Wang v Botany View Hotel

Case [2014] FCA 730


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCA 730

Citation: Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCA 730
Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCCA 850
Parties: YUN FU WANG v BOTANY VIEW HOTEL
File number(s): NSD 551 of 2014
Judge(s): JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 8 July 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – primary judge dismissed proceedings as frivolous or vexatious, abuse of process and for applicant’s failure to comply with court order – applicant filed several voluminous and incomprehensible documents – whether extension of time should be granted to seek leave to appeal primary judge’s decision
Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rules 1.03, 13.03A, 13.03B, 13.10

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rules 35.13, 35.14

Cases cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1731

Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397

Deighton v Telstra Corp [1997] FCA 1568

Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529; [1981] 3 All ER 727

Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 1189

Sharman License Holdings Ltd v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 802

Date of hearing: 30 June 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 22
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C E Dezarnaulds
Solicitor for the Respondent: Dezarnaulds Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 551 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YUN FU WANG
Applicant

AND:

BOTANY VIEW HOTEL
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed on 30 May 2014 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 551 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YUN FU WANG
Applicant

AND:

BOTANY VIEW HOTEL
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE:

8 JULY 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application pursuant to rule 35.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the FCA Rules) for an extension of time and leave to appeal the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC) summarily dismissing a proceeding with costs pursuant to rules 13.03B(1), 13.10(b) and 13.10(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the FCCRules) and pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own process (Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCCA…

Continue reading Wang v Botany View Hotel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCA 730
Case
[2014] FCA 730
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Botany View Hotel involved the applicant seeking an extension of time to file an appeal against the primary judge’s decision, which dismissed the applicant’s proceedings as frivolous or vexatious, an abuse of process, and for the applicant's failure to comply with a court order. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant had filed numerous voluminous and incomprehensible documents, leading to the primary judge’s decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the primary judge's decision. This required the court to consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant's failure to comply with the court’s orders, the quality and quantity of the documents submitted, and the overall conduct of the applicant in the proceedings. The court also needed to determine if the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay and whether there were any prospects of success for the appeal.

The court dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The court further noted the poor quality and excessive length of the documents previously submitted, which contributed to the primary judge's decision to dismiss the proceedings. The court held that the applicant's conduct did not warrant an extension of time, and there were no prospects of success for the appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed on 30 May 2014 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.