Wang v Johnston Vaughan - [2015] NSWCA 35

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Hearing dates: 1 December 2014
Date of orders: 06 March 2015
Decision date: 06 March 2015
Before: McColl JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [2];
Emmett JA at [3]
Decision:
Each of proceedings 2014/117615, 2014/219732 and 2014/233674 be dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal sought in respect of four decisions – whether any discernible ground of appeal has been specified
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 73
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 350(5)
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 48(2)(f), 101(2)(q)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28, 51.10
Cases Cited: Macatangay v State of NSW (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yun Fu Wang (Applicant/Appellant)
Michael John Vaughan and Amil Dlakic t/as Johnston Vaughan (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant/Appellant)
P Arblaster (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Applicant/Appellant)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/1176152014/2197322014/233674
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

(1) District Court of NSW(2) Local Court of NSW(3) Workers Compensation Commission(4) Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

(4) Common Law Division

Citation:

(4) Wang v Vaughan [2013] NSWSC 1016

Date of Decision:

(1) 28 February 2014(2) 1 September 2011(3) 3 August 2007(4) 19 July 2013

Before:

(1) Judicial Registrar Howard(2) Atkinson LCM(3) Arbitrator Harvey(4) Campbell J

File Number(s):

(1) 2013/347580(2) 2011/152780(3) 3530-2007(4) 2012/299645

Decisions under appeal

Judgment

McCOLL JA: I agree with Emmett JA.
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Emmett JA.
EMMETT JA: There are three separate proceedings before the Court. In each of them, the moving party is Mr Yun Fu Wang and the only respondents are Michael Vaughan and Amil Dlakic, who carry on a practice as solicitors under the name Johnston Vaughan. It is not easy to understand the relief sought by Mr Wang in any of the proceedings. However, Mr Wang appears to have three bases for complaint. The first is his failure to obtain workers compensation for a workplace injury that he claims to have suffered in August 2000. The second concerns the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in 2001. The third concerns fees charged by Johnston Vaughan and their conduct of some aspect of the litigation relating to his wrongful dismissal claim. Before dealing with the present proceedings, it is desirable to say something about Mr Wang’s past litigation.

History of the litigation

Workers compensation

Mr Wang suffered injury in August 2000. At that time, he was employed by Botany View Hotel Ltd (the Employer). He alleged that he had sustained an incapacitating work injury on 9 August 2000 and sought workers compensation from the Employer. On 3 August 2007, Mr Philip Harvey, a Workers Compensation Commission arbitrator, found that, while Mr Wang had suffered an injury in the course of his employment on 9 August 2000, the employment was not a…

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 Johnston Vaughan

Details

AGLC: Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Case: [2015] NSWCA 35
Decision Date: 06 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned four decisions made by the primary judge. The appellant, Mr. Wang, sought to appeal these decisions, but the respondents, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Vaughan, argued that no discernible grounds of appeal had been specified. The matter was heard by McColl, Macfarlan, and Emmett JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had adequately articulated any grounds upon which to challenge the four decisions of the primary judge. This required the Court to assess whether the appellant had presented a case with sufficient specificity to warrant appellate review.

The Court found that the appellant had failed to specify any discernible grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Court was unable to identify any arguable errors in the decisions of the primary judge. The Court therefore dismissed the appeals in proceedings 2014/117615, 2014/219732, and 2014/233674, ordering that the appellant pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each of proceedings 2014/117615, 2014/219732 and 2014/233674 be dismissed with 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Hearing dates:	1 December 2014
Date of orders:	06 March 2015
Decision date:	06 March 2015
Before:	McColl JA at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [2]; Emmett JA at [3]
Decision:	Each of proceedings 2014/117615, 2014/219732 and 2014/233674 be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal sought in respect of four decisions – whether any discernible ground of appeal has been specified
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 73 District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127 Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 350(5) Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 48(2)(f), 101(2)(q) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28, 51.10
Cases Cited:	Macatangay v State of NSW (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Yun Fu Wang (Applicant/Appellant) Michael John Vaughan and Amil Dlakic t/as Johnston Vaughan (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant/Appellant) P Arblaster (Respondent) Solicitors: Self-represented (Applicant/Appellant) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2014/1176152014/2197322014/233674
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: (1) District Court of NSW(2) Local Court of NSW(3) Workers Compensation Commission(4) Supreme Court of NSW Jurisdiction: (4) Common Law Division Citation: (4) Wang v Vaughan [2013] NSWSC 1016 Date of Decision: (1) 28 February 2014(2) 1 September 2011(3) 3 August 2007(4) 19 July 2013 Before: (1) Judicial Registrar Howard(2) Atkinson LCM(3) Arbitrator Harvey(4) Campbell J File Number(s): (1) 2013/347580(2) 2011/152780(3) 3530-2007(4) 2012/299645