Wang v Johnston Vaughan (No 2)

Decisions under appeal

1. [1]

   EMMETT JA: On 1 December 2014, the Court constituted by McColl JA, Macfarlan JA and me dealt with three separate proceedings. In each of them, the moving party was Mr Wang and the only respondents were Messrs Michael Vaughan and Amil Dlakic, who carry on practice as solicitors under the name Johnston Vaughan. After hearing argument, the Court reserved its decision. The three separate proceedings that were the subject of the hearing on 1 December 2014 are 2014/117615, 2014/219732 and 2014/233674. I have indicated to the parties that the Court will be in a position to give judgment on the matters that were the subject of the hearing on 1 December 2014 in the very near future.

2. [2]

   However, on 29 December 2014, Mr Wang filed a notice of appeal in proceeding 2014/233674. The form is simply a pro forma in which some blank spaces have been completed. There are many blank spaces that have not been completed and there are parts of the form that require completion by indicating the nature of the material or information that is to be included. No such information has been provided. The notice of appeal states that the relevant case in “the Court below” is case number 2014/233674 and the “material date” is stated to be 29 December 2014. The grounds of appeal are that “The defendant refused to pay many costs money order Australian workplace agreement AWAS [sic].” In the pro forma document, the orders sought include “appeal allowed”. Clearly, no attention has been given to how that should be completed. The notice of appeal should not have been accepted by the Registry but it was, and I shall direct that it be removed from the file.

3. [3]

   On 13 January 2015, Mr Wang filed a notice of motion in the same proceeding, 2014/233674. That was supported by an affidavit which contains some 20 pages of material annexed to the affidavit. The notice of motion seeks the following relief:

4. [4]

   When the motion was called on for hearing today, Mr Wang was unable to explain what he wanted, except insofar as he referred to a wish that the respondents pay $19,000 in costs “for bodily injury”. He also referred to another figure of $17,600 in terms that I could not understand. It is possible that those figures refer to claims made in the earlier workers compensation proceedings brought against his former employer, which proceedings, including a number of appeals, were dismissed, most recently by the High Court on 26 May 2010. The notice of motion appears to be quite misconceived and must be dismissed. I will order that the notice of motion of 13 January 2015 be dismissed and I will order the applicant on that motion to pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.