ZHIGANG DU In Person v CHANG MIN WANG [2026] SASCA 94

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: 06/08/2026 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 5) [2026] SASCA 94 Decision of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey (ex tempore) 6 August 2026 APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - OTHER MATTERS COURTS AND JUDGES - JUDGES - DISQUALIFICATION FOR INTEREST OR BIAS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PREJUDGMENT This is the second disqualification application made by Mr Du. The earlier one was the subject of reasons delivered on 29 May 2026. Mr Du is not legally represented and requires the assistance of a Chinese interpreter. His present application is said to be based on the conduct of the callover hearing on 17 July 2026. There are two misunderstandings associated with this application. The first is the proposition that the Court summarily ruled that an audio recording of the first creditor’s meeting on 7 June 2021 was irrelevant to Mr Du’s "counterclaim". Secondly, Mr Du has now clarified that he wishes to address the dismissal of his "counterclaim" at the hearing of his appeal. This has not previously been mentioned. On 17 July 2026, no ruling was made of the kind alleged by Mr Du as recorded in the transcript or the orders of this Court. Mr Du said his misunderstanding was caused by his reading of a transcript which he had prepared with the use of software on his mobile phone which recorded the events in court. This was done without permission, contrary to r 15.5(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). When what actually happened on 17 July 2026 was explained, Mr Du apologised and withdrew his application for disqualification. Mr Wang then made an application for costs, after which Mr Du became agitated and announced that he wished to revive his disqualification application. Mr Du handed up a one-page submission which said the Court had repeatedly dismissed key material evidence at the hearing on 17 July 2026 on the sole ground of irrelevance to his counterclaim, without full substantive consideration. -- 1 of 8 -- Held, dismissing the disqualification application: 1. Mr Du will challenge the dismissal of his counterclaim at the appeal hearing in September 2026, though he will need to address the fact that his counsel abandoned it at the trial. 2. The disqualification application, insofar as it is based on what occurred on 17 July 2027, suffers from the misunderstanding about which Mr Du apologised. There was no ruling on the relevance of documents and, with his agreement, his application has been referred to the Court of Appeal hearing in September 2026. 3. A judge must not too readily accede to applications to recuse or disqualify on the grounds of apprehended bias. An applicant must do more than point to decisions adverse to the applicant, especially where those decisions do not involve any prejudgment of the issues arising in connection with the matters yet to be decided by the Court. 4. Mr Du must pay Mr Wang’s costs of today’s hearing, fixed in the amount of $500. Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 15.5(1), referred to. Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73; Du v Wang (No 4) [2026] SASCA 89; Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126, considered. -- 2 of 8 -- DU v WANG (No 5) [2026] SASCA 94 Court of Appeal – Civil – Application LIVESEY ACJ (ex tempore): Introduction 1 This is an application by Mr Du dated 28 July 2026, seeking an order that I not continue to sit in this matter. This is the second application of that kind. The earlier one was the subject of my reasons delivered on 29 May 2026.1 2 Mr Du’s present application is said to be based on my conduct of the callover hearing on 17 July 2026. 3 Mr Du is not legally represented and requires the assistance of a Chinese interpreter. The misunderstandings arising from the previous hearing 4 There are two misunderstandings associated with this application. The first concerns Mr Du’s understanding of what occurred at the hearing on 17 July 2026, and the second concerns the scope of Mr Du’s appeal. I will deal with these in turn. 5 Mr Du’s application seeking my disqualification is based on the proposition that I summarily ruled that the audio recording of the first creditor’s meeting on 7 June 2021 was irrelevant to his counterclaim, and I made that ruling before Mr Du had completed his submissions on the probative value and relevance of that evidence. 6 I will return to that in a moment, because that is the first misunderstanding. 7 The second misunderstanding concerns Mr Du’s reference to a “counterclaim” in his latest application. Mr Du has not previously referred to a “counterclaim” and, as Mr Gentry for Mr Wang submitted this morning, there is some uncertainty about what is intended by that term. Mr Wang was under the impression that Mr Du may have been referring to his appeal or possibly to an unrelated proceeding in which Mr Wang is seeking possession of property owned by Mr Du. 8 In fact, Mr Du was referring to the counterclaim which was before the primary judge, and which was withdrawn by his previous lawyers at the trial. It 1 Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73. -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 94 Livesey ACJ 2 seems to have been dismissed. The withdrawal of that part of Mr Du’s case was explained by the primary judge in Wang v Du.2 The latest application for disqualification – withdrawn 9 Mr Du supported his current application for disqualification with an affidavit made on 28 July 2026. Mr