Wang v Dlakic - [2015] NSWSC 1590

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Dlakic [2015] NSWSC 1590
Hearing dates: 22 October 2015
Decision date: 29 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The amended summons of the plaintiff filed in Court on 22 October 2015 is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendants of the proceedings before me.

Catchwords: APPEAL – attempt to impugn a judgment of the Court of Appeal before a single judge of the Common Law Division – plaintiff self-represented – no jurisdiction – plaintiff seeking to re-litigate matters that were dealt with in detail in the judgment of the Court of Appeal
Cases Cited: Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yung Fu Wang (Plaintiff)
Amil Dlakic trading as Johnston Vaughan (First Defendant)
Michael John Vaughan (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Hammond (Defendant)
Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Ltd (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2015/226348
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Court of Appeal

Citation:

[2015] NSWCA 35

Date of Decision:

6 March 2015

Before:

McColl JAMacfarlan JAEmmett JA

File Number(s):

2014/117615; 2014/219732; 2014/233674

Judgment

Introduction

This matter came before me for hearing in the Duty List on 22 October 2015. Mr Wang appeared for himself. At the start of the hearing, I confirmed with Mr Wang that he had sought free legal advice, including about the possibility of a substantial costs order against him. He was content to proceed unrepresented.
With the consent of the lawyer for his opponent, Mr Wang made use of an interpreter whom he had retained.

The hearing before me

The originating process is an amended summons seeking leave to appeal, which appeared as Annexure D to the affidavit of Peter Moran of 15 October 2015, which was read by the defendant in the proceedings. Separately, I granted Mr Wang leave to file his document in Court, once I came to appreciate that that was to be his operative pleading. Mr Wang also read without objection two affidavits sworn by him, one of 1 October 2015 and the other of 22 October 2015.
The amended summons is handwritten. The affidavits of Mr Wang are typed, but they were obviously prepared without the assistance of a lawyer. They are in English, and I infer that they were typed by Mr Wang himself, even though English is not his first language.
At the start of the hearing, I informed Mr Wang that I was finding it very difficult to understand the contents of his documents. I queried with him whether a better way forward would be for him to create any documents in his first language, and thereafter to retain an interpreter to translate them into English. The response of Mr Wang, in short, was that other judges had had no difficulty in understanding his materials, and that he was content to proceed.
As can be seen from the opening handwritten words of the first page of the amended summons, in the proceedings…

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 Wang v Dlakic

Details

AGLC: Wang v Dlakic [2015] NSWSC 1590
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1590
Decision Date: 29 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wang v Dlakic, the plaintiff, Wang, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal before a single judge in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court. Wang was self-represented and sought to challenge the outcome of a previous legal dispute against Dlakic. The core of the dispute centred around the plaintiff's attempt to impugn the judgment of the Court of Appeal and re-litigate matters that had already been comprehensively addressed in the prior judgment. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's application and whether it was permissible for him to re-litigate issues that had already been decided.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the authority to hear an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal and whether the plaintiff could re-litigate matters that had already been adjudicated. The court examined the procedural history of the case, including the previous judgments and the grounds upon which Wang sought to appeal. It was necessary to assess whether the plaintiff's application constituted an attempt to re-litigate issues or to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision through the backdoor. The court considered the principles of finality of judgments and the role of the Court of Appeal in ensuring that legal disputes are concluded after due process.

The court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It found that Wang's application was an attempt to re-litigate issues that had already been decided in detail by the Court of Appeal. The court emphasised the importance of finality in judgments and the need to prevent parties from relitigating matters that had been conclusively determined. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that it did not have the power to entertain it and that Wang was not permitted to challenge the Court of Appeal's judgment in this manner. The court's decision underscored the principle that once a matter has been decided by the Court of Appeal, further attempts to challenge that decision through other means are not permissible.

Orders