McDonald v Minister for Education - [2013] SASC 101

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MCDONALD v MINISTER FOR EDUCATION & ORS
[2013] SASC 101
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
27 June 2013
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - IN GENERAL AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - OTHER CASES
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS - GENERALLY
The Registrar referred three sets of documents to a Judge pursuant to rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) - the first document was a proposed notice of appeal from a decision of a Judge to direct the Registrar to reject a summons and statement of claim as an abuse of process pursuant to rule 53 - the second and third sets of documents related to proposed proceedings that were substantively identical to the proposed proceedings the subject of the first document - whether the documents should be rejected as an abuse of the process of the Court.
Held: Registrar directed to reject documents as an abuse of process - a direction of a Judge under rule 53 is an administrative act from which there is no right of appeal - the second and third sets of documents related to proposed proceedings that were substantively identical to the proposed proceedings the subject of the first set of documents - the documents were an abuse of process.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 53, referred to.
State of South Australia v McDonald (2009) 104 SASR 344; Westwill Pty Ltd v Byrt [2010] SASC 99, considered.

MCDONALD v MINISTER FOR EDUCATION & ORS
[2013] SASC 101
Civil
GRAY J.

Francis Thomas McDonald has sought to file three sets of documents in the Registry of the Supreme Court. On 15 April 2013, the Registrar, pursuant to rule 53(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), referred those three sets of documents to me seeking directions as to whether the documents should be accepted.
The documents relate to a proposed appeal, a proposed proceeding against the Minister for Education, and a proposed action against the Minister for Education, Kevin Boaden, Nancy Schupelius, Maureen Cochram, Peter Mitchell, Sue Hyde, Don Mackie and Chris Brown.
In his referral, the Registrar has advised that the documents appear to him to be yet another attempt to re-litigate matters concluded against Mr McDonald by the decision of the Full Court in State of South Australia v McDonald.[1] In that proceeding, although Mr McDonald had initially succeeded following a lengthy trial in this Court, the Full Court allowed an appeal by the State and dismissed Mr McDonald’s claim. The High Court refused to grant special leave to Mr McDonald to appeal against that decision. As a result, those proceedings have been finalised.
[1] State of South Australia v McDonald (2009) 104 SASR 344.

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 McDonald v Minister for Education 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 101
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McDonald v Minister for Education, the plaintiff sought to appeal a decision made by a Judge under rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA). The Judge had directed the Registrar to reject a summons and statement of claim as an abuse of process. The plaintiff attempted to file similar documents on three separate occasions, which were referred to the Judge under the same rule. The central issue before the court was whether these documents should also be rejected as an abuse of the court's process.

The court examined the nature of the appeal and the right to appeal under the Supreme Court Civil Rules. It found that the Judge's direction to reject the documents was an administrative act and not a judicial decision from which an appeal could be made. The court further determined that the plaintiff's attempts to file the summons and statement of claim were repetitive and ignored the previous order, thus constituting an abuse of process. The additional documents, such as the exhibit index and further amended notice of cross-appeal, were also deemed to be part of this abuse.

The court concluded that the Registrar should reject the three sets of documents as an abuse of the court's process. The reasoning was that the plaintiff's actions demonstrated a disregard for the previous order, and the repetitive nature of the filings further supported this conclusion. The court's decision was in line with the principles governing the abuse of process in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The final order was that the Registrar should reject the documents as an abuse of process, and no appeal lay from this direction under rule 53.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: Registrar directed to reject documents as an abuse of process - a direction of a Judge under rule 53 is an administrative act from which there is no right of appeal - the second and third sets of documents related to proposed proceedings that were substantively identical to the proposed proceedings the subject of the first set of documents - the documents were an abuse of process.

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

GRAY J

The statement of claim is, in substance, in the same form as the statement of claim considered by Stanley J. In my view, the attempt to file the summons and statement of claim is an abuse of process. It is an attempt to proceed ignoring the order of Stanley J. The statement of claim suffers from all of the problems identified by Stanley J. The documents accompanying the summons, being described as an “exhibit index” and as a further amended notice of cross-appeal, should also be rejected as an abuse of process of the Court. Conclusion Pursuant to rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, I direct the Registrar to reject the earlier referred to three sets of documents.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.