DU v WANG (No 3) [2026] SASCA 74

On Appeal from DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (HER HONOUR JUDGE THOMAS) CIV-20-002586 Applicant: ZHIGANG DU In Person Respondent: CHANG MIN WANG Counsel: MR L GENTRY - Solicitor: BRIDGES LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 26/06/2026 File No/s: CIV-25-013606 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Court of Appeal: Civil) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. DU v WANG (No 3) [2026] SASCA 74 Ruling of the Honourable President Livesey (ex tempore) 26 June 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS These are Mr Du’s third and fourth interlocutory applications seeking various orders, including a stay of various filing deadlines, before the hearing of this appeal before the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2026. Mr Du is not legally represented. He requires a Chinese Mandarin interpreter as he cannot, read, write, speak or understand complex English. The appeal notice contains 19 grounds of appeal which are prolix and difficult to understand. The grounds generally complain about the outcome of the trial judge’s decision without identifying any material errors of fact or law. The third application seeks the following orders: 1. A stay of timetabling orders requiring Mr Du to file a proposed index for the core appeal book by 19 June 2026 and physical copies of the core appeal book and his written materials by 10 July. 2. The discovery and production of a large number of documents from Mr Wang. 3. A direction that the Legal Services Commission (SA) expedite the assessment of his legal aid application. 4. A stay of all procedural steps pending the appointment of a legal aid solicitor. -- 1 of 8 -- 5. The consolidation of this matter with a separate matter currently being heard before Flourentzou AAsJ. Yesterday, Mr Du sought an order setting aside all previous orders dismissing his applications for the discovery and production of documents from Mr Wang. He also seeks an order directing three software providers to give him records of the company. Held, deferring the applications and reserving the question of costs: 1. Mr Du is yet to explain the relevance of the documents he seeks, why they were not obtained before the trial or why this Court should now make orders for their production. 2. It may be that the request for the production of documents is best viewed as a matter that should be pursued on appeal and argued at the hearing, rather than a prerequisite for arguing the appeal. It is difficult to know because of the lack of clarity associated with what Mr Du is seeking and why he is seeking it. Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 218.4, referred to. Development Assessment Commission v Macag Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) 80 SASR 104; Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34; Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73; Hackney Tavern Nominees Pty Ltd v McLeod (1983) 33 SASR 590; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130; Martincic & Anor v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc [2024] SASCA 33; SJ Berry Pty Ltd v McEntee (2022) 142 SASR 31; Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126, considered. -- 2 of 8 -- DU v WANG (No 3) [2026] SASCA 74 Court of Appeal – Civil – Application LIVESEY P (ex tempore): Introduction 1 This hearing was convened to hear and determine Mr Du’s third interlocutory application seeking numerous orders, including a stay of various filing deadlines, before the hearing of his appeal before the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2026. 2 This appeal is against a District Court decision, which found that Mr Du repudiated a share sale agreement in 2020 concerning a company set up to acquire and operate an abattoir and butchery in Port Lincoln. 1 Following a dispute shortly after the company was established, a settlement agreement was negotiated in May 2020 under which Mr Du agreed to pay Mr Wang $389,500 for his shares in the company. The agreement was drafted in Chinese characters. While the translation and proper meaning of the agreement were disputed at trial, the trial judge found largely in favour of Mr Wang. 3 Yesterday, Mr Du filed a fourth application. He wants to set aside orders I made dismissing his first application for the discovery and production of numerous documents, and to otherwise obtain further records from three software providers.2 4 Mr Du is no longer legally represented. He requires a Chinese Mandarin interpreter as he cannot read, write, speak or understand complex English. 5 For the following reasons, I have decided to adjourn the hearing of these applications. Procedural history 6 On 13 November 2025, when Mr Du was still legally represented, an initial appeal notice was filed containing eight grounds of appeal. Mr Du filed a revised appeal notice on 19 December 2025, which contains 19 grounds of appeal which are prolix and difficult to understand. The grounds generally complain about the outcome of the trial judge’s decision without identifying any material errors of fact or law.3 7 At the first callover of this matter on 6 February 2026, I listed the appeal for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 10 September and made timetabling orders. 1 Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126. 2 Interlocutory application dated 24 June 2026 (FDN 28). 3 Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34, [6] (Livesey P), citing SJ Berry Pty Ltd v McEntee (2022) 142 SASR 31, [30]-[34] (Livesey P). -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 74 Livesey P 2 8 On 13 February 2026, Mr Du filed an application seeking the discovery and production of a large number of documents and a video recording of a court hearing in November 2020,4 which he said disclosed the true basis for the sale of the shares. I dismissed that application at a callover on 7 April 2026,5 explaining that Mr Du had not addressed how the documents were relevant to the grounds of appeal or how the rules relating to fresh or further evidence on appeal had been satisfied.6 I had attempted to explain to Mr Du what those rules were and how they operated. 