Westwill Pty Ltd v The Barossa Council - [2016] SASC 189

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
WESTWILL PTY LTD & ANOR v THE BAROSSA COUNCIL
[2016] SASC 189
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Hinton
13 December 2016
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - IN GENERAL AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Referral from Registrar for direction pursuant to Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) that he reject and refuse the filing of a proposed notice of appeal to the Full Court by an unsuccessful appellant to a single judge of this Court.
Held:
1. The proposed notice of appeal is an abuse of process.
2. Registrar directed to reject it for filing.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 53, referred to.
Westwill v Norman Waterhouse [2009] SASC 391; Westwill Pty Ltd v Heath (1989) 52 SASR 461; Westwill v Heath [2010] SASC 358; Westwill Pty Ltd v Byrt [2010] SASC 99; Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793; Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38; R v Burns (1883) 9 VLR 191; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509, considered.

WESTWILL PTY LTD & ANOR v THE BAROSSA COUNCIL
[2016] SASC 189
Civil
Hinton J
Introduction

A document entitled, “Permission to Appeal” dated 4 November 2016 was received by the registry of this Court in November of this year from Mr W P Jones. Subsequently, on 18 November 2016 Mr Jones attempted to file a second document (the document) also entitled, “Permission to Appeal”, in substitution for the first.
The document purports to seek permission to appeal against orders made by Sulan J on 17 December 2009 in the matter of Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Norman Waterhouse Pty Ltd & Anor.[1]
[1] [2009] SASC 391.
The Registrar has formed the view that the purported application for permission to appeal constitutes an abuse of the process of this Court within the meaning of Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules 2006 (SA). In accordance with the terms of that rule he has referred the matter to a judge for consideration as to whether the document should be rejected.[2]
[2] Supreme Court Rules 2006 (SA) r 53(3).
The proceedings before Sulan J
The history of this matter commences with the judgment of Duggan J in Westwill Pty Ltd v Heath in 1989.[3] In that case Westwill sought to enforce a contract for the sale of property owned by a Mr Heath. Duggan J set aside the contract and dismissed Westwill’s claim. He concluded that Mr Heath had been misled by Mr Jones and that Westwill, through its representative, Mr Jones, had taken unconscionable advantage of Mr Heath.
[3] Westwill Pty Ltd v Heath (1989) 52 SASR 461.
Since 1989 Mr Jones has instituted proceedings and taken out numerous applications in the District Court and in this Court related in one way or another to the 1989 judgment.[4]
[4]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Westwill Pty Ltd v The Barossa Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] SASC 189
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Westwill Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against The Barossa Council in the Supreme Court of South Australia, challenging an administrative decision made by the Council. The primary issue before the Court was whether the document submitted by Westwill Pty Ltd, which purported to be an appeal against a decision made by Sulan J, was vexatious and should be rejected under Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court had to determine if the document complied with the procedural requirements and if it constituted an abuse of the Court's process.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the document complied with Rule 282 and if it could be considered a genuine appeal against the orders made by Sulan J. The Court had to assess if the document was intelligible and related to the proceedings before Sulan J. Furthermore, the Court needed to decide if accepting the document would amount to an abuse of the Court's process.

The Court found that the document did not comply with Rule 282, as it was largely unintelligible and could not be sensibly related to the proceedings before Sulan J or the orders made by the Judge. The Court considered the document to be vexatious in the sense explained by Deane J in Staats v United States of America, as it was an abuse of the Court's process. The Court held that accepting the document and permitting the institution of proceedings in the Court would result in an abuse of the processes of the Court. Therefore, the Court directed the Registrar to reject the document in accordance with Rule 53.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In my view the document is vexatious in the sense explained by Deane J in Staats v United States of America.[21] It should be rejected.[21] (1992) 66 ALJR 793.Conclusion and orders To accept the document and thereby permit the institution of proceedings in this Court would amount to an abuse of the processes of this Court. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 53, I direct the Registrar to reject the document.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The final section titled “Extension of Time” contains sixteen points, none of which relate to the seeking of an extension of time.Consideration The document does not comply with Rule 282. It is largely unintelligible and cannot sensibly be related to the proceedings before Sulan J or the orders that Sulan J made. In its current form it calls for no response by the purported respondents. Were the matter permitted to proceed in its current form it is foredoomed to fail. On this basis alone the document constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process. I am aware that Mr Jones is well known to the Court. The document appears to be yet another attempt by him to appear to address the outcome or consequences of the proceedings determined by Duggan J. Those many attempts come at a cost to the resources of this Court, not to mention the human cost to all concerned, including Mr Jones. I bear in mind the right of all members of the community to seek justice from the courts. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the document that allows me to conclude that it is a genuine appeal against the orders made by Sulan J on 17 December 2009 that is even remotely arguable. In my view the document is vexatious in the sense explained by Deane J in Staats v United States of America.[21] It should be rejected.[21] (1992) 66 ALJR 793.Conclusion and orders To accept the document and thereby permit the institution of proceedings in this Court would amount to an abuse of the processes of this Court. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 53, I direct the Registrar to reject the document.