ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2026] WASCA 77

[2026] WASCA 77 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [No 2] [2026] WASCA 77 CORAM : MITCHELL JA ARCHER JA HEARD : 3 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2026 PUBLISHED : 5 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : CACV 74 of 2025 BETWEEN : STEPHANE ARMET Appellant AND CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD Respondent FILE NO/S : CACV 35 of 2026 BETWEEN : STEPHANE ARMET Appellant AND CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD Respondent -- 1 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 Page 2 ON APPEAL FROM: For File No : CACV 74 of 2025 Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : LONSDALE DCJ Citation : ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2025] WADC 50 File Number : APP 33 of 2024 For File No : CACV 35 of 2026 Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : VAUGHAN JA File Number : CACV 74 of 2025 Catchwords: Appeal - Practice and procedure - Whether single judge of appeal erred in extending time for respondent to file respondent's answer - Whether orders restricting manner in which appellant may communicate with court should be continued - Turns on own facts Legislation: Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 8(1), r 43(2)(ga), r 43(2B) Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61(3) Result: Review application dismissed Order restricting manner of communication with court officers continued Category: B -- 2 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 Page 3 Representation: CACV 74 of 2025 Counsel: Appellant : In person Respondent : M L Mulligan Solicitors: Appellant : In person Respondent : McCabes CACV 35 of 2026 Counsel: Appellant : In person Respondent : No appearance Solicitors: Appellant : In person Respondent : No appearance Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 10 GXB v Tyson [No 3] [2025] WASCA 116 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Traynor v Cunningham [No 2] [2017] WASCA 159 -- 3 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 4 REASONS OF THE COURT: 1 At the hearing of these matters on 3 June 2026, we made the orders set out at [42] below. We said that we would publish written reasons for making those orders later. These are our reasons for making the orders. Matters before the court 2 The hearing on 3 June 2026 was to consider the appellant's review application in CACV 35 of 2026 (review proceedings). In those proceedings, the appellant sought a review of orders made by Vaughan JA on 17 April 2026 in CACV 74 of 2025 (primary appeal proceedings). The question of whether to extend the operation of an order that restricts the manner of the appellant's communications with the Court of Appeal office was also before the court. We made the order restricting the manner of the appellant's communications on 15 May 2026 in the review proceedings and in the primary appeal proceedings. Primary appeal proceedings 3 The primary appeal proceedings are an appeal against orders made by Lonsdale DCJ in the District Court of Western Australia on 22 August 2025. Lonsdale DCJ dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders of an arbitrator of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service. The arbitrator's orders dismissed the appellant's claim for an extension of weekly payments of workers' compensation beyond 1 September 2019. That claim was made on the basis that the appellant had suffered permanent incapacity for work. Lonsdale DCJ refused leave to appeal to the District Court, dismissed the appeal to the District Court and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of that appeal. 4 The primary appeal proceedings were commenced on 12 September 2025. Following some delay in filing an appellant's case, on 16 January 2026, the court made a self-executing (springing) order requiring an appellant's case to be filed by 4.00 pm on 13 February 2026 and providing for the primary appeal proceedings to be dismissed if that did not occur. An appellant's case was filed on 12 February 2026. On 16 February 2026, Mitchell JA ordered that the application for leave to appeal be referred to the hearing of the appeal. Also on 16 February 2026, the Court of Appeal registrar issued a notice requiring a respondent's answer to be filed by 16 March 2026. -- 4 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 5 5 The respondent did not file a respondent's answer by 16 March 2026. On 8 April 2026, the Court of Appeal registrar issued a notice for the parties to attend court on 17 April 2026 for the respondent to show cause why it should not be barred from taking part in the appeal pursuant to r 43(2)(ga) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules) for failure to file and serve the respondent's answer. 6 On 13 April 2026, the appellant filed an application in an appeal which sought the following orders in the primary appeal proceedings:1 1. Declare Respondent in breach of: Rule 33 2. Bar Respondent participation pursuant to: Rule 43(2)(ga) 3. Strike out Respondent defence for absence of bona fide defence. If the intent to defraud/fraud is incontrovertible, a single judge may strike out the fraudulent party's pleadings or setting aside the original judgement. 