Hanna v Flinders University

Case [2025] SASCA 81

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

HANNA v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY

[2025] SASCA 81

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey and the Honourable Justice Stanley)

22 July 2025

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS - LEAVE TO APPEAL

This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision by a Supreme Court judge (the appeal judge) to refuse an extension of time and leave to appeal, amongst other matters, from the decision of a magistrate on a second disqualification application.

The second appeal concerned allegations concerning the magistrate’s past association with the firm of solicitors representing the respondent and the magistrate’s conduct of the second disqualification application. There were additional issues. An application to lead further evidence was dismissed by the appeal judge.

Held (the Court) refusing leave to appeal:

1.There was no obvious error in the detailed and careful reasoning of the appeal judge nor in the refusals to grant leave to appeal or to receive further evidence. There is no reason to question the decision that it was futile to grant an extension of time.

2.There do not appear to be any prospects of success associated with the many complaints made in the grounds of appeal, and there is no basis to think that any substantial injustice will be caused should the appeal judge’s decision be allowed to stand.

3.There is no basis to conclude that there will be any substantial injustice to the applicant in permitting the magistrate to hear the substantive proceeding.

Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 6; Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 81; Mallios v Commissioner of Police [2025] SASCA 66; Michael Wilson & Partners v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 279 CLR 148; Shmandiy v Police (No 2) [2024] SASCA 90; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Bond (2000) 78 SASR 339; Stone v Moore (2015) 122 SASR 54, considered.

HANNA v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY
[2025] SASCA 81

Court of Appeal – Civil:  Livesey ACJ and Stanley JA

THE COURT:

Introduction

  1. By Notice of Appeal dated 27 June 2025, the applicant has sought leave to appeal the decision of a judge (the appeal judge) refusing an extension of time and leave to appeal, amongst other matters, on 29 May 2025.[1]

    [1]     Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 81 (B Doyle J) (Reasons).

  2. The appeal judge dismissed what was a second appeal concerning a second disqualification application concerning the same magistrate who was hearing the substantive proceeding involving these parties in the Magistrates Court.

  3. The first disqualification application was dismissed by the magistrate on 22 April 2024.  The first appeal, after it was re-opened, was eventually dismissed by Hughes J.[2]  The second disqualification application was dismissed by the magistrate on 11 December 2024.

    [2]    

Continue reading Hanna v Flinders University

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASCA 81
Case
[2025] SASCA 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hanna, sought leave to appeal from a decision of an appeal judge concerning proceedings against Flinders University. The core of the dispute involved the applicant's complaints regarding the substantive proceeding before a magistrate.

The court was required to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. This involved assessing whether the grounds of appeal had any prospects of success and whether substantial injustice would be caused if the appeal judge's decision were allowed to stand. The court also considered whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

The court found that the grounds of appeal lacked any apparent prospects of success. Furthermore, it concluded that there was no basis to believe that substantial injustice would result from allowing the appeal judge's decision to stand, nor that the applicant would suffer substantial injustice by permitting the magistrate to hear the substantive proceeding. The court noted that if the appeal to its court was not competent, the point might be available to be taken later.

Ultimately, the court assumed the appeal was competent but found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that granting leave to appeal was in the interests of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There do not appear to be any prospects of success associated with the many complaints made in the grounds of appeal. In addition, there is no basis to think that any substantial injustice will be caused should the decision of the appeal judge be allowed to stand. There is no basis to conclude that there will be any substantial injustice to the applicant in permitting the magistrate to hear the substantive proceeding.[11][11] If this appeal is not competent, then the point may possibly be available to be taken should there be an adverse decision in the substantive proceeding.Conclusion Assuming that the appeal to this Court is competent, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice that leave to appeal should be granted. The application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.