Salari v Oliva

Case [2025] QDC 26

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Salari v Oliva [2025] QDC 26

PARTIES: 

GHOLAM ALI SALARI  
(Applicant)

v

CHRISTOPHER OLIVA  
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

 3327/24

DIVISION:

 Civil

PROCEEDING:

 Application

ORIGINATING COURT: 

 Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

18 February 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

APPEARANCES:

Gholam Ali Salari in person   

Tusk Lawyers for the respondent   

Background

  1. On 9 September 2024, Magistrate O’Neill heard proceedings brought by the respondent against Mr Salari seeking damages for breach of s. 18 and/or s. 29(1)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law[1] (the ACL) along with interest and costs.  Mr Salari represented himself at the trial. 

    [1] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2.

  2. The transcript was not put before me, but her Honour recorded in her reasons that English was not Mr Salari’s first language and that he had:

    …informed me that he has a PhD in politics from Griffith University from which I infer that he has proficiency in written and spoken English.  I observed that he was able to communicate in English sufficiently well to put his case.

  3. In the course of argument, I made the same observation as her Honour in that once Mr Salari settled down in Court, he appeared to be able to put his points and understand my statements quite well.

  4. On 30 October 2024, Magistrate O’Neill gave written reasons and ordered that judgment be entered against Mr Salari for $19,475.03 and invited submissions on interest and costs (the ACL judgment). 

  5. On 27 November 2024, Mr Salari filed his first Notice of Appeal (the NOA), appealing the ACL judgment, giving the grounds as follows:

    I was representing myself and was unaware of the procedure, so I was unable to present some vital evidence; the decision was made based on serious errors in “findings as to evidence” and the consequent implication of relevant laws to those errors as given in evidence.

  6. The ACL NOA stated his email address as salar1@hotmail.com

  7. No evidence was before me as to submissions on costs and interest, though I was told from the bar table that submissions were made by Mr Oliva for indemnity costs based on offers which had been made and that that explains the reason for the relatively large sum ordered by her Honour as compared to the judgment sum.  However it occurred, on 20 December 2024, her Honour ordered that Mr Salari pay costs of $33,150 and interest of $1,866.61 (the costs order). 

  8. On 8 January 2025, Mr Oliva’s solicitors (Tusk Lawyers) sent a letter to Mr Salari by email in which they stated:

    (a)A party requires leave to appeal a civil judgment of the Magistrates Court where the judgment of the Court is less than the minor civil dispute limit of $25,000 pursuant to s. 45(2) Magistrates Courts Act 1921;

    (b)That because the ACL judgment was less than the minor…

Continue reading Salari v Oliva

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Salari v Oliva [2025] QDC 26
Case
[2025] QDC 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Salari v Oliva, the parties contested the legal implications and procedural aspects of an appeal against a court's judgment and subsequent costs and interest orders. The initial judgment was entered against Mr Salari on 30 October 2024, and subsequently, Mr Salari filed a Notice of Appeal on 27 November 2024, appealing the judgment on the grounds of procedural unawareness and alleged errors in evidence evaluation. The court then ordered costs and interest on 20 December 2024, which Mr Salari appealed again on 10 January 2025, this time focusing on the costs and interest, though the grounds remained unchanged.

The legal issues before the court involved whether Mr Salari had the right to appeal the initial judgment, given that it fell under the minor civil dispute limit, and whether he needed to obtain leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider the validity of Mr Salari's grounds of appeal, particularly if they related to the costs and interest ordered by the court. The court also had to determine the admissibility and relevance of the affidavit filed by Mr Salari in support of his appeal, which seemed to contain extraneous information not directly related to the grounds of appeal.

The court found that while some parts of the letter sent by Mr Oliva's solicitors were not entirely accurate, the core legal principles were correct. Mr Salari was indeed required to obtain leave to appeal the initial judgment due to its amount, but he had not done so. The Amended Notice of Appeal filed by Mr Salari was also problematic as it did not address the need for leave to appeal and seemed to either replace or supplement the initial Notice of Appeal without clarity. Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by Mr Salari was deemed irrelevant and inadmissible as it did not pertain directly to the appeal grounds and contained extraneous material. Consequently, the court dismissed the application.

The court will proceed to hear the parties regarding the costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

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

On 30 October 2024, Magistrate O’Neill gave written reasons and ordered that judgment be entered against Mr Salari for $19,475.03 and invited submissions on interest and costs (the ACL judgment). On 27 November 2024, Mr Salari filed his first Notice of Appeal (the NOA), appealing the ACL judgment, giving the grounds as follows:I was representing myself and was unaware of the procedure, so I was unable to present some vital evidence; the decision was made based on serious errors in “findings as to evidence” and the consequent implication of relevant laws to those errors as given in evidence. The ACL NOA stated his email address as salar1@hotmail.com No evidence was before me as to submissions on costs and interest, though I was told from the bar table that submissions were made by Mr Oliva for indemnity costs based on offers which had been made and that that explains the reason for the relatively large sum ordered by her Honour as compared to the judgment sum. However it occurred, on 20 December 2024, her Honour ordered that Mr Salari pay costs of $33,150 and interest of $1,866.61 (the costs order). On 8 January 2025, Mr Oliva’s solicitors (Tusk Lawyers) sent a letter to Mr Salari by email in which they stated:(a)A party requires leave to appeal a civil judgment of the Magistrates Court where the judgment of the Court is less than the minor civil dispute limit of $25,000 pursuant to s. 45(2) Magistrates Courts Act 1921; (b)That because the ACL judgment was less than the minor civil dispute limit, he required leave to appeal; (c)Leave to appeal would only be granted under s. 45(2) if the Court was satisfied that some important principle of law or justice was involved;(d)That he had to file an application for leave to appeal and that “until such leave is granted, your appeal cannot be heard”;(e)That if he did not file an application for leave and supporting affidavit by 17 January 2025, they would apply for dismissal of the ACL appeal. Although there were aspects of Tusk Lawyers’ letter which were not completely correct as a matter of law (the assertion in paragraph [8](b) in particular), the gravamen of the legal propositions in the letter were correct. Mr Salari did not respond to Tusk Lawyers. However, on 10 January 2025, he filed a document headed Amended Notice of Appeal (the Amended NOA) which appealed her Honour’s orders of 20 December 2024 as to costs and interest. The Amended NOA contained no reference to the ACL judgment, nor to the NOA, although the grounds of appeal remained the same as those in the NOA. Those grounds raised nothing relevant to costs or interest. It was unclear if the Amended NOA intended to replace or supplement the NOA, though I infer Mr Salari intended the latter. On 10 January 2025, Mr Salari also filed an affidavit in the appeal. The purpose of that affidavit was unclear; it was not referable to any application for leave to appeal because none had been made. In that affidavit, Mr Salari confirms he has a PhD in political science and is a “public intellectual”. He swore that at trial, he was unaware of the Court’s process and procedure and he “could not present my defense”. He then purports to swear to extensive evidence which he “wanted to explain” presumably to her Honour at the trial. The affidavit contains thereafter four pages of allegations, submissions, irrelevant speculation, statements about industry practice and evidence of third parties. I infer this is supposed to be the frustrated defence which he swore he could not present because of his lack of awareness of Court process.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.