Luca v Eckert - [2024] SASCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
LUCA v ECKERT
[2024] SASCA 60
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bleby (ex tempore)
18 April 2024
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS - LEAVE TO APPEAL
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT - COSTS
Application for permission to appeal against a decision of this Court on 4 April 2024 striking out a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘SACAT’).
The decision of SACAT pertained to Dr Maros, who is the mother of the applicant and the respondent. The orders made by SACAT concerned her care under the Guardianship Administration Act 1993 (SA) and the Advance Care Directive Act 2013 (SA).
The two grounds of appeal contended by the applicant were that the learned judge erred at law in dismissing the Notice of Appeal, as, amongst other things, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that orders for costs were misconceived.
Held:
1.The Notice of Appeal is struck out pursuant to Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 212.5(2)(b).
2.The applicant must pay the costs of the respondent Ms Eckert, fixed in the sum of $1,200.

Advanced Care Directives Act 2013 (SA) ss 48, 51; Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 (SA) ss 3, 29, 35; South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) ss 70, 71; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 212.5(2)(b), referred to.
Burns v Corbett (2018) 265 CLR 304; German v Germantis [2023] VSR 7; GS v MS (2019) 344 FLR 386, discussed.

LUCA v ECKERT
[2024] SASCA 60
Court of Appeal – Civil

BLEBY JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of McDonald J on 4 April 2024 striking out a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘SACAT’). McDonald J held that this Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, absent the decision being made the subject of an internal review pursuant to s 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) (‘SACAT Act’).
Ammun Luca is the son of the protected person, Dr Kathleen Maros. He was named as an interested party in the underlying proceedings before SACAT. Ms Alexandra Eckert is his sister, and was the applicant in the SACAT proceedings, which were held on 1 March 2024. Ms Eckert applied to SACAT for various orders concerning the care of Dr Kathleen Anne Maros pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act1993 (SA) (‘GAA’) and the Advance Care Directive Act 2013 (SA) (‘ACDA’). Mr Ammun Luca was involved in those proceedings as an interested party.
On 8 March 2024, SACAT (members C Lester and R Croser) made Guardianship and Administration orders in respect of Dr Maros under ss 29 and 35 of the GAA and ss 48 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 Luca v Eckert

Details

AGLC: Luca v Eckert [2024] SASCA 60
Case: [2024] SASCA 60
Decision Date: 18 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luca (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Magistrates Court of South Australia concerning costs. Eckert (the respondent) had been successful in an application before the Magistrates Court, and the applicant had been ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The applicant sought to appeal this costs order, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in law by failing to consider relevant factors when making the costs order.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Magistrates Court's interlocutory costs order. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant had demonstrated an error of law on the part of the Magistrate in making the costs order, which is a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision.

Bleby Ex Tempore J considered the principles governing appeals from interlocutory decisions, particularly those relating to costs. His Honour noted that an appeal from an interlocutory order generally requires leave, and such leave is typically granted only where there is a question of law involved and the appeal has a real prospect of success. In this instance, the applicant contended that the Magistrate had failed to consider the applicant's financial circumstances and the relative success of the parties on different aspects of the original application. However, His Honour found that the applicant had not established that the Magistrate had overlooked or failed to consider any relevant factors, nor had the applicant demonstrated that the Magistrate's exercise of discretion was demonstrably wrong or based on an error of law.

Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Orders