McDonald v South Australia - [2013] SASC 31

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MCDONALD v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2013] SASC 31
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Sulan
8 March 2013
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS - LEAVE TO APPEAL
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - OTHER MATTERS ARISING BEFORE TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006, the Registrar referred a statement of claim to a Judge - the Judge directed the Registrar to reject the document - the plaintiff sought to file a notice of appeal from that decision.
Held: a direction by a Judge to the Registrar pursuant to Rule 53 is an administrative act - there is therefore no appeal from that direction - the notice of appeal is incompetent and should be rejected.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 53; Workers Rehabiltiation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 54; Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) r O 46, r 7A, referred to.
Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99; Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793; Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353; Moore-McQuillan v Workcover [2010] SASC 162; Andrew Garrett Wines Reserts Pty Ltd & Anor v National Australia Bank Ltd & Ors [2007] SASC 89, considered.

MCDONALD v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2013] SASC 31
Civil

SULAN J: Francis Thomas McDonald has attempted to file a Notice of Appeal in the Registry of the Supreme Court. The Registrar of the Court has referred the document to me pursuant to r 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA). The Registrar has sought directions as to whether the Notice of Appeal should be rejected.
The matter has a long history. It commenced with a long trial in this Court, followed by an appeal and an unsuccessful application by Mr McDonald for special leave to the High Court. There was also an action in the Federal Court which resulted in an appeal to the Full Federal Court, both of which were unsuccessful, and a further unsuccessful application by Mr McDonald for special leave to the High Court.
Mr McDonald then sought to commence a further action in this Court. He sought to file a Statement of Claim, dated 7 January 2013. That document was referred by the Registrar to Stanley J. Stanley J concluded that the proceedings sought to be instituted constituted an abuse of the Court’s process. He also concluded that, as the allegations in the Statement of Claim concern events dating from 1995 to 2004, the action was out of time, unless the Court granted an extension of time. Further, the claim was statute barred, pursuant to s 54 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). Insofar as he could understand the pleadings, he concluded that the causes…

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 South Australia 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 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Francis Thomas McDonald attempted to file a Notice of Appeal against a decision by Justice Stanley to reject his Statement of Claim. The matter originated from a lengthy trial in the Supreme Court, followed by an appeal, and an unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court. McDonald also had an action in the Federal Court, which resulted in an appeal to the Full Federal Court, both of which were unsuccessful, and a further unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court. McDonald sought to commence a further action in the Supreme Court by filing a Statement of Claim dated 7 January 2013. Justice Stanley concluded that the proceedings sought to be instituted constituted an abuse of the Court’s process, were out of time, and were statute barred, pursuant to s 54 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). Stanley J directed the Registrar to reject the document pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 53. McDonald sought to appeal from that decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether a direction by a Judge to the Registrar to reject a document under Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) is an administrative act, and if so, whether there is an appeal from that direction. The court considered the purpose of Rule 53, which is to ensure that the resources of the Court are not exhausted by pointless and misconceived litigation, and to protect defendants from the expense and stress of such cases. The court found that a direction by a Judge to the Registrar under Rule 53 is an administrative act and, therefore, there is no appeal from that direction. The court also noted that McDonald’s Notice of Appeal did not address the subject matter of the direction and did not comply with the requirements of the Court for notices of appeal. The Notice of Appeal was deemed to be an abuse of the process of the Court.

The court dismissed McDonald’s appeal as incompetent and directed the Registrar to reject the Notice of Appeal. The court found that there was no appeal from Stanley J’s decision to direct the Registrar to reject the Statement of Claim, as the direction was an administrative act. The court also found that the grounds of appeal did not address the subject matter of the direction, and the Notice of Appeal did not comply with the requirements of the Court for notices of appeal. The court directed the Registrar to make the reasons for the decision available to McDonald.

Orders