Barkla v Close

[2024] SASCA 119

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

BARKLA v CLOSE

[2024] SASCA 119

Judgment of the Honourable President Livesey  

14 October 2024

PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS

On 10 October 2024, the Registrar sought a direction as to whether the applicant’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal should be rejected for filing pursuant to r 32.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).

The appeal was purportedly brought against a decision given in response to another Registrar’s referral, by which the judge directed the Registrar to reject documents for filing.

Held, directing the Registrar to reject the applicant’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal:

1.      The purported appeal is misconceived.

2.When accepting or rejecting a document lodged for filing, the Registrar acts in an administrative capacity.  When giving a direction to the Registrar, the Court acts in aid of an administrative function and no appeal lies from a direction of that kind.

Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) rr 13.3, 32.3, referred to.
Barkla v Close [2024] SASC 115; Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47; McDonald v State of South Australia [2013] SASC 31; Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2024] SASCA 100, considered.

BARKLA v CLOSE

[2024] SASCA 119

Court of Appeal - Civil

LIVESEY P

Introduction

1. In 2021, I made orders which included an injunction restraining Mr Barkla from instituting new proceedings or applications against Mr Georganas, or any other entity or person, in a court or tribunal of this State challenging or concerning ‘the Form 3B issue’, whether directly or indirectly, unless Mr Barkla first obtained the leave of a judge of the Supreme Court.[1]

   [1]     Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47, [6] (Livesey J). It is not necessary to identify the Form 3B issue, save to say that it arose in connection with Mr Barkla’s Western Australian workers compensation claim and was the subject of vexatious proceedings which he instituted over a number of years.

2. After a period of quiescence, Mr Barkla has determined to recommence instituting proceedings.  On 17 September 2024, Doyle JA refused to grant Mr Barkla leave to file an originating application, accompanied by an affidavit, against Ms Close.  His Honour directed the Registrar to refuse to accept the application (or supporting affidavit) for filing.[2]

   [2] Barkla v Close [2024] SASC 115.

   The Registrar’s referral

3. On 10 October 2024, the Acting Registrar (the Registrar) sought my direction as to whether Mr Barkla’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal should be rejected for filing pursuant to r 32.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).  The appeal is purportedly brought in the Court of Appeal against a decision given by McDonald J on 3 October 2024, in response to another Registrar’s referral made under r 13.3 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).  The judge’s decision took the form of a direction to the Registrar to reject the appeal documents for filing. 

4. By that purported appeal Mr Barkla intended to overturn a decision of Magistrate Jackson made on 9 September 2024, staying the proceedings he had commenced in that court against Ms Close because they were commenced without leave from the Supreme Court. The magistrate found that those proceedings were, at least indirectly, concerned with ‘the Form 3B issue’.  That finding has not been challenged by Mr Barkla.

5. Justice McDonald regarded the purported appeal as misconceived.  Her Honour observed that there were no arguable grounds of appeal and there had been no application made to the Supreme Court to seek leave to institute proceedings.  Accordingly, the Registrar was directed to reject the amended Notice of Appeal and supporting documents for filing.

   Direction to the Registrar

6. Mr Barkla now wishes to pursue an appeal in the Court of Appeal against the direction given by McDonald J. 

7. It is well-recognised that when accepting or rejecting a document lodged for filing, the Registrar acts in an administrative capacity.  Moreover, when giving a direction to the Registrar, the Court acts in aid of an administrative function and no appeal lies from direction of that kind.[3]

   [3]     McDonald v State of South Australia [2013] SASC 31, [5]-[7] (Sulan J) and the cases there cited; Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2024] SASCA 100, [6] (Livesey P).

8. In these circumstances the purported appeal is misconceived, and I direct the Registrar to reject it and the accompanying appeal documents for filing.