[2026] SADC 11

On Review from MAGISTRATES COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (MAGISTRATE BARNETT) CIV- 24-005783 Appellant: ADELAIDE COMPTON PTY LTD : MS S LIM First Respondent: TRANSWORLD IMPORTS PTY LTD : MR A BENSIMON Second Respondent: LASER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD : MR A BENSIMON Interested Party: COMMUNITY CORPORATION NO. 21510 INC : MR J BOSHOFF Hearing Date/s: 04/12/2025 File No/s: CIV-25-011469 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil: Minor Civil Review) 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. ADELAIDE COMPTON PTY LTD v TRANSWORLD IMPORTS PTY LTD & ORS [2026] SADC 11 Judgment of her Honour Judge Deuter 24 February 2026 MAGISTRATES -APPEAL AND REVIEW - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Application for minor civil review of an order by a Magistrate that proceedings be stayed, due to the lack of progress by the applicant. Applicant sought a review of the Order for a Stay. Held: 1. The Order for a Stay is affirmed, and remains in place. 2. Action remitted to the Magistrates Court. -- 1 of 10 -- -- 2 of 10 -- ADELAIDE COMPTON PTY LTD v TRANSWORLD IMPORTS PTY LTD & ORS [2026] SADC 11 Introduction 1 This is a minor civil review pursuant to s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) (Magistrates Court Act). The review is of a decision made by Magistrate Barnett on 5 September 2025 to stay the proceedings in CIV-24-005783. He provided liberty to the parties to apply to lift the stay, or to bring any further Interlocutory Application in accordance with his reasons. 2 The proceedings in CIV-24-005783 arise out of ongoing litigation between the parties in the Magistrates Court. The applicant in the proceedings, Adelaide Compton Pty Ltd (Adelaide Compton), is the owner of a unit on Lot 13 within a strata community, being Community Corporation No. 21501 Inc. situated at 29-31 Compton Street, Adelaide (the Community Corporation). The strata community consists of a 5-storey apartment building and a L-shaped laneway. The laneway provides access to neighbouring properties, and the applicant claims that the neighbouring properties have a right of way over the laneway. 3 The applicant agrees that the laneway is common property, but argues that it was designated for landscaping, and was subject to easements benefiting the neighbouring properties. As a result, it asserted a cause of action in trespass was available. 4 The applicant commenced proceedings on 24 June 2024, seeking a mandatory injunction for the removal of a structure on the right of way used by the first and second respondents, Transworld Imports Pty Ltd, (Transworld) and Laser Investments Pty Ltd (Laser Investments). The applicant claimed that Transworld and Laser Investments were trespassing by using the structure on the laneway. 5 The applicant sought legal clarity in relation to the right of way by commencing proceedings in the Magistrates Court. Transworld and Laser Investments sought an order that the action be transferred to the General Division of the Magistrates Court. On 1 October 2024 this issue was considered by Magistrate Barnett. It was determined that the claim was correctly brought in the Minor Civil division as it concerned a neighbourhood dispute, involving a community title.1 Magistrate Barnett also determined that the proceedings were not ‘substantial or complex’,2 nor ‘so factually or legally complex as to make the Minor Civil procedure inapt to deal with it’.3 1 Adelaide Compton Pty Ltd v Transworld Imports Pty Ltd [2024] SAMC 131 at [5]-[7]. 2 Ibid at [8]-[10]. 3 Ibid at [11]. -- 3 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 2 6 He later found that the Minor Civil jurisdiction was the correct jurisdiction, not because the amount claimed was less than $12,000, but ‘because it was a neighbourhood dispute involving a claim in trespass’.4 7 There were 13 interlocutory hearings in the Magistrates Court before the hearing of 5 September 2025. Some of those hearings did not proceed. However, Magistrate Barnett noted that despite numerous orders, not all Community Corporation members were appraised of the applicant’s proceedings. His Honour had concerns that their views in relation to the structure on the laneway had not been sought. 8 As a result, the applicant sought to adjourn the hearing listed on 5 September 2025. Submissions were made that the Community Corporation was causing unjustified distractions in the dispute, and the applicant therefore wanted to obtain further orders for discovery, and leave to issue subpoenas. 9 The self-appointed representative of the Community Corporation submitted that they would abide by any order. Mr Bensimon for Transworld and Laser Investments submitted to Magistrate Barnett that if the matter was adjourned then the hearing should be relisted at the Court’s earliest convenience. It was put that there was no evidence put forward by the applicant, supporting their application, and there was now unnecessary delay. 10 After consideration, Magistrate Barnett ordered that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate to stay the action. The stay was to remain until the views of all Community Corporation members were known. His Honour provided written reasons for his decision. Adelaide Compton now seeks a review of that decision pursuant to s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act. The Magistrate’s Decision 11 It is important to provide some context in relation to Magistrate Barnett’s decision which led to the stay of the proceedings. 