4. Declare proceedings effectively undefended. 5. Proceed to determine the appeal pursuant to: Rule 43(2A) 6. Enter judgment in favour of the Appellant upon the basis of filed material. 7. Set aside any decision affected by jurisdictional irregularity where required. 8. Order statutory arrears pursuant to: Section 217(6) From: 1 September 2019 9. Recognise quantified financial loss: $464,925.88; However, on the basis of Fraus Omnia Vitiat, I contend that the respondent's conduct from 2019 - 2023 was an 'intent to defraud' that renders the statutory caps under the [Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)] inapplicable. I seek the full calculated redress to satisfy the court's obligation to provide an effective remedy for a jurisdictional error. 7 The appellant also attempted to lodge a hand-signed version of this application in an appeal, which contained various elaborations as to the orders sought, and additional orders including for the payment of interest and costs. 1 In the following quotation, we have adjusted the formatting of the orders sought by the appellant. -- 5 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 6 8 The appellant's application in an appeal was supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 13 April 2026, in which he deposed that he issued five 'notices of default' or 'enforcement notices' between 23 March 2026 and 8 April 2026. The affidavit noted that, at the hearing listed for 17 April 2026, the respondent would have been in default of its obligation to file a respondent's answer for 33 days. 9 On 17 April 2026, Vaughan JA dealt with the appellant's application in an appeal and the orders which should be made in relation to the respondent's failure to file a respondent's answer. At that hearing, counsel for the respondent apologised for the default, noting that the problem had arisen from the complexity of the documents filed by the appellant but accepting that this was not an excuse for failing to seek an extension of time. 10 After referring to the relevant background, Vaughan JA ruled: The appellant was granted various extensions to file and serve his appellant's case. It is just that the respondent also have an extension. But so far as the appellant's extension on 16 January 2026 was subject to a self-executing order, it is just that the respondent's extension be subject to an order that, in the event of continued non-compliance, the respondent be barred from taking further part in the appeal. In forming that opinion, I have had regard to, and have applied the principles mentioned in [Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 10 [11]]. The respondent has had the appellant's case for over two months. Counsel for the respondent has sought a further seven days. In view of the order, I propose to make [an order] barring the respondent from taking further part, in the event of non-compliance, I will allow a little further time than the seven days requested. I will allow until 28 April 2026. That ought to be adequate time for the preparation of the respondent's answer. 11 Vaughan JA made orders extending the time for the respondent to file a respondent's answer to 4.00 pm on 28 April 2026 and providing for the respondent to be barred from taking part in the appeal if that was not done. The appellant's application in an appeal dated 13 April 2026 was dismissed, and costs were reserved. 12 The respondent's answer was lodged on 28 April 2026 in accordance with the orders of Vaughan JA made on 17 April 2026. On 30 April 2026, the Court of Appeal registrar provided the parties with settled appeal book indexes, and advised the parties that the Court of Appeal office would prepare the appeal books and provide them to the parties in due course. -- 6 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 7 Subsequent correspondence between the appellant and the Court of Appeal office 13 On 30 April 2026, the appellant sent an email to the Court of Appeal office raising concerns that the settled appeal book index failed to include relevant materials previously filed. The appellant asserted that omission or incomplete representation of such material would impair the integrity of the appellate record, give rise to procedural unfairness, and materially prejudice the appellant. 14 On each day from 4 - 8 May 2026 inclusive, the appellant forwarded the email dated 30 April 2026 to the Court of Appeal office. In those communications, he requested that the Court of Appeal registrar acknowledge the correspondence and 'exercise discretionary power according to law'. In an email dated 8 May 2026, the appellant characterised the absence of a response as evidence of 'a conscious pathway of acting in bad faith and a deliberate intent to prevent all due process of law'. He also alleged 'cultural racialized misfeasance or institutional racist misbehavior in office'. The appellant's assertions included that the registrar refused to engage with legitimate requests and that the circumstances demonstrated 'tainted integrity' of the court, 'affected impartiality' and 'questionable independence'. The Court of Appeal office advised the appellant that the Court of Appeal registrar was on leave and there was no pending application in the appeal. 