Legal Research
Cases
Haughton v Chang

Haughton v Chang

Case [2023] SASCA 112 11 October 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
HAUGHTON v CHANG
[2023] SASCA 112
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable President Livesey and the Honourable Justice David)
11 October 2023
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Appeal against a permanent stay of proceedings order by a Magistrate.

Ordinarily an appeal from a magistrate should not be brought before the Court of Appeal. Appeals from magistrates should ordinarily be brought before a single judge in the General Division.
The appellant contended that the magistrate erred in granting a stay of proceedings on the ground that the appellant's private prosecution of the respondent constituted an abuse of process.
By his written submissions, the respondent sought a declaration that the appellant is a “vexatious litigant” for the purposes of s 39(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA).
The Court held, dismissing the appeal:
1.It was appropriate that the Court of Appeal exercise its discretion to hear the matter rather than remit it to the General Division given the consequential prospect of a further appeal being taken to this Court.
2.The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of fact or law on the part of the Magistrate.
3.A person bringing an application for vexatious litigant declaration is to do so by filing with the Court a properly prepared application under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA). Given the seriousness of a vexatious litigant declaration it would be unusual for the Court to proceed to make such a declaration on an informal application.

Constitution Act 1934 (SA) s 79; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 242; Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) rr 184.2, 192.2; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 23, 32; Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) ss 9, 42; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) ss 39, 50, referred to.
Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; Chang v Haughton (No 2) [2021] FCA 998; Chang v Haughton [2021] FCA 765; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton [2020] SASC 135; Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486; Georganis v Barkla [2021] SASC 47; Haughton v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2019] SASC 198; Haughton v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2020] SASCFC 14; Haughton v Chang [2020] SADC 94; Haughton v Chang [2021] SASCA 90; Jago v The District Court (1989) 168 CLR 23; Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51; Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197; Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369; Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; Southdale Stud Pty Ltd v RJR Trading Pty Ltd [2020] SASC 106; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, considered.

HAUGHTON v CHANG
[2023] SASCA 112
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Livesey P and…

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 Haughton v Chang

Details

AGLC: Haughton v Chang [2023] SASCA 112
Case: [2023] SASCA 112
Decision Date: 11 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an order by a Magistrate granting a permanent stay of proceedings. The appellant, who had initiated a private prosecution against the respondent, contended that the Magistrate erred in finding this prosecution constituted an abuse of process. The respondent, in turn, sought a declaration that the appellant be declared a "vexatious litigant" under section 39(1) of the *Supreme Court Act 1935* (SA).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Magistrate had correctly determined that the appellant's private prosecution amounted to an abuse of process, thereby justifying a permanent stay. A secondary issue, raised by the respondent, concerned the appellant's status as a vexatious litigant. The Court also considered the appropriate avenue for appeals from a Magistrate's decision, noting that such appeals should ordinarily be brought before a single judge in the General Division of the Supreme Court, rather than directly to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate had erred in granting the permanent stay. It held that the Magistrate lacked the power to grant a permanent stay of a private prosecution, as such power was vested in the Supreme Court. The Court further determined that the respondent's application for a declaration of vexatious litigant status was a matter for the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order for a permanent stay was set aside.

Orders