Wang v Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan

[2017] NSWSC 34

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wang v Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan [2017] NSWSC 34
Hearing dates:	2 February 2017
Date of orders:	02 February 2017
Decision date:	02 February 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Beech-Jones J
Decision:	(1)   Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 13.4, order made that the proceedings be dismissed. (2)   Mr Wang ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	SUMMARY DISMISSAL – no question of principle
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited:	Wang v Botany View Hotel [2011] NSWSC 487 Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35 Wang v Vaughan [2016] NSWSC 1430
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Yung Fu Wang (Plaintiff) Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-represented (Plaintiff) M Hammond, solicitor (Defendant)   Solicitors: Self-represented (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2016/372791

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This is yet another proceeding commenced by Yung Fu Wang against Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan. In particular, on 13 December 2016, Mr Wang filed a document entitled "Summons" commencing an appeal and summons seeking leave to appeal which named Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan as the defendants. The document described the proceedings in the Court below as proceedings in the District Court which appeared to have been determined in November 2016. It follows that the summons is misconceived as this Court at first instance does not hear appeals from the District Court.

2. The substantive part of the document, under the heading "Details about defendants", contains an almost incomprehensible recitation of references to what appears to be a number of decisions involving Mr Wang but also a random selection of other cases and sections. It is impossible to discern from that what the complaint being made is.

3. This summons was returnable today and the defendants immediately moved for its dismissal pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 13.4, namely, that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious.

4. The matter was referred to me as Duty Judge. An interpreter assisted Mr Wang in addressing the Court. Mr Wang did not suggest that he was taken by surprise by the application or seek an adjournment. Through the interpreter I attempted to engage with Mr Wang to determine what the substance of his complaint was. Mr Wang has pursued a significant number of cases which appear to have arisen out of a workplace accident. He was unsuccessful in seeking workers compensation. As a consequence, he has pursued a number of cases against his former solicitors both in respect of the lack of success of his claim and possibly about costs, although it is difficult to discern. Some of those decisions are identified in the judgment of Adamson J in Wang v Vaughan [2016] NSWSC 1430 at [4].

5. In the exchange I had with Mr Wang he appeared to identify that what he was seeking to enforce was a costs order made by Campbell J on 19 July 2013 in favour of Mr Wang against the second defendant, Amil Dlakic. As best as I can ascertain, that costs order appears to relate to an application by Mr Wang to extend the time in which he could apply for a costs assessment in which Campbell J ordered that Mr Wang receive such costs as "he may be entitled to as a self-represented person in respect of these proceedings after they have been agreed or assessed".

6. One part of Mr Wang's summons before this Court makes reference to an alleged order that Mr Vaughan of the defendants pay him $90,832, and that Mr Dlakic pay him $68,108. I tried to determine what the basis for those figures and that payment was. Mr Wang appeared to assert that those were the amount of costs the subject of the orders made by Campbell J. Upon closer examination it does not appear there was any agreement or assessment to that effect. Indeed it would be wholly remarkable that the costs of a self-represented person would, in a case of that kind, total that amount.

7. Further, at various times Mr Wang recounted the effect of various judgments concerning him in terms which reveal that he fundamentally misunderstands what previous courts have determined. For example, Mr Wang asserted that Hislop J had previously ordered that he receive an amount of either $3 million or $ 1.65 million in compensation. In fact, all Hislop J did was recite in a part of a judgment Mr Wang's claim for $1.65 million before dismissing it and ordering him to pay the costs of his employer: Wang v Botany View Hotel [2011] NSWSC 487. Further, at various points Mr Wang asserted that the Court of Appeal had ordered that the defendants pay him various costs. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by him and ordered that he pay their costs: Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35. He further asserted that Button J had ordered somehow that the decision of the Court of Appeal be set aside, a proposition that is untenable.

8. Thus, in the end, to the extent that one could extract out of the 10 pages of closely-typed material some claim by Mr Wang, it appears to be wholly misconceived. In any event, the effect of other costs orders that have been made against him in the defendants' favour would swamp any entitlement that he has to costs against them.

9. When I gave Mr Wang the opportunity to respond to the suggestion that his summons should be dismissed as vexatious and frivolous because it was unintelligible and otherwise appeared to be a re-agitation of what had previously been dismissed, he made reference to various complaints about a broad range of judgments.

10. The end result is that Mr Wang has filed a document that is simply so unintelligible it cannot be allowed to go forward. The inevitable conclusion is that the proceedings are vexatious and frivolous and must be dismissed. Accordingly, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rule 13.4, I order that the proceedings be dismissed. I order Mr Wang to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 09 March 2017