15 On 10 May 2026, the appellant sought acknowledgment of his email and its attachments. An attached 'affidavit' stated that its purpose was to establish and demonstrate evidence of 'Fraud and deliberate Judicial Bad Faith', 'racial abuse, suppression and retaliation against a foreign national', 'concealment of local business lethal or harmful practices', among other claims. 16 On 11 May 2026, the appellant sent two further emails in which he reiterated his concerns and requested that the Court of Appeal registrar recuse herself. 17 On 11 May 2026, the acting Court of Appeal registrar wrote to the appellant, explaining that documents in the settled appeal book index were confined to exhibits before the arbitrator and other documents filed in the District Court appeal. The registrar gave the appellant leave to file and serve a supplementary appeal book containing any evidence before the arbitrator that was not included in the settled appeal book indexes but which the appellant considered to be relevant to the appeal, identifying the exhibit number or other reference to the evidence -- 7 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 8 received. The appellant was advised that any additional documents not before the arbitrator or District Court would need to be the subject of an application in an appeal to adduce additional evidence. 18 On 12 May 2026, the appellant sent additional emails and copied in various recipients including the Court of Appeal office, the Principal Registrar, members of the High Court, and other governmental and judicial offices. The appellant attached an affidavit addressed to the Court of Appeal registrars as well as the Chief Justice of Western Australia and the Chief Justice of Australia. The lengthy affidavit made a series of complaints as to how the appeal was being dealt with. There was also an affidavit directed to Gageler CJ in which the appellant alleged the existence of 'institutional and judicial inbreeding; systemic protectionism; entrenched collegial shielding; and a continuing conspiracy fraud'. He claimed 'alleged fraud, collusion, abuse of power, and human rights violations' and 'racism, discrimination, segregation, and intolerance affecting minority groups and migrant workers'. 19 On 13 May 2026, the appellant requested that the Court of Appeal office reimburse filing fees for applications lodged on two occasions, which he claimed were 'illegally and unreasonably' dismissed. 20 On 15 May 2026, the appellant sent another email containing similar claims to those in his previous communications. In the body of the email, the appellant addressed the correspondence to the Principal Registrar and heads of multiple jurisdictions. Review proceedings 21 On 12 May 2026, the appellant filed a review application in relation to the orders made by Vaughan JA on 17 April 2026. As this was outside the five-working-day period for making a review application, provided for in r 8(1) of the Rules, the appellant requires an extension of time in which to apply to set aside or vary Vaughan JA's decision. 22 On 15 May 2026, we made the following programming orders in the review proceedings: 1. Until 4 pm on 3 June 2026 or other order, the appellant must not communicate with a member of the Court of Appeal office, a Registrar or a member of the personal staff of a Registrar by email and all future contact with the Court must be by way of the eCourts portal. -- 8 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 9 2. By 4 pm on 22 May 2026, the appellant must file and serve: (a) An application in an appeal for an extension of the time provided in r 8(1) of the [Rules] for the filing and service of a review application under s 61(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) (review application). (b) Any application in an appeal for leave to adduce additional evidence in the review application. (c) An affidavit in support of the application referred to in paragraph (a). (d) An affidavit in support of any application referred to in paragraph (b), which annexes the proposed additional evidence on which the appellant seeks to rely in the review application. (e) Written submissions in support of the applications referred to in this order, and on whether order 1 of these orders should be continued, which must not exceed 5 pages in total length. 3. By 4 pm on 29 May 2026, the respondent: (a) May file any affidavits in opposition to the applications referred to in order 2. (b) Must file written submissions in opposition to the applications referred to in order 2, which must not exceed 5 pages in total length. 