Rana v Gregurev - [2011] SASCFC 157

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)
RANA v GREGUREV; RANA v GREGUREV
[2011] SASCFC 157
Reasons for Decision of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Blue)
19 December 2011
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL
Application for permission to appeal to the Full Court in private - the applicant issued two complaints against the respondents seeking restraining orders - a Magistrate dismissed them on the basis that they were an abuse of process and vexatious - the applicant appealed to a single Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, who dismissed each appeal - the applicant applied to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia for permission to appeal and an extension of time within which to appeal - the reason for the delay in filing the Notices of Appeal was that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes - the first ground of appeal was that the Judge erred in holding that the Magistrate had power to dismiss each complaint - the second ground of appeal was that the Judge denied the applicant procedural fairness – the issue was whether the grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable and whether it was in the interests of justice to permit a second appeal against the exercise of summary jurisdiction.
Held: In each matter the Court extended to 4 October 2011 the time for applying for permission to appeal but refused permission to appeal.
Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 57(2)(c), s 99CA(1), s 99CA(1)(b), s 99CA(2), s 99CA(2)(a), s 99CA(2)(b), s 99CA(2)(c), s 99CA(2)(d), ss 99CA(2)(e) and s 99CA(2)(f); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 281(1) and r 289(1)(a), referred to.

RANA v GREGUREV; RANA v GREGUREV
[2011] SASCFC 157
Full Court: Doyle CJ, Vanstone and Blue JJ

THE COURT: Mr Rana has applied for permission to appeal to the Full Court against a decision by a Judge of this Court. The Judge dismissed appeals by Mr Rana against decisions by a Magistrate in each of two related matters.
Mr Rana had issued 2 complaints against the respondents to the appeal seeking restraining orders. The Magistrate dismissed the complaints on the basis that they amounted to a misuse of the Magistrates Court process and were vexatious pursuant to s 99CA(2)(b) and (d) of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (the “Act”).
The Judge made his decision dismissing the appeals on 23 June 2011. The decision was given ex tempore. The Judge provided brief but comprehensive reasons for the decision. Mr Rana now accepts that permission to appeal from the judgment of 23 June 2011 was required. Rule 289(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) permits an appellant to…

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.

Continue reading Rana v Gregurev

Details

AGLC: Rana v Gregurev [2011] SASCFC 157
Case: [2011] SASCFC 157
Decision Date: 19 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against decisions of a single Judge of that Court, which had dismissed the applicant's appeals from orders made by a Magistrate. The Magistrate had dismissed two complaints filed by the applicant against the respondents, finding them to be an abuse of process and vexatious. The applicant's applications for permission to appeal and an extension of time were necessitated by a delay in filing the notices of appeal, attributed to the applicant's suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes.

The Full Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the single Judge erred in upholding the Magistrate's power to dismiss the applicant's complaints on the grounds of abuse of process and vexatiousness. Secondly, whether the single Judge denied the applicant procedural fairness in their determination of the appeals. The overarching question for the Full Court was whether the applicant's grounds of appeal presented reasonably arguable points and whether it was in the interests of justice to permit a second appeal against the exercise of summary jurisdiction.

The Court considered the principles governing applications for leave to appeal, particularly in the context of summary jurisdiction and the need for reasonably arguable grounds. The Court noted that while the applicant's health issues explained the delay, the substantive merits of the appeal were paramount. The Court's reasoning focused on whether the single Judge had correctly applied the law regarding abuse of process and procedural fairness, and whether there was a sufficient basis to interfere with the Judge's conclusions. The Court ultimately determined that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave for a second appeal.

Orders