9 I suggested to Mr Du that some attempt be made to refine his 19 grounds of appeal. Mr Du said that he had an appointment with a legal aid solicitor that afternoon. I adjourned the matter to a further callover on 29 May 2026 to allow for the prospect that Mr Du would then be legally represented. 10 Shortly after, on 17 April 2026, Mr Du filed a second application seeking an order that I be disqualified from continuing to hear this matter on the grounds of apprehended bias.7 On 28 May, Mr Wang’s solicitors sent an email to my chambers attaching proposed short minutes of order for the callover listed the following day. The orders proposed included the following: • The applicant provide the respondent with a proposed index for the core appeal book, in accordance with r 218.4 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), by 19 June 2026. • The respondent respond to the proposed index within 14 days of receipt. • The applicant file three copies of the core appeal book and serve a further copy on the respondent by 10 July 2026. • The applicant file and serve his written submissions, list of authorities and any chronology by 10 July 2026. 11 At the callover on 29 May 2026, I dismissed the second application. Mr Du failed to demonstrate that the requisite apprehension of bias arose in respect of the matters that I had addressed at the previous callover on 7 April.8 After dismissing the application, I raised the issue of Mr Wang’s proposed short minutes of order with Mr Du. The following exchange then took place:9 Livesey P: Now the other side, Mr Du, want you to file documents. 4 Interlocutory application dated 13 February 2026 (FDN 10). 5 Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34. 6 Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34, [11]-[12] (Livesey P), citing Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130, [79]-[80] (Livesey P, Bleby JA and Mitchell AJA). 7 Interlocutory application dated 17 April 2026 (FDN 19). 8 Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73. 9 Transcript, Zhi Gang Du v Chang Min Wang (Court of Appeal, CIV-25-013606, Livesey P, 29 May 2026) 9.2-9.9. -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 74 Livesey P 3 Mr Du: Yes, I will do that in accordance with the respondent’s request. Livesey P: All right. I’ll make orders in accordance with the respondent’s proposed short minutes of order. Mr Du: Okay. 12 I then made orders in the terms of Mr Wang’s proposed short minutes of orders and adjourned the matter to a further callover on 31 July 2026.10 13 On 9 June 2026, Mr Du filed the third application and, on 15 June, he sent an email to the Registry asking that the Court urgently consider and determine the application. The fourth application was filed by Mr Du on 24 June. The third application 14 Mr Du seeks a stay of the timetabling orders requiring him to file a proposed index for the core appeal book by 19 June 2026, and physical copies of the core appeal book and his written materials by 10 July. He asks that these timeframes to be “held in abeyance” until further orders are made, including for the production of various documents.11 In effect, if not in substance, Mr Du is seeking a stay of the conduct his own appeal which will jeopardise its hearing. 15 In his supporting affidavit, Mr Du says that, without the relevant company documents and evidence that he seeks he has “no factual basis” to compile the proposed index, core appeal book or written submissions.12 He says that he cannot identify any relevant points of appeal without first obtaining the business records held by Mr Wang. 16 In addition, Mr Du seeks the same orders which he sought in his first application filed in February 2026, namely the discovery and production of a large number of documents from Mr Wang.13 These include company records, operational documents, financial files, contracts and other business materials, which Mr Du again says were not produced in response to a court order made in September 2021 and are currently being withheld by Mr Wang.14 17 In addition, Mr Du seeks a direction that the Legal Services Commission (SA) expedite the assessment of his legal aid application, together with orders staying all procedural steps pending the appointment of a legal aid solicitor. Annexed to Mr Du’s supporting affidavit is a document stating that the Commission received his application for legal aid on 3 June 2026 and will process it as expeditiously as possible. Mr Du contends that, if forced to comply with the timetabling orders without legal representation, he will suffer “severe procedural 10 Record of outcome dated 29 May 2026 (FDN 22). 11 Interlocutory application dated 9 June 2026, [1] (FDN 26). 12 Affidavit of Zhigang Du dated 9 June 2026, [4] (FDN 25). 13 Interlocutory application dated 13 February 2026 (FDN 10). 14 Interlocutory application dated 9 June 2026, [2] (FDN 26). See also Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34, [9] (Livesey P). -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 74 Livesey P 4 disadvantage” and “substantial injustice” because of his limited English literacy and inexperience preparing formal written submissions.15 18 The final order sought by Mr Du is to consolidate this matter with another matter currently being heard before Flourentzou AAsJ. In that matter, Mr Wang filed an originating application in February 2026 seeking the setting aside of property settlement orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the imposition of a charging order against Mr Du’s interest in a property located in Adelaide. The fourth application 19 Mr Du also seeks an order setting aside all previous orders I have made dismissing his applications for the discovery and production of documents from Mr Wang. 20 Mr Du also seeks an order directing three software providers to give him “unmodified backend original data records” of the company. He says that he requires access to these records as they are the only pieces of independent and credible evidence that demonstrate that Mr Wang has been falsifying other company records.16 The determination of the applications 21 This case is unusual. Mr Du is seeking to stay the preparation of his appeal until he gets legal representation and the documents which were the subject of his first application. I have tried to explain that the settlement or share sale agreement was made in 2020 and, on the findings made by the District Court judge, repudiated by Mr Du later that year. The relevance of the documents sought in 2021 and subsequently has not been explained. 