12 In earlier hearings, Magistrate Barnett was asked by the applicant to disjoin the Community Corporation from the proceedings. Ms Lim, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that they did not consider that the Community Corporation should continue to be allowed to intervene. Magistrate Barnett declined to make that order. It was his Honour’s view that as the applicant was seeking a mandatory injunction for the removal of a structure, all members of the Community Corporation should be notified of the proceedings. Magistrate Barnett noted that he had, on numerous occasions, expressed the view that the other unit holders should be asked their opinion, given that any orders made in relation to the lane would impact the shared, common property. The applicant did not take up the 4 Adelaide Compton Pty Ltd v Transworld Impots Pty Ltd [2025] SAMC 10 at [16]. -- 4 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 3 Court’s invitation to advise all Community Corporation members of the proceedings. 13 In his reasons of 5 September 2025 Magistrate Barnett set out that: When the matter was last before the Court on 8 August 2025, the Court observed that the Applicant had previously indicated that she does not want the Community Corporation to continue to intervene in these proceedings. I was minded to disjoin the Community Corporation but declined to do so at that stage because the views of the other unit holders, to the extent that they might wish to be heard in relation to the request for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the alleged structure, are not presently before the Court.5 14 Magistrate Barnett confirmed that, before granting the relief sought by the applicant the Court, when conducting a minor civil hearing, would want to hear from other impacted Community Corporation members. 15 At the hearing on 5 September 2025 Ms Lim, for the applicant advised that they had been impeded by the Community Corporation in obtaining details of all its members. They were not ready to proceed, or to have the hearing relisted. Ms Lim also sought more time to bring further interlocutory applications. 16 In considering the application Magistrate Barnett noted that: The evidence before the Court is that a majority in number of those members voting at the Special General Meeting to consider the competing lease proposals put forward by the Transworld/Laser interests and the Applicant, supported a lease of the disputed property being given to Transworld and did not support a corresponding proposal by the Applicant.6 17 The applicant, through Ms Lim, confirmed when asked, that the general members of the Community Corporation were still unaware of the Court proceedings. 18 Ms Lim then submitted that the applicant was not ready to have the hearing relisted. On behalf of the applicant she sought an extension of time to consider whether to bring any further applications. Magistrate Barnett was of the view that this was not appropriate, and rather it was inefficient conduct of litigation that had proceeded over several hearings. After hearing all submissions, Magistrate Barnett found the most appropriate order was to stay the proceedings. He outlined that the applicant could apply to lift the stay: 1. After the other members of the Community Corporation have been joined either as interested parties or, at their election and upon their application, as Applicants or Respondents; and 5 Adelaide Compton Pty Ltd v Transworld Imports Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] SAMC 154 at [5]. 6 Ibid at [11]. -- 5 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 4 2. The Applicant advises that it is ready to proceed with the hearing, including by having filed and served any further evidence and/or submissions, and by having filed and served any further Interlocutory Applications.7 19 Magistrate Barnett went on to state that should the above events occur (paras 1 & 2 above) then his Honour would consider either revoking or varying the order in relation to dispensation, and/or exercise the discretion afresh in relation to the action continuing in the Court’s General Division. This may occur on the application of one of the respondents or of the Court’s own motion pursuant to s 10B of the Magistrates Court Act. The Minor Civil Review 20 The review was conducted pursuant to ss 38(6) and 38(7) of the Magistrates Court Act. The review is an inquiry into the matter and the decision made by the Magistrate, rather than being an adversarial contest between the parties.8 21 Once I have considered all material and heard submissions, I can affirm the decision of Magistrate Barnett or rescind it and substitute a judgment that I consider appropriate.9 I could also re-hear evidence taken before the Magistrates Court.10 22 I conducted a directions hearing on 19 November 2025, explaining to the parties the way in which I would conduct the minor civil review hearing. Ms Lim indicated the matters she wished to challenge. These included previous hearings and orders made in the Magistrates Court, not only those related to the hearing of 5 September 2025. I indicated to the applicant that they were out of time to challenge these orders without good reason for the delay. I also made it clear that, by her application, the minor civil review was only a review of the decision made on 5 September 2025 and not a review of the entire matter, or previous court orders. As a result, any other decision made in the proceedings, while relevant, was not to be reviewed. I would take into account the previous decisions as background information, and in considering issues of delay. 23 I allowed the parties to file written submissions outlining their positions. The minor civil review was conducted on 4 December 2025. I used a hybrid process. Before commencing the review hearing, I had Ms Lim for Adelaide Compton and Mr Bensimon for Transworld and Laser Investments formally sworn in. I explained that I did so to enable factual evidence given at the bar table to be accepted as evidence. Both parties were self-represented litigants and therefore it was important to proceed in this way. My experience is that self-represented litigants often present new evidence by way of their submissions. 