Martincic & Anor v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Civil)

MARTINCIC & ANOR v ETHNIC BROADCASTERS INC

[2024] SASCA 33

Judgment of the Honourable President Livesey  

22 March 2024

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - PROCEDURE - NOTICE OF APPEAL

The applicants seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.  A Supreme Court Judge dismissed their appeal from a Magistrate on the basis that it was not competent.  The proceedings concern a claim under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA) which is defined as a “minor civil action” for which there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA).

The applicants filed a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was seriously defective and did not conform with the rules of court, particularly r 214.2 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).  The applicants were advised by the Court to consider the relevant rules and to address four questions in an amended notice of appeal:

(1)What order is challenged?

(2)What error was made?

(3)Why should leave to appeal be granted?

(4)What orders are sought on appeal?

The amended notice of appeal instead added more than 20 new paragraphs and identified 22 errors made by judicial officers in the Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court over the last 12 months.

HELD (the Court) striking out the applicants’ amended notice of appeal, with costs:

1. The amended notice of appeal is discursive and difficult to follow.  It does not comply with the rules in fundamental respects.  It does not serve its essential purpose because it does not identify the matters required for the proper determination of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In consequence, there will be inevitable confusion and delay associated with the hearing and determination of this matter. 

2.The court must ensure that an unrepresented litigant is apprised of relevant rights and duties and be vigilant to keep the proceedings free from error or misunderstanding.  Whilst some assistance may need to be given, the court cannot conduct the case for the unrepresented litigant.  It is fundamental that any assistance given by the court must not detract from the neutrality of the court.

3. The Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) apply to all litigants in the Court of Appeal, whether or not they are legally represented. Compliance with the rules is necessary so as to provide procedural fairness to the opposing litigant and to avoid the limited resources of this Court being wasted on time-consuming hearings during which whether the party in default has a case is explored and attempts are made to articulate it.

4. It is not appropriate to adjourn the matter and order that a further amended notice of appeal be filed.  The notice of appeal must be struck out.  The applicants must pay the respondent’s costs, fixed in the amount of $1,500, payable within 60 days.

Associations Incorporation Act

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Martincic & Anor v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] SASCA 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Martincic and another, appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of the Magistrates Court. The nature of the dispute in the Magistrates Court is not detailed in the provided text, but the appeal concerned the adequacy of the applicants' notice of appeal.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicants' notice of appeal complied with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), specifically in relation to r 212.5(2)(b). The court was required to determine if the notice of appeal was sufficiently well-drafted and presented to warrant being heard.

Livesey P observed that a serious appeal requires a "new document and a new approach," suggesting the filed notice of appeal was inadequate. The President indicated that the applicants might be better served by continuing their litigation in the Magistrates Court rather than pursuing the appeal in its current form. Ultimately, the court found it appropriate to strike out the notice of appeal under r 212.5(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $1,500, to be paid within 60 days.

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

In truth, if an appeal is seriously to be pressed an entirely new document and a new approach are required. Having said that, and whilst it is entirely a matter for the applicants, it is difficult to see why they would not be better off by simply getting on with their litigation in the Magistrates Court.Conclusion In these circumstances, it is appropriate to strike-out the applicant’s notice of appeal under r 212.5(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), and order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,500, payable within 60 days.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.