This matter came before the court for hearing pursuant to a Registrar's Notice to Attend dated 6 January 2026 for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules) for failure to file and serve an appellant's case.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we granted the appellant an extension of time to file his appellant's case subject to a self-executing order dismissing the appeal if a compliant appellant's case is not filed within the extended time. We said that we would publish written reasons for making those orders later. These are our reasons for making those orders.
The appellant is a self-represented litigant. We accept that the appellant's lack of legal training has affected his ability to file a compliant appellant's case. Nevertheless, the appellant is subject to the rules of the court in the same way as any other litigant. If the appeal is to be conducted by the appellant and determined by the court it is necessary that he file a compliant appellant's case.
The appeal is from orders made by Lonsdale DCJ in the District Court of Western Australia on 22 August 2025. The primary judge delivered written reasons for decision for making those orders. See Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2025] WADC 50. The appellant brought an appeal from the decision of Arbitrator Wallbridge of the Workers Compensation Arbitration Service to dismiss the appellant's claim for an extension of weekly payments from 1 September 2019 on the basis that the appellant had suffered a permanent incapacity for work. The primary judge made orders to the effect that: (1) leave to appeal is refused; (2) the appeal is dismissed; and (3) the appellant pay the costs of the respondent's appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
The appellant filed an appeal notice in relation to the primary orders on 12 September 2025.
In terms of the procedural history of the appeal to this point:
On commencement of the appeal the Court of Appeal office informed the appellant of the requirement to file a compliant appellant's case and provided the appellant with comprehensive information so as to be in a position to prepare a compliant appellant's case. The Court of Appeal office warned the appellant that he had to comply with the timetable under the Rules. The Court of Appeal office further warned the appellant that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the appeal.
By operation of the relevant rule the appellant was required to file his appellant's case on or before 17 October 2025. The appellant failed to file his appellant's case by that time.
On 6 October 2025 the Court of Appeal registrar ordered, by consent, that the time for the appellant to file and serve his appellant's case be extended to 30 November 2025.
The appellant failed to file his appellant's case by the specified time of 30 November 2025.
The appellant purported to file an appellant's case on 1 December 2025. On 2 December 2025 the Court of Appeal registrar informed the appellant that the purported appellant's case was non-compliant with r 32 of the Rules and had not been accepted for filing. It was noted, for example, that the so-called 'grounds of appeal' comprised 197 paragraphs and went over 20 pages. The Court of Appeal registrar ordered that the time for the appellant to file and serve the appellant's case be extended again: this time to 16 December 2025.
On 19 December 2025 the appellant purported to file his appellant's case via email due to technical difficulties with the eCourts filing system. On 6 January 2026 the Court of Appeal office informed the appellant that the purported appellant's case had not been accepted for filing because it did not comply with the Rules. The appellant then purported to file a further appellant's case on 9 January 2026. This too was not accepted for filing.
As at the hearing on 16 January 2026, it remained the case that the appellant was yet to file a compliant appellant's case.
The appellant offered various reasons as to the delay. Those reasons include repeated error messages when attempting to lodge and pay for the appellant's case using the eCourts filing system. However, the primary reason why the appellant has not complied with his obligation to file a compliant appellant's case is that the various documents he has purported to file from time to time simply do not comply with the requirements of the Rules.
We were not satisfied that it is presently in the interests of justice that the appeal be dismissed for failure to file an appellant's case. It is in the interests of justice that the appellant be afforded a further opportunity to file a compliant appellant's case rather than have his appeal finally dismissed immediately without a hearing on the merits. And, as has been mentioned, the appellant has attempted to file an appellant's case. This is not a case where the appellant is completely ignoring the procedural requirements of the court. The respondent has not pointed to any particular prejudice that has been suffered by the appellant's delay to date in filing an appellant's case. In all the circumstances we were of the view that the appellant should be provided with a further opportunity to file a compliant appellant's case.
However, given the history of the proceedings - and in particular that the appellant has already been afforded two sizeable extensions of time to file his appellant's case - we considered that this should be a final opportunity to file a compliant appellant's case. The extension of time was granted subject to a self-executing order. If the appellant fails to avail himself of this opportunity, and does not file a compliant appellant's case by the extended time, the appeal will automatically be dismissed.
In deciding that the extension of time will be subject to a self-executing order we considered and applied the principles set out in Firmware Technologies Inc v Asia Platinum Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 179 [5], [42], [48] and Durolek v Pier (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2019] WASCA 138 [107] - [108], [111] - [113]. We were satisfied, in particular, that a self-executing order is necessary to enable the court to hear and determine the appeal fairly and justly. This court cannot carry out its appellate function without properly formulated grounds of appeal and the other matters provided for in a compliant appellant's case. The appellant has already been provided with, and failed to take advantage of, a sufficient prior opportunity to file and serve an appellant's case. In all the circumstances we were satisfied that there is no other available sanction which is appropriate and sufficient to enable the court to hear and determine the appeal consistently with the goal and objects in O 1 r 4A and r 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The appellant sought three weeks to file his appellant's case. Counsel for the respondent suggested that a longer period of four weeks may be appropriate. Having regard to the potentially serious consequences of the self-executing order we considered it appropriate to grant an extension of time for the period of four weeks.
For these reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing on 16 January 2026, we made the following orders:
[2]
The time for the appellant to file and serve an appellant's case (such appellant's case to be compliant with the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal Rules)2005 (WA)) is extended to 4.00 pm on 13 February 2026; and the appellant is to file and serve the appellant's case by that time.
2. If the appellant does not comply with order 1, then automatically and with immediate effect from the time of non‑compliance:
[3]
(a) the application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
>
> (b) the appeal is dismissed; and
>
> (c) the appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including any reserved costs, such costs to be assessed.
[4]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.