7 Ibid at [15]. 8 Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 38 (1)(a). 9 Ibid s 38 (7)(d)(i)-(iii). 10 Ibid s 38 (7)(c). -- 6 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 5 24 I have considered all the evidence before me in this review together with all the evidence and the transcript from the Magistrates Court proceedings. I have also considered previous court orders and hearings, where the parties made reference to them. I advised the parties several times that the only decision I was to consider in the review was whether the order for a stay made by Magistrate Barnett should be confirmed or rescinded, and on what terms. The Submissions before this Court 25 The applicant’s submissions were clouded by Ms Lim’s inability to separate all the past decisions and judgments made in the various proceedings and hearings in relation to the laneway. I made it very clear to Ms Lim that I was not considering any other decision made in the matter other than the order for a stay, and whether it should be confirmed or rescinded. Despite this, multiple irrelevant submissions were made. 26 The applicant by Ms Lim acknowledged that they had sought an adjournment of the hearing in the Magistrates Court on 5 September 2025.11 Ms Lim made submissions regarding the applicant’s position, including what she regarded as prejudice, procedural unfairness and jurisdictional error. It was not made clear how these issues related to the order for a stay of the proceedings. In addition, none of the issues raised related to the review. Ms Lim appeared to be seeking a full appeal of the Magistrates Court proceedings. When asked what the jurisdictional error was, and how it related to the issues before this Court, Ms Lim was unable to provide an answer. 27 The submissions made by the applicant were also clouded by Ms Lim's significant reliance upon Artificial Intelligence (AI), and in particular reliance upon case law that she confirmed she had not read. As a result, many of the matters asserted by the applicant did not address the issues to be considered on review. I made it clear to the applicant on several occasions during the hearing that the reviewable issue was whether the order for a stay should have been made, and if not, whether it should be rescinded. The purpose of an earlier directions hearing I had listed before the review, was to make it clear to the parties that their submissions needed to be made in relation to challenging the order for a stay, or in defending the order. Despite this, the applicant’s submissions did not deal with the core issues, as they sought to open new issues. 28 Transworld and Laser Investments, represented by a shareholder, Mr Bensimon, submitted that Magistrate Barnett was not in error in ordering the stay. It was submitted that the legal proceedings in relation to the laneway had been on foot for several years, with multiple interlocutory applications filed and argued. Mr Boshoff, for the interested party, submitted that they would abide by any orders made by this Court. He submitted, however, that the interested party took no issue with Magistrate Barnett’s decision. Mr Boshoff also explained that the reason for the respondents needing legal representation was because of the 11 T9. -- 7 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 6 continuous allegations of blame against them; the delay in concluding the proceedings; the spreading of misinformation by the applicant; and her unprofessional conduct and engagement. 29 I have considered all submissions made by the parties, both orally and in written form, to determine this review. The reliance upon AI 30 Before determining this review, it is important to make some comments regarding the use of AI in the applicant’s written submissions, and repeated in court. The use of AI as the basis of submissions is now occurring within court proceedings, particularly by self-represented litigants. Text is generated upon prompts entered by litigants. The program generates information based on the prompts, and moulds an answer that best serves the user’s needs. Whilst the development of AI can, and will, assist parties, both unrepresented and represented, in preparing submissions, and thereby increase access to justice, caution is required. Unfortunately, AI can also provide information that steers the user in the wrong direction. I have had regard to the South Australian Guidelines for Generative Artificial Intelligence in litigation in South Australian Courts (AI Guidelines). 31 I make it clear that in referencing the use of AI, I am not trying to suggest criticism of self-represented litigants who use AI to assist their written and oral submissions for a Court hearing. However, the complexities and dangers that are associated with the use of AI must be taken into account. Fundamentally, self-represented litigants must take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the material they file and use in court proceedings. This includes the information’s limitations and relevancy. If proceedings are conducted in a vexatious or oppressive way, the use of the AI is not an excuse, or explanation for such conduct. 32 The AI Guidelines state that: It is inappropriate to present to a Court or to an opponent a legal document containing substantive content generated by Gen AI unless the lawyer or self-represented litigant has taken steps to satisfy themselves that it is reliable and accurate.12 33 The guidelines also note that: The results of a task given to Gen AI cannot simply be adopted… [rather a litigant] must take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that it is appropriate to use those results, and by doing so takes responsibility for them.13 34 In this matter I had concerns with Ms Lim’s submissions, and as acknowledged by her, the significant use of and reliance on AI. Her submissions 12 AI Guidelines [26]. 