Du initially said that the present application is based entirely on new conduct occurring at the hearing on 17 July 2026.3 10 Mr Du said in that affidavit that he attended the hearing of what he described as “the consolidated proceedings”, and that he sought to tender and rely on the complete audio recording of the first creditor’s meeting of AFD Foods Pty Ltd, held on 7 June 2021.4 Mr Du said that he began making oral submissions to explain the relevance of the audio recording to his counterclaim but, before he completed his submissions, I interrupted and ruled that the recording was irrelevant to his counterclaim.5 11 There are three things to be said about that statement: 1. First, the hearing on 17 July 2026 did not concern any “consolidated proceedings”; 2. Second, Mr Du did not ever apply to tender the complete audio recording of the first creditor’s meeting of AFD Foods Pty Ltd on 7 June 2021; and 3. Third, it culminates in the assertion that there was a ruling made by me about that application and Mr Du’s counterclaim. I made no ruling of that kind, in part because I did not know about any counterclaim. 12 Exhibit A to Mr Du’s affidavit contained what purported to be a transcript excerpt of the hearing on 17 July 2026. Underneath the timestamp 00:12:59 appears the following words:6 HIS HONOUR: (interrupting) I have heard enough. I am not satisfied that there is any demonstrated relevance between the June 2021 creditor’s meeting recording and the pleaded issues in this counterclaim. The recording is irrelevant to the matters before me. 13 Now, when one looks at the transcript prepared by court staff of the hearing on 17 July 2026, those words do not appear in it. 14 The court transcript includes a discussion about the relevance of events at the time of the first creditor’s meeting. However, as recorded in the transcript or the orders of this Court, there was no ruling made by me of the kind asserted by Mr Du. 2 Wang v Du [2025] SADC 126, [10]-[12] (Thomas DCJ). 3 Affidavit of Zhigang Du sworn 28 July 2026, [3]. 4 Affidavit of Zhigang Du sworn 28 July 2026, [4]. 5 Affidavit of Zhigang Du sworn 28 July 2026, [6]. 6 Exhibit A to the affidavit of Zhigang Du sworn 28 July 2026. -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 94 Livesey ACJ 3 What occurred is that Mr Du explained that his case about the 7 June 2021 creditor’s meeting was that it was affected by collusion and fraud. 15 The transcript records my questions of Mr Du about how those allegations related to his appeal against the orders made by the primary judge concerning the share sale agreement. For example, in response to my question to Mr Du about what was the relevance of this material (including the bundle marked “A”), and that I did not understand exactly what documents he sought or on what basis he sought them, Mr Du said that all of his documents had been submitted on “this very issue”. 16 Mr Du explained that “the issue” was the fraudulent conduct of Mr Wang, and in response to my question about whether it was convenient if his application seeking those documents was referred to the appeal hearing, Mr Du said that was convenient. I then explained to Mr Du that he would have another chance to explain the relevance of those documents at the hearing before the Court of Appeal in September 2026. 17 What became clear this morning is that Mr Du was using a transcript which has been prepared with the use of software on his mobile phone as the result of a recording he made of the events in court. 18 Mr Du said that he had been recording previous hearings using his mobile phone. Mr Du said that this was to assist him with translation. Mr Du apologised and said that he did not realise that he was not permitted to make a recording of what occurred in the courtroom. 19 I explained to Mr Du that, unless the Court otherwise orders, the making of a record in court is not permitted.7 I asked Mr Du to switch off his mobile telephones and he did so. Mr Du apologised again and said that he had not understood that he was not permitted to make a recording of the events in court. 20 After what actually occurred in court on 17 July 2026 was explained to Mr Du, with the benefit of the court transcript, he said that there had been a misunderstanding and he apologised for that. He said that the misunderstanding was caused by the transcript he prepared from the application he was using on his mobile phone. 21 I asked Mr Du whether he wished to press his application for disqualification or whether he wished to withdraw it. Mr Du asked what I wanted him to do, and I told Mr Du that it was a matter entirely for him as to what he did with his application. 22 Mr Du said that he wanted to withdraw the application and asked whether it was necessary for him to go to the Registry to do so. I explained to Mr Du that 7 Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), r 15.5(1): “Unless the Court otherwise orders …, the making in a court of a record of persons, things or events is not permitted”. -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 94 Livesey ACJ 4 that would not be necessary and that I would make a note and explain the withdrawal in my remarks this morning. The counterclaim is part of the appeal 23 It is now necessary to address what I have described as the second misunderstanding, regarding the scope of the appeal and the counterclaim that Mr Du wishes to press. Mr Du confirmed this morning that he wishes to press the seven appeal grounds outlined in my reasons dated 17 July 2026.8 24 Mr Du seemed to accept that the word “counterclaim” had not previously appeared in the documents that he had put before the Court. 