PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Unrepresented litigant – Application for leave to appeal – Registrar refused to accept documents for filing – Application to direct Registrar to accept documents for filing – Documents not complying with rules or practice directions – Documents difficult to understand – Defective documents – No prospect that applicant will prepare documents that comply with rules and practice directions – Directions – Efficient future conduct of proceeding – Re Klement [2011] VSCA 40 applied – Registrar directed to accept document for filing – Directions given for future conduct of proceeding – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, rr 64.15(5)(b), 64.27(3), 64.40 and 64.43(5).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from an associate judge to a judge – Appeal by way of rehearing – Appeal not confined to errors of law – Hou v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] VSCA 57 referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearances
For the Respondent

BEACH JA:

Introduction and background

On 4 May 2015, the applicant, Hamadou Djime, who is unrepresented,[1] commenced a proceeding by way of originating motion in the Trial Division. The originating motion named the respondent, Matthew Le, as the defendant. The proceeding was issued in the Judicial Review and Appeals List of the Common Law Division. On page 2 of the originating motion, under the heading ‘Remedy and/or Relief Sought’, the following was typed:

Strike out or Dismiss the Fake, Unauthorised, Out of statute of limitation, and Invalid charges forged by the Informant, the Police officer Constable MATTHEW LE.

Over the balance of page 2 and pages 3 to 10 of the originating motion, under the heading ‘Grounds’ the applicant set out a series of assertions and conclusions, interspersed with extracts from various statutes. This section of the originating motion was divided into ten parts numbered I to X.

[1]Or, in modern parlance, self-represented.

On 23 October 2015, the respondent filed a summons seeking the summary dismissal of the applicant’s proceeding.

On 2 December 2015, Ierodiaconou AsJ dismissed the applicant’s proceeding pursuant to s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010. On 11 December 2015, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the order of Ierodiaconou AsJ.

The applicant’s appeal from the order of Ierodiaconou AsJ came on for hearing before Zammit J on 8 February 2016. On 19 February 2016, Zammit J dismissed the applicant’s appeal.[2]
[2]Djime v Le [2016] VSC 48 (‘Reasons’).

The applicant wishes to appeal from the order of Zammit J. On or about 16 March 2016, the applicant attempted to file with Registrar of the Court of Appeal a document that appears to be a combined application for leave to appeal, and written case. This document was dated 16 March 2016. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Djime v Le

Details

AGLC: Djime v Le [2016] VSCA 105
Case: [2016] VSCA 105
Decision Date: 11 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Djime, sought leave to appeal against a decision of an associate judge, with Le being the respondent. The crux of the dispute was the applicant's application for leave to appeal, which was complicated by the registrar's refusal to accept certain documents for filing due to non-compliance with the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The court was tasked with deciding whether the registrar should be directed to accept the documents for filing, considering their non-compliance and difficulty in understanding, and whether there was any prospect that the applicant would prepare documents that met the required standards. Additionally, the court needed to provide directions for the efficient future conduct of the proceeding.

The court examined the nature of the documents submitted by the applicant, noting their non-compliance with the rules and practice directions and their difficulty in comprehension. The court referenced Re Klement [2011] VSCA 40, which held that an unrepresented litigant must follow procedural rules, but also emphasised the importance of providing directions to assist the litigant. The court found that while the documents were defective, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant would be unable to prepare compliant documents in the future. Consequently, the court directed the registrar to accept the document for filing and provided detailed directions for the future conduct of the proceeding to ensure compliance with procedural rules.

The court's decision was grounded in a balance between procedural fairness and the need for efficient court processes. By directing the registrar to accept the documents and providing clear directions, the court aimed to facilitate the applicant's ability to pursue the appeal while maintaining the integrity of the legal process. The court's approach reflected a commitment to assisting unrepresented litigants while ensuring that proceedings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.

The final orders of the court included directing the registrar to accept the documents for filing and issuing specific directions for the future conduct of the proceeding, ensuring compliance with the relevant rules and practice directions.

Orders