossible to make sense of these documents, but they suggest that Mr Kotev may have a number of grievances. One may relate to a personal injury he sustained in a motor vehicle accident outside Queensland. Another may relate to the breakdown of his marriage and his relationship with his children. Another may relate to criminal charges brought against him in Victoria. Another seems to concern his unsuccessful attempt to register a political party. Many of these grievances appear to be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland, but in any case he has not articulated any of his claims in a coherent way and certainly not in a way which complies with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld (UCPR). Further, some of the references in the material appear to be racist

……

[5] At the hearing of Mr Kotev’s application the judge invited him to make submissions in support of it. Mr Kotev’s oral submissions were incoherent, incomprehensible and nonsensical. …. Ultimately, the judge refused Mr Kotev ‘s application for leave.

Some mothers do have them!

Creative commons attribution for the photograph.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Mr Kotev’s Case”

  1. Scott Pascoe Says:

    A shame you missed our annual lunch Paul. A clear candidate.

  2. Picker Says:

    They shoot horses don’t they?


  3. This is also a favourite of mine:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2003/641.html

    MR ROUT: But you have jurisdiction to apply the laws of mathematics and physics, you have the jurisdiction – I have proven it – to add, subtract, divide and multiply.


  4. I have read this case and it was really obvious that Mr. Kotev’s arguments are nonsensical. This should have not been blown out of proportion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: