Luca v Maros - [2025] SASCA 76

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
LUCA v MAROS & ORS
[2025] SASCA 76
Decision of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
4 July 2025
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - HEARING - NATURE OF HEARING - REFUSAL OF ADJOURNMENT
This is an urgent interlocutory application by the applicant, Mr Luca, seeking a stay pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The appeal concerns two decisions made by an Auxiliary Justice in the course of her determination of an appeal against a decision by an Associate Justice who appointed a litigation guardian for the applicant, Mr Maros, in the primary proceeding. Mr Maros is the father of Mr Luca.
The Auxiliary Justice refused Mr Luca’s application that she recuse herself from hearing the appeal and, in addition, she refused to stay the orders made by the Associate Justice pending her hearing of the appeal.
The application is brought on urgently because the appeal will be heard next week, on 10 July 2025.
Held, refusing the stay application with costs:
1.The appeal grounds filed in this Court do not suggest any obvious error in the approach of the Auxiliary Justice, still less obvious error in her refusal to recuse herself or her refusal to grant a stay.
2.It is difficult to confidently conclude that the proposed appeal is reasonably arguable or that leave to appeal should be granted. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it is a bona fide appeal with some prospect of success.
3.Even if that were not so, the only detriment associated with continuing with an appeal hearing next week is the risk that the appellant will have to engage with an appeal which, on his case, should never have been heard. He is not legally represented and there is no evidence of any financial or other prejudice.

Franklin v South Australian Housing Authority [2024] SASCA 3; Marschall v Elson (No 2) [2023] SASCA 3, applied.
Georganas v Georganas [2024] SASCA 1; Hackney Tavern Nominees Pty Ltd v McLeod (1983) 33 SASR 590; Hanna v Flinders University [2025] SASC 6; Lesses v Maras (No 2) [2016] SASC 140; Luca v Eckert (No 2) [2024] SASCA 136; Playford Vineyard Pty Ltd v Wishford Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] SASC 152, considered.

LUCA v MAROS & ORS
[2025] SASCA 76
Court of Appeal – Civil – Stay application
LIVESEY ACJ (ex tempore):
Introduction

This is an urgent interlocutory application by the applicant, Mr Luca, seeking a stay pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The application was supported by Ms Greig, the third respondent.
The appeal concerns two decisions made by an Auxiliary Justice in the course of her determination of an appeal against a decision by an Associate…

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 Maros

Details

AGLC: Luca v Maros [2025] SASCA 76
Case: [2025] SASCA 76
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luca (the applicant) sought a stay of proceedings pending an appeal, and an adjournment of the appeal itself, from the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The nature of the underlying dispute between Luca and the respondents, Maros and others, is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved an appeal scheduled to be heard the following week.

The primary legal issues before the Acting Chief Justice were whether the circumstances warranted a stay of proceedings pending the appeal, and consequently, whether it was appropriate to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. This involved considering the principles governing the grant of a stay and the court's discretion in managing its caseload.

The Acting Chief Justice concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the court that the case was a proper one for ordering a stay pending appeal. This determination led to the refusal of the application to adjourn the appeal hearing. The court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, fixed at $2,000, and confirmed that the appeal would proceed as scheduled.

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

LIVESEY ACJ

In all of these circumstances, I am not satisfied that this is a proper case in which to order a stay pending appeal. It follows that I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to adjourn the matter so as to obviate the hearing of the appeal next week.Conclusion The application for a stay is refused. The applicant must pay the costs of the first and second respondents, fixed in the sum of $2,000. The appeal before the Auxiliary Justice next week will proceed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LIVESEY ACJ

Full text does not contain this section.