Odgers v DW Fox Tucker Pty Ltd - [2024] SASC 129

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Civil)
ODGERS v DW FOX TUCKER PTY LTD
[2024] SASC 129
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
8 November 2024
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS - GENERALLY
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
This is an application for leave to appeal the decision of a Magistrate made on 12 March 2024 to decline an application to vary the amount and sum of the Summary Judgment of 24 January 2022 as well as to decline the alternative order, that the judgment be stayed, or the proceedings be adjourned.
The appellant seeks leave to appeal on the basis that the decision of the Magistrate was ‘discretionary and erroneous’, that the Magistrate made an error of principle by failing to consider the fact that the appellant was self-represented and that there was a denial of ‘natural justice.’ The appellant further contends that the Magistrate failed to exercise his discretion in adjourning the proceedings as an alternative to the orders made and that the Magistrate erred in law in awarding costs in favour of the Respondent.
Upon the appellant’s filing of the Notice of Appeal, the respondent foreshadowed that unless further particulars were provided, an application to strike out or dismiss the appeal would be pursued on the basis that the grounds as drafted did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. On 29 August 2024, the appellant was ordered to provide further and better particulars by 20 September 2024. The appellant failed to provide any further particulars.
On 24 September 2024, the respondent filed an Interlocutory Application seeking an order that the appellant’s Notice of Appeal be struck out pursuant to r 34.1(1) and r 215.5 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (‘the Rules’) on the basis that the grounds of appeal were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the Court, or in the alternative, that pursuant to r 143.1(1) the appeal be dismissed on the basis that the grounds revealed no reasonable cause of action.
On 25 September 2025, the appellant filed a Revised Notice of Appeal together with an Interlocutory Application seeking an extension of time for leave to file the Revised Notice and requesting an adjournment to allow the appellant time to consider the material provided by the respondent. On that occasion, leave was granted for the substitution of the Revised Notice of Appeal. An adjournment was also granted to the appellant to provide her time to prepare submissions in response to the respondent’s Interlocutory Application seeking to strike out the Revised Notice of Appeal.
The respondent submits that for the same reasons that applied to the original Notice of Appeal, the appellant’s revised Notice of Appeal should be struck out. Alternatively, the respondent seeks the appeal be dismissed.
Held; the appeal is dismissed:
1. The appellant’s revised Notice of Appeal does not…

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 Odgers v DW Fox Tucker 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: [2024] SASC 129
Decision Date: 8 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Odgers v DW Fox Tucker Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of South Australia was called upon to review an appeal from a decision made by a magistrate. The appellant, Odgers, sought to challenge the rulings made by Magistrate Barnett in two separate instances. The primary concern in this appeal was whether the grounds provided in the appellant’s submissions adequately identified any errors in the magistrate's decisions.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and adequacy of the appeal grounds. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in various respects, but the court had to determine if these grounds were sufficiently specific and supported by evidence or argument to warrant a review of the magistrate's decisions. A crucial aspect of the court's consideration was the appellant's lack of legal representation and whether this should influence the strictness of the court’s assessment of the appeal grounds.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were overly broad and lacked detail, failing to point to any specific procedural errors or substantive issues that warranted a review. Despite the appellant's lack of legal assistance, the court noted that the grounds of appeal did not reveal a reasonable cause of action. The court emphasised that it could not conduct a forensic accounting analysis or engage in detailed factual disputes. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in the grounds but failed to do so. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the grounds did not identify any reasonable cause for the court to intervene.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The written submissions made various assertions of fact about the amounts that the appellant claimed she had paid and consequently the remaining outstanding balance at various points in time. Putting to one side the absence of any evidence in support of these assertions, these written submissions yet again highlight the appellant’s misunderstanding of the role of this Court. This Court cannot and should not be engaging in some form of forensic accounting analysis. The issue for determination by this Court is whether the grounds of appeal identify any error of outcome or approach in the two impugned decisions of Magistrate Barnett.Consideration The respondent does not seek an order for costs in these proceedings, therefore ground 7 of the Revised Notice of Appeal falls away. As to the remaining grounds, I am highly cognisant of the fact that the appellant has had no legal assistance in drafting the appeal grounds or other supporting documents. For that reason, I have given careful consideration to both of the decisions of Magistrate Barnett. If there is any merit to the issues raised by the appellant, it would not be fair or appropriate to take a technical approach to the manner in which the appeal grounds have been drafted. There is however force in the submission that the grounds of appeal as currently drafted do not reveal any reasonable cause of action. They are broad, generalised complaints about the absence of procedural fairness and natural justice with no detail as to the basis of the complaints. Despite having been put on notice about the deficiencies of the grounds and having been afforded considerable time to remedy the situation, the appellant failed to take up the opportunity to do so. In those circumstances I dismiss the appeal.