JBS -v- DXH [2025] WASCA 188 (10 December 2025)

(a) the application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed;
>
> (b) the application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
>
> (c) the appeal is dismissed; and
>
> (d) the appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including any reserved costs, such costs to be assessed.

5. The appellant purported to file an appellant's case on 18 November 2025, but the lodged document was not accepted for filing by the Court of Appeal registrar as it did not comply with the Rules. On 24 November 2025, the registrar signed a certificate of final outcome stating that, the appellant having failed to comply with the order made on 10 October 2025, the appeal stands dismissed.
6. By application for review of a single judge's or registrar's decision filed on 1 December 2025, the appellant seeks a review of the registrar's decision not to accept the document he lodged on 18 November 2025 for filing as his appellant's case. There is no merit to the review application. The appellant's document plainly did not comply with the Rules - either in form or in substance. For example, the grounds of appeal did not state grounds, and concise particulars of the grounds, succinctly in separately numbered paragraphs as required by r 32(4)(b) of the Rules. While the document has numbered paragraphs, the numbered paragraphs do not contain identifiable grounds of appeal by paragraph (or even by various groups of paragraphs). The so-called grounds of appeal largely presented a rambling and discursive account of aspects of the primary reasons often without identifying error and sometimes asserting error without identifying the paragraph in which the error was made, as required by r 32(4)(d) of the Rules.
7. As we observed in Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee:[1]

The point of the requirements in [r 32(4)(b) and r 32(5)(a) of the Rules] is to oblige an appellant to identify clearly and with precision the issues requiring this court's determination. The Rules seek to avoid the waste of the resources of respondents and this court in having to sift through long rambling documents in a struggle to identify all of the issues and hunt for a potentially meritorious point.

1. The registrar correctly rejected the appellant's document lodged on 18 November 2025 for filing as it did not comply with these important requirements of the Rules. The appellant's application for review of a single judge's or registrar's decision filed on 1 December 2025 must be dismissed.
2. By application in an appeal filed on 1 December 2025, the appellant applied for what was described as:
   • Review of Registrar's decision to refuse filing of Appeal documents[.]
   • Actionable information from Registrar that will result in filing of appeal documents.
   • Deferral of Appeal Dismissal 24.11.25.
3. We have explained why the application for review of the registrar's decision must be dismissed. We will otherwise treat the application in an appeal filed on 1 December 2025 as an application for an extension of time in which to comply with order 1 of the orders made on 10 October 2025.
4. The principles governing the determination of an application to extend time for compliance with a springing order were summarised by this court in A v C [No 2],[2] in the following terms:

It has often been pointed out that the failure by a party to comply with a springing order is an egregious breach. A springing order is intended to be the last opportunity afforded to the party to put its case in order. The proper administration of justice, and the quality of justice for the other party, generally requires that it be just that, its last opportunity ...

There is, however, a discretion to extend the time for compliance with a springing order and while no hard and fast rules can be laid down as to the matters to which the Court should have regard in the exercise of that discretion, the Court will normally have regard to at least the following matters:

(1) the circumstances in which the springing order came to be made;

(2) the reason for non-compliance with the springing order;

(3) the prejudice to the defaulting party if the time were not extended; and

(4) the prejudice to the other party if the time were extended.

It will also normally be a relevant consideration whether or not the defaulting party has a reasonably arguable case on the merits, there being no point in resuscitating a case that is devoid of merit. However, the fact that a party has an apparently meritorious case cannot be permitted effectively to insulate it from the consequences of a failure to comply with a peremptory order of the Court[.] (citations omitted)

1. The springing order in this case was made after considerable delay by the appellant in filing an appellant's case. It is now almost seven months since the primary decision was made. The respondent has been subject to the general prejudice that arises from the stress and uncertainty of litigation affecting her personal affairs which has continued without being effectively progressed over that time. The appellant has been given repeated opportunities to file an appellant's case which complies with the Rules. He was given a generous extension of time to file a compliant appellant's case on 10 October 2025, but that extension was subject to a springing order.
2. The appellant's failure to prepare a compliant appellant's case arises in a context where, on the magistrate's findings which do not appear to be challenged in this appeal, the appellant has net assets of about $6.5 million outside of superannuation in addition to assets of about $3.6 million in superannuation. The appellant plainly has the financial capacity to engage competent legal representation but has chosen to represent himself. While he is entitled to adopt this approach, the fact that he is self-represented does not excuse him from compliance with the Rules. There is less justification for granting indulgences to the appellant than exists, for example, in the case of parties who are forced to represent themselves because they cannot afford a lawyer.
3. Contrary to the appellant's oral submissions, there is no onus on the Court of Appeal registrar to set out what the appellant needs to do to comply with the Rules. The responsibility for filing an appellant's case which complies with the Rules rests with him. In any event, the appellant has already received guidance as to what is required by reference to very specific requirements of the Rules in the letter from the Court of Appeal registrar's associate dated 2 September 2025. The appellant was again referred to that letter, and was provided with a copy of relevant extracts of r 32 and r 38 of the Rules, in an email sent by the Court of Appeal office on 13 October 2025. The deficiencies in the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal and the requirements of the Rules in relation to grounds were also explained to the appellant by the court at the hearing on 10 October 2025.
4. The appellant did not simply ignore the springing order but attempted to file an appellant's case. However, the appellant has still not produced a form of appellant's case which is capable of being accepted for filing. The history of the matter leaves us with no confidence that, if a further extension of time were granted, the appellant would, within any reasonable time, prepare a compliant appellant's case which sets out intelligible grounds of appeal. It would be one thing if the court had before it a compliant appellant's case that could be accepted for filing. But there is not. Nor, for the reasons we have given, are we satisfied that a compliant appellant's case will be forthcoming in a reasonable time.
5. In all the circumstances, we are not presently satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant the appellant a further extension of time to file his appellant's case.
6. For these reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing on 10 December 2025, we made the following orders:
   1. The appellant's application for review of a single judge's or registrar's decision filed on 1 December 2025 is dismissed.
   2. The appellant's application in an appeal filed on 1 December 2025 is dismissed.
   3. The appeal remains dismissed pursuant to order 2 of the orders made by the court on 10 October 2025.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2021] WASCA 86 [52].

[2] A v C [No 2] [2015] WASCA 199 [2] - [4]. See also ANSA Enterprises Pty Ltd v St James Finance Corporation Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 32 [27] - [35].