Wang v Dlakic
[2015] NSWSC 1590
•29 October 2015
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:
Solicitors:
T Hammond (Defendant)
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 before me Mr Wang impugned a decision of the Court of Appeal; namely, Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35. That was confirmed in discussion between Mr Wang and me during the hearing. I explicitly raised with Mr Wang my concern that I had no jurisdiction to interfere with a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. He did not engage with that concern of mine.
-
As can be seen from the judgment under consideration, the Court of Appeal had great difficulty understanding the complaints and concerns of Mr Wang. Nevertheless, I respectfully consider that the Court of Appeal sought to deal with the issues that he sought to litigate as comprehensively as it could.
-
Some days after the hearing, and shortly before the delivery of this judgment, a handwritten note from Mr Wang was received in my Chambers. There was nothing to suggest that it had been provided to his opponent, or that any notice of an intention to send it had been provided. In the circumstances, it has been placed on the court file, completely unread by me.
Determination
-
My own understanding of what underpins the hearing before me is a number of complaints that Mr Wang has about the conduct of the defendants (who are the principals of a firm of solicitors) when he instructed them many years ago in claims he had against other people.
-
I consider that there are three intractable problems with the appeal of Mr Wang.
-
Most fundamentally, I consider that, sitting as a single judge of the Common Law Division, I have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal, a review, an application for prerogative relief, or any other forensic attack upon a judgment of the Court of Appeal. I do not propose to tarry to provide statutory or common law support for that proposition.
-
Secondly, without making any personal criticism whatsoever of Mr Wang, I find myself simply unable to unravel the meaning of what is contained in his affidavits. By way of example, paragraph two of his affidavit of 22 October 2015 is verbatim as follows:
2. cbp arose "13.4; 12.7; and 14.28"; I had appeal in "order thought" on 2014/233674 of document, 3 judge had agreed that "all order thought evidence with litigation are right" Ombudsman Act 2013 the right public no default s351A the legal aid Commission allowed my appeal, cbp's "Notice of Motion" was miss conduct 13.4 was dismissed,
-a) cbp:"13.4" Jachson v Jim s6(5)(2)(a) the public can relieve 13.4; Bradfield Road v West Lindfield s351A right public no default, the 13.4 was not relevant my case, dismissed.
- b) cbp: "12.7 stay there", Davis v MidNorth Coust Area Health Service s76.15, the DEED and settlement is in force proceeding, no "stare there", I deny the special pleading, Dinte v Halse s27(lA) taken any effect subject law in force proceeding, dismissed.
- c) cbp: "14.28.18/11/13 struck out", cbp had identify that "received 22/10/13 of letter, Mr.Vaughan required used 18/11/13 for struck out" SDA v Karelase s345 defendant from knowingly to disclose information criminal conduct "struck out", SDA v Karellase s228(l) disclose Act 1994, Emmett J aggravation "more 28 days" AMWU v DMG s347, dismissed,
- d) 3 judge agreed "all the order thought are right", the reached decision must perform, but the Emmett J was judicial dismiss by 13.4 AMWU v DMG s347 prejudicial dismiss cause the decision contrary CFMEU v Hadgkiss chapter 9, legal aid commission allowed my appeal,
-
Thirdly, even if I had jurisdiction to hear an attack on a judgment of the Court of Appeal, and even if I were in a position to understand that attack, a further intractable problem is that Mr Wang seems simply to seek to re-litigate the matters that were dealt with in detail in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
-
It follows that, for three separate reasons, the amended summons filed in Court on 22 October 2015 must be dismissed.
Costs
-
Turning to the question of costs, they were sought by the lawyer for the defendants. The general rule, of course, is that costs should follow the event. To be weighed against that, in the exercise of my discretion, is the fact that Mr Wang was unrepresented. I also accept that he sincerely and deeply believes that he has suffered a serious injustice.
-
On the other hand, I was informed by the lawyer for the defendants that they had been brought to court in this particular litigation on one occasion before. And a chronology placed before me shows that the firm has been before this Court on very many occasions as a result of steps taken against it in various proceedings by Mr Wang. I infer that, on every occasion on which Mr Wang brings proceedings against them, the defendants, as a matter of courtesy to this Court and proper professional practice as solicitors, consider that they must be present in court to respond, either personally or through a lawyer whom they have retained.
-
Those factors lead me to the view that, weighing up the countervailing aspects of the matter, Mr Wang should pay the costs of the defendants.
Orders
-
I make the following orders:
The amended summons of the plaintiff filed in Court on 22 October 2015 is dismissed.
The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendants of the proceedings before me.
**********
Decision last updated: 30 October 2015
3