13 Ibid [29]. -- 8 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 7 did not address the issues in dispute, and particularly why the order for a stay should be rescinded. 35 When I asked Ms Lim if she had read the cases that she had quoted and was relying on, her response was that she had “glanced” over them.14 High Court decisions, Craig v South Australia (Craig)15 and Minister for Immigration v Wu Shan Liang (Liang)16 were referenced in her submissions. 36 I have reviewed these decisions and neither is of any assistance in determining this minor civil review. The decision of Craig concerned an earlier decision of Judge Russell in the District Court ordering a stay of a criminal prosecution when the defendant could not obtain legal representation. The order for a stay was quashed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court. An order was made in the nature of certiorari. This order was appealed to the High Court on the limited question of jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record. 37 In determining if there was jurisdictional error the High Court noted that: Jurisdictional error is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers.17 The Court went on to state: …the ordinary jurisdiction of a court of law encompasses authority to decide questions of law, as well as questions of fact, involved in matters which it has jurisdiction to determine. The identification of relevant issues, the formulation of relevant questions and the determination of what is and what is not relevant evidence are all routine steps in the discharge of that ordinary jurisdiction. Demonstrable mistake in the identification of such issues or the formulation of such questions will commonly involve error of law which may, if an appeal is available and is pursued, be corrected by an appellate court. …Such a mistake on the part of an inferior court entrusted with authority to identify, formulate and determine such issues and questions will not, however, ordinarily constitute jurisdictional error.18 38 The decision of Craig does not assist the applicant. There was no jurisdictional error in the learned Magistrate determining that the proceedings be stayed, and making an order in those terms. It was not a jurisdictional error. It was within Magistrate Barnett’s power to take that step in a civil proceeding, if he concluded that it was the correct order to be made. 39 When asked, Ms Lim could not provide to the court the basis for her submission that the order for a stay was a jurisdictional error. I am satisfied that she did not know what that term meant. 14 T.29.31. 15 (1995) 184 CLR 163. 16 (1996) 185 CLR 259. 17 Craig at 177. 18 Ibid at 179-180. -- 9 of 10 -- [2026] SADC 11 8 40 The decision of Liang similarly does not assist the applicant. This was also a High Court decision. It considered the principles applicable upon judicial review of administrative decisions identifying, or not, refugee status of an applicant. It is not necessary for me to set out the facts of that decision, but it clearly involved a review of an administrative decision, and not a review of a court decision. Very different principles apply in administrative reviews. 41 It is not unexpected that self-represented litigants will use AI to assist them in conducting legal proceedings, including review processes, when they have no legal background. However, in this matter the applicant made submissions based upon case law that was not relevant, and that she did not understand. During the review hearing the applicant continuously described Magistrate Barnett’s findings as being jurisdictional error. However, she could not, and did not, explain what that error was, except to explain that it was an answer provided by AI. As a result of the applicant’s approach to the review, she failed to address the issue in dispute, namely whether the stay should be lifted or remain in place. She did not set out why the stay order should be rescinded, and provided no reason why Magistrate Barnett should not have made the stay order. Conclusion 42 Although the definition of ‘judgment’ in s 3 of the Magistrates Court Act includes an order or decision, the applicant’s application should not have been before the District Court. The Magistrate gave liberty to all parties to apply to lift the stay and bring any further Interlocutory Application as required. In addition, Magistrate Barnett made two orders regarding action the applicant could take to continue the proceedings, and have the stay lifted. 43 The applicant instead took issue with the Magistrate’s decision to stay the action and commenced a review process. This was misguided as Magistrate Barnett did not close off the opportunity for the applicant to apply to lift the stay. The difficulty in this review is that the applicant did not address the issue of why the order for a stay of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court should not have been made. 44 The applicant, by her submissions, made it clear that she did not understand the purpose of the order for a stay. Her grounds of appeal and submissions were unrelated to Magistrate Barnett’s decision. As a result there was no proper basis to review Magistrate Barnett’s decision in law or in fact, and no reasonable basis to demonstrate that his decision was wrong. Magistrate Barnett criticised the applicant’s approach to the litigation describing it as ‘dilatory and inefficient conduct of the litigation’.19 45 In all the circumstances, I affirm the decision and orders of Magistrate Barnett and remit the matter back to the Magistrates Court. 19 Adelaide Compton Pty Ltd v Transworld Imports Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] SAMC 154 at [14]. -- 10 of 10 --