25 Mr Du said the counterclaim to which he has referred in his application dated 28 July 2026, is the means by which he wishes to make a claim for damages against Mr Wang. Mr Du said that this counterclaim is relevant to appeal grounds 4, 5 and 7 of the seven appeal grounds outlined in my earlier reasons. So, and by way of example, most of Mr Du’s allegations about fraud and forgery are generally relevant to his counterclaim. 26 As I understand Mr Du’s argument, he maintains that the counterclaim should not have been withdrawn or dismissed and the primary judge should have ruled on it. 27 Mr Du having now explained his intention regarding the counterclaim, and the ways in which his appeal grounds relate to it, Mr Wang does not oppose Mr Du pursuing his appeal in that way. 28 Because Mr Du is not legally represented, I have explained to Mr Du, as best I can, some of the issues that may arise in connection with his desire to press his appeal concerning the withdrawal or dismissal of the counterclaim. Insofar as Mr Du’s appeal is now concerned not only with opposing the orders made by the primary judge concerning the share sale agreement, but also concerning the counterclaim, I have explained to Mr Du that the primary judge recorded that Mr Du’s counsel abandoned the counterclaim at the trial. Mr Du says that occurred without and contrary to his instructions. 29 I have explained to Mr Du that unless there is evidence from his former lawyers, he may find it difficult if the only person attesting to that is Mr Du. I have explained to Mr Du that there may be issues regarding legal professional privilege and the waiver of that privilege, depending on the course he wishes to take regarding the counterclaim. 8 Du v Wang (No 4) [2026] SASCA 89, [6] (Livesey P). -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 94 Livesey ACJ 5 The application for costs – the disqualification application is revived 30 At what was expected to be the conclusion to this morning’s hearing, Mr Gentry made an application for costs in the amount of $500. 31 In the course of me asking Mr Du about that application for costs, Mr Du became agitated. Before he responded to my question, I asked whether he had any submission on the alternative course of reserving the question of costs. Mr Du continued to be agitated and then announced that he wished to revive the application for disqualification. Mr Du handed up a one-page submission, in English, in which he said that he relied on his written submissions, supporting affidavit and his recording of the hearing on 17 July 2026 as primary evidence. 32 Mr Du’s application, as recorded in the written submission, added that I had repeatedly dismissed key material evidence on the sole ground of irrelevance, without full substantive consideration. I will not traverse all of the submissions made in that document, marked “B”. 33 Insofar as the application is based on what occurred on 17 July 2026, it suffers from the misunderstanding about which Mr Du earlier apologised. There was no ruling on his application to tender and, with his agreement, his application for documents has been referred to the Court of Appeal in September 2026. Insofar as it relies on anything before that, it is covered by my ruling given on 29 May 2026.9 34 I will not repeat the matters that I set out in my earlier ruling regarding the basis upon which an apprehension of ostensible bias should be addressed by the Court.10 35 Here, the true reason for Mr Du’s revived application seems to be that I was prepared to entertain Mr Wang’s application for costs. I was prepared to entertain that application in circumstances where the hearing today was necessitated by Mr Du’s misunderstanding about what occurred on 17 July 2026. That occurred through no fault of Mr Wang. 36 As I explained in my earlier ruling, a judge must not too readily accede to applications to recuse or disqualify on the grounds of apprehended bias. An applicant must do more than point to decisions adverse to the applicant, especially where those decisions do not involve any prejudgment of the issues arising in connection with the matters yet to be decided by the Court.11 37 In this case, I decline to stand down from further hearings in this matter. In my view, Mr Du has not established the requisite apprehension. 9 Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73. 10 Mr Du did not rely on actual bias, as his submissions and authorities show. 11 Du v Wang (No 2) [2026] SASCA 73, [6] (Livesey P). -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASCA 94 Livesey ACJ 6 38 Insofar as Mr Du may wish to make an application that I not sit at the appeal hearing in September, that is inconsistent with what he said on 17 July 2026 and he will need to make a written application to that effect. Mr Du will have an opportunity to make a written application, and Mr Wang will have an opportunity to respond to that application, if it is made. The determination of the application for costs 39 Whilst I can understand that Mr Du is very upset about what has occurred in connection with his business dealings with Mr Wang, and that this has caused what he describes as very significant losses, I am at the moment only concerned with the costs of today’s hearing. 40 Having considered the submissions made by the parties, I am prepared to make an order that Mr Du pay Mr Wang’s costs of today’s hearing, fixed in the amount of $500. Conclusion 41 I decline to disqualify myself from continuing to sit in Mr Du’s matter. The application dated 28 July 2026 is dismissed. -- 8 of 8 --