4. The time which each party has to make oral submissions at the hearing of the applications referred to in order 2, and the question of whether the operation of order 1 should be continued, is limited to 15 minutes each. 23 We also made an order in terms of order 1 of the above orders in the primary appeal proceedings. 24 The appellant has not filed an application for an extension of time to institute the review application as required by order 2(a) of the above orders. Nor has the appellant filed an application to adduce additional evidence in the review application as provided for by order 2(b) of the above orders. He has also not filed the written submissions required by order 2(e) of the above orders. -- 9 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 10 Adjournment application 25 At the commencement of the hearing on 3 June 2026, the appellant contended that the hearing should be vacated or limited to the question of what material is properly before the court. That application was supported by written submissions dated 29 May 2026, on which the appellant was given leave to rely at the commencement of the hearing. 26 The appellant's submissions are difficult to follow. In part, the appellant complains that the matters listed for determination cannot be dealt with until there is a determination of what material the court will rely upon at the hearing of the appeal. 27 We were not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to vacate or confine the scope of the hearing in the manner the appellant proposed. The question of whether Vaughan JA erred in granting the respondent an extension of time to file a respondent's answer is not affected by the identification of material to be placed before the court at the hearing of the appeal. As the appellant has not taken up the opportunity, provided for by our orders of 15 May 2026, to apply to adduce additional evidence in the review proceedings, the review application must be determined on the material before Vaughan JA when his Honour made the orders which the appellant seeks to impugn. The question of whether the orders restricting the manner of the appellant's communications with the court should be continued is not affected by identification of the material to be placed before the court at the final hearing of the primary appeal proceedings. 28 The appellant also complains that affidavits which he sought to file in the primary appeal proceedings have not been accepted for filing. We note that they were not accepted for filing because there was no rule or order providing for them to be filed. Apart from being lodged in the wrong proceedings, the affidavits were not properly characterised as being of a kind permitted by order 2(c) and 2(d) of the orders quoted at [22] above. 29 The court has sufficient evidentiary material before it to determine the questions identified in the registrar's notices to attend. The appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity to apply to adduce additional evidence in the review proceedings but has not taken up that opportunity. In these circumstances, the state of the evidentiary record did not provide a proper basis for vacating the hearing listed for 3 June 2026. -- 10 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 11 30 For these reasons, at the hearing on 3 June 2026, we dismissed the appellant's application to vacate or confine the scope of the hearing. Disposition of review application 31 The appellant's review application is made under s 61(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and pt 2 div 3 of the Rules. It is well established that such a review does not involve a hearing de novo. The review application is a rehearing and error on the part of the single judge of appeal must be shown. In the case of a discretionary decision, such as the decision to extend time in the present case, error of the kind explained in House v The King must be shown.2 Also, special restraint must be exercised when the impugned interlocutory order is one concerning practice and procedure.3 32 There is no merit in the review application. The decision of Vaughan JA to extend the time for the respondent to file a respondent's answer was plainly correct. 33 While the respondent had not filed a respondent's answer within the time required by the Rules, the delay was relatively brief. There is no evidence that it caused any particular prejudice to the appellant. The respondent's default was materially less serious than the appellant's prior non-compliance with the requirements to file an appellant's case. Vaughan JA's approach was one of equality of treatment of the parties to the litigation. It was entirely appropriate for the respondent to be given a further opportunity to file a respondent's answer. It would have been a clear error for his Honour to have immediately shut the respondent out of the appeal, much less to have allowed the appeal, based on the respondent's initial failure to file a respondent's answer within the time required by the Rules. 