Hanna v Flinders University

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

HANNA v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY

[2024] SASCA 127

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable President Livesey and the Honourable Justice Bleby)

28 October 2024

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 from a decision of a single judge of this Court refusing, in all but one respect, leave to appeal from a decision of a magistrate on an interlocutory application for further and better discovery.

The notice of appeal against that refusal of leave raises four grounds concerning ‘errors of law’, ‘procedural unfairness’, ‘factual errors’, and ‘incorrect application of discretion’. Broadly speaking, these errors go to the applicant’s substantive dispute against the respondent university for having wrongfully rejected her post-graduate scholarship application. She contends error insofar as the undiscovered documents are relevant to that substantive dispute.

Held (by the Court) refusing leave to appeal:

1.The orders appealed against concern matters of procedure; there is no determination of the applicant’s substantive rights that causes her irreparable prejudice.

2.No question of general importance or significance arises on the application. There is no apparent reason to doubt the correctness of the primary judge’s decision.

Harris Scarfe Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Ernst & Young (No 2) [2005] SASC 168, applied.

Atkins v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2024] SASCA 96, considered.

HANNA v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY
[2024] SASCA 127

Court of Appeal – Civil:  Livesey P and Bleby JA

1. THE COURT:   This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of this Court. The judge refused leave to appeal from a decision of a magistrate on an interlocutory application for further and better discovery, in all but one respect.

2. The applicant’s Statement of Claim asserts causes of action in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract. In essence, the applicant asserts that the respondent university wrongfully rejected a scholarship application for a two-year period, on account of which she has suffered loss. The complaints made about the conduct of the respondent within each asserted cause of action are numerous.

3. The application for further and better discovery comprised 22 paragraphs, each describing a category of documents. The magistrate addressed each in turn. She ordered the respondent to make discovery of three categories of documents. She refused the balance of the application, primarily on the basis that the documents described were not relevant.

4. The judge approached the application for leave to appeal against that decision by reference to the various causes of action. On the claims of breach of statutory duty, he observed that the claims did not clearly identify what act or omission the respondent engaged in which led to a breach of duty. He noted that many of the categories of documents sought related to those claims. These categories extended to eligibility criteria, applications made…