ZHI GANG DU In Person v CHANG MIN WANG [2026] SASCA 34

On Appeal from DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (HER HONOUR JUDGE THOMAS) CIV- 20-002586 Appellant: ZHI GANG DU In Person Respondent: CHANG MIN WANG Counsel: MR L GENTRY - Solicitor: BRIDGES LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 07/04/2026 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 [2026] SASCA 34 Ruling of the Honourable President Livesey (ex tempore) 7 April 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - OTHER MATTERS APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE This is an application seeking various orders, including for the production of various documents, before the hearing of an appeal against a decision of a District Court judge. The appellant seeks the discovery and production of numerous documents, including some which he claims were not produced in response to a 2021 court order and others concerning investigations which have been, or should be, undertaken by SAPOL and the Australian Taxation Office into an alleged fraud and robbery of company assets in 2020. The initial appeal notice contained eight appeal grounds. This was revised in December 2025 and now contains 19 appeal grounds, which are prolix and difficult to understand. Though the appellant was represented at trial, he is no longer legally represented. The application should be taken to have been made under r 212.5(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). At a callover on 6 February 2026, this matter was listed for hearing before this Court in September 2026. Held, dismissing the application with costs: 1. The appellant has not attempted to demonstrate how the documents sought are relevant to the grounds of appeal, nor how the rules relating to fresh or further evidence on appeal have been satisfied. -- 1 of 4 -- 2. The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs associated with the application and today’s hearing, which are fixed in the sum of $500. 3. The matter is adjourned for a further callover on 29 May 2026, in anticipation that the appellant can obtain legal representation, refine the grounds of appeal and determine whether there are any further documents which are truly required ahead of the appeal listed before this Court in September. Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA); District Court Act 1991 (SA); Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA); Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) rr 90.1, 212.5(1), referred to. Gassy v The King [2023] SASCA 90; Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130; Lauro v Minter Ellison (a firm) (No 2) [2025] SASCA 131; Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126, considered. -- 2 of 4 -- DU v WANG [2026] SASCA 34 Court of Appeal – Civil – Application LIVESEY P (ex tempore): Introduction 1 This is an application by which the appellant seeks various orders, including for the production of documents, before the hearing of an appeal against the decision of a District Court judge made on 23 October 2025.1 2 At the last callover on 6 February, I listed this appeal for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2026, with half a day allocated, and I made various timetabling orders. 3 The appeal is taken against a finding that the appellant repudiated a share sale agreement concerning a company set up to acquire and operate an abattoir and butchery in Port Lincoln. Almost immediately after the company was set up, the parties fell out. A settlement agreement was negotiated with the assistance of the parties’ local priest. That settlement was reflected in a document written in Chinese characters. 4 The essence of the agreement was that the appellant would pay the respondent $389,500 for his shares in the company. There was a dispute at trial as to the translation and proper meaning of the settlement document, which was resolved largely in favour of the respondent. 5 The appellant was represented at the trial, but he is no longer legally represented. The appellant’s grounds of appeal and application 6 The initial appeal notice filed on 13 November 2025 contained eight grounds of appeal. At that stage, the appellant was still legally represented. The revised appeal notice, filed on 19 December 2025, now contains 19 grounds and it is clear that the appellant is no longer legally represented, for the grounds are prolix and difficult to understand. They complain about the outcome without identifying any material errors of fact or law.2 7 The application contains a statement that it has been made under r 90.1 and Part 9 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), and under the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), the District Court Act 1991 (SA), the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), 1 Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126. 2 SJ Berry Pty Ltd v McEntee (2022) 142 SASR 31, [30]-[34] (Livesey P). -- 3 of 4 -- [2026] SASCA 34 Livesey P 2 the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA), the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA), the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 8 In fact, the application should be taken to have been made under r 212.5(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). 9 The application seeks, as I have said, the discovery and production of a large number of documents. These include documents which it is claimed were not produced in response to a court order made in September 2021, as well as documents concerning investigations which have been, or which should be, undertaken by SAPOL and the Australian Taxation Office concerning what is described as a fraud and a robbery of company assets in December 2020. In addition, the appellant seeks a video recording of a court hearing in November 2020, which is said to disclose the true basis for the sale of the shares. The disposition of the application 10 Although the appellant in his affidavit suggests that he has been permitted to obtain the documents the subject of the application, that is not correct. I have endeavoured this morning to explain to the appellant the rules relating to appeals and fresh or further evidence on appeal.3 He tells me that he is going to attempt to obtain legal representation this afternoon. 11 In my view, there are two essential problems with the application. The first is that, in neither the application, the supporting affidavit, nor the documents which I have seen today and marked “A”, has any attempt been made by the appellant to demonstrate how the documents sought are relevant to the grounds of appeal. 12 The second defect is that no attempt has been made to demonstrate how the rules relating to fresh or further evidence on appeal have been satisfied.4 13 I am going to maintain the present listing of the appeal, but adjourn the matter to a further callover on 29 May 2026, in the hope that the appellant will then be legally represented. Some attempt should be made to refine the present grounds of appeal and determine whether there are any documents which are truly required ahead of the hearing of this appeal in September. Conclusion 14 In the circumstances, the application must be dismissed. I will order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs associated with the application and today’s hearing, which I fix in the sum of $500. 3 Lauro v Minter Ellison (a firm) (No 2) [2025] SASCA 131, [26] (Livesey P and Bleby JA); Gassy v The King [2023] SASCA 90, [33]-[39] (Livesey P, David JA and Stein AJA). 4 Jamil v Medical Board of Australia [2025] SASCA 130, [79]-[80] (Livesey P, Bleby JA and Mitchell AJA). -- 4 of 4 --