DU v WANG (No 4) [2026] SASCA 89

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: 17/07/2026 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 4) [2026] SASCA 89 Ruling of the Honourable President Livesey (ex tempore) 17 July 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - OTHER MATTERS PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES - DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS This hearing was convened in order to address the progress of this matter before the appeal hearing listed before the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2026. Mr Du filed a fifth interlocutory application, seeking further discovery of documents from Mr Wang and a setting aside of all previous rulings dismissing his previous applications for discovery. Mr Du is not legally represented. Following argument, it is sufficient to identify two aspects of Mr Du’s application. First, Mr Du wants this application addressed by the Court of Appeal at the appeal hearing in September. Second, insofar as Mr Du seeks a setting aside of all previous rulings, what he actually seeks is the further documents which are mentioned in his application. Mr Du says he is content to press his application for further documents at the hearing of the appeal and does not seek a setting aside of all previous rulings. Mr Du addressed his written submissions for the appeal hearing. He agreed that he is now pursuing the six grounds of appeal which are set out in those submissions, with the addition of a seventh ground which concerns a financial document that he cannot date and is not in his possession, but which he says contains his signature which was applied fraudulently. Mr Du attempted to explain the relevance of some of the documents he seeks by reference to a written submission dated 17 July 2026, entitled “Special Written Submission Evidence Relevance”. Held, adjourning the hearing of the interlocutory application and otherwise making no order: -- 1 of 5 -- 1. The hearing of the interlocutory application, together with the “Special Written Submission on Evidence Relevance”, is adjourned to the hearing of the appeal before the Court of Appeal in September. 2. Costs are in the cause. -- 2 of 5 -- DU v WANG (No 4) [2026] SASCA 89 Court of Appeal – Civil – Application LIVESEY P (ex tempore): Introduction 1 This hearing was convened in order to address the progress of this matter towards the hearing of the appeal listed before the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2026. 2 The appellant is not legally represented. It has been necessary to oversee the filing of the appellant’s materials and appeal book. There has been some difficulty with the filing of the appeal book, and a number of documents were questioned by the Registry. 3 Those documents have been removed from the appeal book and have today been handed up to the Court. I have marked these documents “A” and have dated and initialled them. Whether and to what extent they are relied upon by Mr Du at the appeal hearing remains to be seen. The appellant’s written submissions and grounds of appeal 4 Mr Du addressed his written submissions for the appeal hearing, which are dated 10 July 2026. He agreed that he is now pursuing the six grounds of appeal which are set out in those submissions, with the exception of a seventh ground which concerns a financial document that he cannot date and is not in his possession, but which he says contains his signature which was applied fraudulently. 5 Mr Du said he would locate that document and provide it to my chambers and to Mr Gentry. 6 To be clear, the appeal grounds are as follows:1 1. The Share Transfer Agreement was materially unfair and the primary judge failed to find the respondent’s prior or concurrent substantial breach. 2. Before the contractual payment deadline, the respondent pressured the appellant to transfer his 50 per cent shareholding. 3. Important evidence, including the signing audio, a second Chinese translation, the MFI list and witness list, was not properly available or was not properly admitted. 4. Systemic procedural unfairness affected the trial and the interlocutory appeal process. 1 Written submissions of the appellant dated 10 July 2026 (FDN 33). -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] SASCA 89 Livesey P 2 5. The primary judge failed to address the appellant’s case concerning the interference with company assets, records, systems, wages, bank accounts, plant, stock and liquidation process. 6. The appellant’s reciprocal share-transfer proposal at the hearing on 27 November 2020 was refused, which the appellant says shows that the respondent did not seek a fair reciprocal transaction. 7. A financial document produced by an accountant fraudulently applied the appellant’s signature.2 7 Mr Du confirmed that these seven grounds will be addressed on his appeal, and that there are no others.3 The fifth interlocutory application 8 I have heard submissions today about Mr Du’s interlocutory application, which was handed up. It appears to have been rejected for filing by the Registry. 9 It is a very detailed application and, for present purposes, it is sufficient to identify two aspects of it following argument. 10 The first is that Mr Du wants this application addressed by the Court of Appeal at the appeal hearing in September. Although the application says that it is to be determined at the same time as Mr Du’s application for default judgment in a different action involving Mr Wang, he has reconsidered that. 11 The second aspect is that insofar as he seeks a setting aside of all of my previous rulings, what he actually seeks is the further documents which are mentioned in his application. Mr Du says he is content to press his application for those documents at the hearing of the appeal. He does not seek a setting aside of all previous rulings. Relevance of documents sought by the appellant 12 Today, we have had another discussion about the nature of an appeal, and I have questioned Mr Du about some of the documents that he seeks. Mr Du attempted to explain the relevance of those documents by reference to a written submission dated 17 July 2026, entitled “Special Written Submission Evidence Relevance”. 13 Mr Du explained that he has prepared his documents, including his written submissions, with the assistance of what he described through the interpreter as a Chinese version of ChatGPT. 2 Transcript, Zhi Gang Du v Chang Min Wang (Court of Appeal, CIV-25-013606, Livesey P, 17 July 2026) 6.7-6.37. 3 There is some variation between these grounds and the grounds in the notice of appeal. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] SASCA 89 Livesey P 3 14 As I understand Mr Du, this document explains the relevance of the documents which are set out in the interlocutory application that was not accepted for filing by the Registry. 15 I explained to Mr Du that I have difficulty understanding the submission or how these documents are relevant to an appeal against orders which require the payment of damages following his repudiation of the May 2020 share sale agreement. For example, I asked Mr Du about the relevance of the creditors’ vote which occurred on 7 June 2021, given that the events the subject of the District Court decision being appealed against concern the repudiated share sale agreement dated 27 May 2020, and these events all appear to have occurred in 2020. 16 Mr Du attempted to explain the relevance of the creditors’ vote by reference to his contention that the share sale agreement was fraudulent. I apologised to Mr Du and said that I did not understand his explanation, but he will have another opportunity to give that explanation before the Court of Appeal in September. 17 Mr Du also said that the effect of the creditors’ vote was to reduce the value of his shareholding to $1 and he is critical of that. As I say, I have some difficulty at the moment in understanding how that relates to the repudiation of the May 2020 share sale agreement. 18 Finally, I advised the parties about the likely composition of the coram for the appeal hearing, being me, S Doyle JA and Vaughan AJA. The parties have both indicated that there is no objection to any of those judges sitting on that coram. Mr Du gave me a ‘thumbs-up’ with both hands when he was asked about that. Conclusion 19 I propose to make no further ruling or order but simply adjourn the hearing of the interlocutory application, together with the “Special Written Submission On Evidence Relevance”, to the hearing of the appeal before the Court of Appeal in September. 20 I will vacate the next callover. I will make no order for the costs of today’s hearing. Costs will be in the cause. -- 5 of 5 --