34 The appellant's grounds of the review application include an allegation that Vaughan JA failed to accord procedural fairness to the appellant. There is no merit to that allegation. Vaughan JA indicated his provisional view as to the appropriate orders, which reflected the orders which his Honour ultimately made, in an exchange with the respondent's counsel. The appellant was placed on notice as to the orders that were being contemplated and the reasons for making those orders. He was then given an opportunity to make oral submissions advocating against the proposed course. The appellant was not constrained in making those submissions. He did so briefly without 2 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504 - 505. 3 Traynor v Cunningham [No 2] [2017] WASCA 159 [41]; GXB v Tyson [No 3] [2025] WASCA 116 [2]. -- 11 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 12 interruption and concluded by indicating, 'That's all I have to say your Honour'. 35 There was no material before Vaughan JA capable of supporting the other orders sought by the appellant's application in an appeal, which was correctly dismissed. As we have noted, the appellant did not apply to adduce any additional evidence in the review application, so the review application will be determined on the material before Vaughan JA. 36 Nothing else in the grounds of the review application provides any basis for doubting the correctness of the orders made by Vaughan JA on 17 April 2026. 37 The appellant made oral submissions on why the review proceedings were instituted late, and when the time for making the review application commenced. He contended that he had not been properly informed as to how the orders made by Vaughan JA could be challenged. However, the five-working-day period provided in r 8(1) of the Rules runs from the date of the decision, rather than from when the applicant appreciates the manner of instituting the review. Order 2(a) of the orders of 15 May 2026, set out at [22] above, gave the appellant the opportunity to apply for an extension of time to commence the review application. The appellant did not take up that opportunity by filing an application in an appeal seeking an extension of time. 38 The appellant's review application must therefore be dismissed, both because it was filed out of time and there is no application for an extension of time, and because it is entirely without merit. Communication orders 39 Rule 43(2B) of the Rules provides for a single judge to make an order specifying the manner in which a person must communicate with various court officers in relation to an appeal. That rule provides for a mechanism for the court to protect its staff from inappropriate or abusive communications, and to prevent the limited resources of the court from being diverted to responding to a sustained volume of repetitive and unnecessary communications. On 15 May 2026, we made the order restricting the appellant's communications in the face of the appellant's repeated and prolix communications containing inappropriate demands, often expressed in abusive terms. The appellant complied with that order after it was made. -- 12 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 13 40 Having given the appellant the opportunity to be heard as to why the order should not continue, we are of the view that it should continue. The appellant submitted that the order was unnecessary, disproportionate and adversely affected his procedural rights in the appeal. However, the continuation of the order will not prevent the appellant from progressing the appeal to a hearing. The appellant's case and respondent's answer have now been filed, and the appeal book indexes settled. The Court of Appeal office will prepare the appeal books in accordance with the settled index. If the appellant considers that evidence before the arbitrator not included in the settled indexes should be put before this court, he has been given leave to file and serve a supplementary appeal book containing that material. He remains able to file documents, including any further applications in an appeal, through the eCourts portal. 41 In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to continue the order in the primary appeal proceedings restricting the appellant's communications with court officers. It is unnecessary to continue the order in the review proceedings, which were brought to a conclusion by the orders we made at the hearing on 3 June 2026. Orders 42 For the above reasons, we made the following orders at the hearing on 3 June 2026: CACV 35 of 2026 1. The appellant's application to vacate or confine the scope of the hearing on 3 June 2026 is dismissed. 2. The review application is dismissed. CACV 74 of 2025 1. The appellant's application to vacate or confine the scope of the hearing on 3 June 2026 is dismissed. 2. Until further order, the appellant must not communicate with a member of the Court of Appeal office, a registrar or a member of the personal staff of a registrar by email and all future contact with the court must be by way of the eCourts portal. 3. The costs of the hearing on 3 June 2026 are reserved. -- 13 of 14 -- [2026] WASCA 77 REASONS OF THE COURT Page 14 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. LK Associate to the Hon Justice Mitchell 5 JUNE 2026 -- 14 of 14 --