22 To reagitate an interlocutory application does not necessarily involve an abuse.17 However, and as it might be expected, it will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, particularly whether there is new material or a change in circumstances which might justify a fresh consideration of the application or otherwise a satisfactory explanation from the applicant. Here, Mr Du must confront the difficulty that he has not identified any new material or any change in circumstances. Whilst I have said to Mr Du that I am willing to reconsider his application for documents, he is yet to explain the relevance of the documents he seeks, why they were not obtained before the trial, and why this Court should now make orders for their production. That Mr Du says that some of these documents, at least, were the subject of an earlier order in 2021 that was not complied with by Mr Wang, has not really been established or properly explained. 15 Affidavit of Zhigang Du dated 9 June 2026, [10] (FDN 25). 16 Affidavit of Zhigang Du dated 24 June 2026, [4], [7] (FDN 28). 17 Development Assessment Commission v Macag Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) 80 SASR 104, [53]-[71] (Doyle CJ, with whom Williams and Martin JJ agreed regarding the applicable principles). -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 74 Livesey P 5 23 At the last hearing, Mr Du was very critical of his former lawyers. While Mr Du then described them as corrupt, without presenting any evidence or apparent foundation for that allegation, he now says they “colluded with the [company] liquidator, concealed audit evidence, withheld … case materials and forced [him] to sign an exemption of liability agreement”.18 Again, these allegations are made without any evidence or apparent foundation. He has also made serious allegations that the Registry staff “failed” to file his previous “applications, objections and evidence lists and altered document lodging records”.19 Criticisms such as these do not advance Mr Du’s position. They do not explain why the orders he seeks should now be made. 24 In a sense, though, these difficulties are incidental. They are probably best explained, at least in part, by Mr Du’s lack of familiarity with the law and the conduct of appeals. Whilst I cannot be certain, it may be that the request for the production of documents is best viewed as a matter that should be pursued on appeal and argued at that hearing, rather than seen as a prerequisite for arguing the appeal. At the moment it is difficult for me to know because of the lack of clarity associated with what Mr Du is seeking and why he is seeking it. 25 Mr Du has not established any proper basis for a stay of the orders previously made or for the production of documents. 26 I doubt whether I have the power, or at least any proper basis, to make the other orders sought. 27 I will defer making any order for a short period to see whether Mr Du can obtain legal advice. I made a request that a representative from the Legal Services Commission (SA) attend today. However, when making that request, my staff were told by the Commission that Mr Du’s application for legal aid was refused in early June. Mr Du said that he did not know about this and he will again speak to the Commission. 28 I am conscious that Mr Wang may well wish to contend that the present applications should simply be dismissed and, in due course, that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. At the moment, and whilst I can readily understand that view, I propose to make no order on the present applications. I am conscious that Mr Wang is anxious that the present date for the hearing of the appeal is not put in jeopardy. 29 Today I have again attempted to explain to Mr Du how an appeal works as well as the necessity for him to comply with the orders which have been made, at some stage. I have explained that he cannot treat an appeal as a trial, and he is normally confined to the record and reasons of the trial court. I have explained that without appeal books there can be no prospect of an appeal, quite apart from any concern that he may have about the documents he is seeking. Whether it is 18 Affidavit of Zhigang Du dated 24 June 2026, [6] (FDN 28). 19 Affidavit of Zhigang Du dated 24 June 2026, [6] (FDN 28). -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 74 Livesey P 6 necessary to direct that Mr Wang prepare the appeal books on terms as to costs is something that may yet need to be considered. 30 When giving explanations such as these, it is necessary to be cautious and to avoid conducting the case for an unrepresented party in a way that prejudices the represented party and risks undermining the independence and impartiality of the Court.20 31 At the moment, I am not prepared to make any of the orders that Mr Du seeks in the terms in which he seeks them. I will adjourn this matter for a short period to allow him to try again to obtain legal advice. Conclusion 32 These applications are adjourned to 17 July 2026. I reserve the question of costs. 20 Martincic & Anor v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc [2024] SASCA 33, [21]-[24] (Livesey P). -- 8 of 8 --