Maur v Winona Way Pty Ltd - [2013] SASC 1

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MAUR v WINONA WAY PTY LTD & ANOR
[2013] SASC 1
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
11 January 2013
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - IN GENERAL AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Referral from Registrar for direction pursuant to Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) that he reject and refuse the filing of a proposed notice of appeal to the Full Court by an unsuccessful appellant to a single Judge of this Court - whether the document, on its face, is an abuse of process.
Held: Proposed notice of appeal an abuse of process; Registrar directed to reject it for filing.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) Rule 53, referred to.
Maur v Winona Way Pty Ltd T/As Tea Tree Gully Hotel & Anor [2012] SASC 135, [2011] SADC 87; Rana v Housing Trust of South Australia; Rana v Gregurev; Rana v Gregurev [2011] SASC 127; Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793; Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99; Re Davison (1997) 147 ALR 259; Manolakis v District Registrar (SA) (2008) 170 FCR 426; Andrew Garrett Wines Resorts Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] SASC 89; Eastman v Higgins (2007) 210 FLR 464; Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 88; Manolakis v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) & Ors [2009] SASC 193; Manolakis v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) & Ors [2009] SASC 193; Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378, considered.

MAUR v WINONA WAY PTY LTD & ANOR
[2013] SASC 1
CIVIL
NICHOLSON J.

Introduction

Stephen Maur has sought to file a notice of appeal to the Full Court. He wishes to appeal against the summary dismissal, by a Judge of this court, of Mr Maur’s appeal against a judgment in the District Court, dismissing his claim against the defendants for damages on account of alleged negligence.[1]
[1] Maur v Winona Way Pty Ltd T/As Tea Tree Gully Hotel & Anor [2012] SASC 135; [2011] SADC 87.
Pursuant to Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), the Registrar has referred to me the notice of appeal that Mr Maur wishes to file. Rule 6SCR 53 provides for a power to reject documents submitted for filing and the Registrar has asked whether or not I am prepared to direct him to reject Mr Maur’s proposed notice of appeal on the basis that it is, inter alia, an abuse of the process of the court.
The relevant principles have been helpfully summarised by Gray J in a recent decision of this court.[2] I, with respect, adopt that summary of principles as sufficient for present purposes.
[2] Rana v Housing Trust of South Australia; Rana v Gregurev; Rana v Gregurev [2011] SASC 127 (Gray J).
Rule 53 provides for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maur v Winona Way Pty Ltd 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: [2013] SASC 1
Decision Date: 11 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maur v Winona Way Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Mr Maur, who sought to appeal a decision made in his favour. The dispute centred on the grounds on which Mr Maur sought permission to appeal, the extension of time for appealing, the grounds of appeal themselves, and the orders he sought from the court. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Maur's notice of appeal was sufficiently detailed to provide grounds for an appeal and whether the proposed notice of appeal constituted an abuse of process. The court needed to determine if the document submitted by Mr Maur met the necessary requirements for a valid notice of appeal and if the appeal was based on a sound legal premise.

The court found that Mr Maur's notice of appeal was incoherent, lacking detail, and did not properly identify any errors in the judgment or reasoning of the lower court. The court held that the document did not contain sufficient information to allow the defendants to understand the nature of the appeal and did not constitute a valid ground of appeal. Additionally, the court determined that any appeal based on the notice of appeal in its current form would be doomed to fail, as it did not meet the necessary legal standards.

As a result, the court directed the Registrar to reject the document and sent a copy of the reasons for this decision to Mr Maur. No appeal was permitted, and the orders previously made in Mr Maur's favour remained in effect.

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

NICHOLSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NICHOLSON J

Under the heading “The appellant seeks permission for the appeal on the following grounds” Mr Maur has written:Assault attack the hotel security hotel staff security commited the assault of damages assaults of negligences from the start all the orders change.Under the heading “The appellant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal, upon the following grounds” Mr Maur has written:Solicitors details time liability obtain liable, payment, compensation.Bill 341,000-00 owing.All the orders change.Under the heading “The grounds of appeal are” Mr Maur has written:A victim of negligences, hotel staff committed the assaults of negligencesInjuries, ankle, foot, knee, leg.The assault of damages 26-4-2002April the Tea Tree Gully Hotel North East Road. Hotel staff security committed thes offences negligences from the beginning by jumping on left ankle, foot, knee, legThe assault of the damages injuries costs payment compensation liable.Under the heading “The appellant seeks the following orders” Mr Maur has written:The appellant seeks the following orders that all the orders changesReject objection all the orders in the dates of the 6-8-2012.In relations to respondents defendants in of thes applications to the hearings of dates of the orders all stop and ends all costs with orders all be lifted.The following orders compensation damages for payment of and costs claim legal costs loss of income and interests respondents in conjunction that the orders be made receive all costs all together, Winona Way Pty Ltd T-As Tea Tree Gully Hotel, with Total Control Agencies Pty Ltd. The full amount compensation, $341,000-00, or if a increase more than this, a order for more costs.Consideration The gist of the document might be readily understood or inferred, namely that Mr Maur alleges he was the victim of an attack at the hands of hotel security staff, as a result of which he suffered physical injury.[16] However, but for this, the document is fairly and properly to be described as incoherent and lacking sense. It offers no detail sufficient to allow the defendants to appreciate the case they are to meet, that is, why the judgment to be appealed from is said to be in error and should be set aside. The proposed notice of appeal does not identify a relevant ground of appeal. The assertion that Mr Maur was the victim of an assault and is entitled to damages is not a ground of appeal. The document does not purport to set out findings or aspects of the reasoning in either the trial judgment or the judgment of this court, summarily dismissing his appeal, which Mr Maur maintains involved error nor does it identify the basis of any asserted error. Any appeal based on a notice of appeal in this form would be doomed to fail. [16] At the trial Mr Maur's case was confined to an allegation that security staff assaulted him by deliberately stamping on his foot. In the circumstances, the proposed notice of appeal on its face, if filed, would constitute an abuse of process of the court. I direct the Registrar to reject the document. I direct that a copy of these reasons be sent to Mr Maur.