• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Parties: Liaoxing Pan (Plaintiff)
The Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice (Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
F Leitch (Defendant)
Solicitors:
L Pan (Plaintiff) (Self-Represented)
NSW Crown Solicitor (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2026/43935

Publication restriction: No

ex-tempore JUDGMENT - revised

1. The proceedings were commenced with the filing of a summons on 2 February 2026 seeking judicial review of “the administrative refusal by NSW Online Registration” to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the transcript of proceedings in the Local Court on 1 December 2023 (the transcript).

2. Since the filing of the summons, three notices of motion have been filed:

3. By the plaintiff on 11 May 2026, seeking orders for the provision of the transcript.

4. By the defendant on 12 May 2026, seeking, in effect, a change of name of the defendant and the dismissal of the proceedings.

5. By the plaintiff on 20 May 2026, seeking the removal of the proceedings from the registrar to a judge and the provision to the plaintiff of the transcript.

6. It is the above three motions that have come before me for decision. I will refer to Mr Liaoxing Pan as the plaintiff, even though he was the defendant in the original Local Court proceedings.

7. Despite somewhat extensive pleadings and submissions, the plaintiff significantly narrowed the scope of the orders he now seeks in a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Oral Submissions in Hearing on 17 July 2027”. The plaintiff confirmed that 17 July is a typographical error and should be 27 July.

8. In this document the plaintiff makes it clear that the decision in respect of which he seeks a review is that of the NSW Online Registry to refuse to provide him with a copy of the transcript. He says that this is a different issue to that which was dealt with by the Court of Appeal, which was concerned with that Court’s ability to review a decision of a District Court Registrar. It is also a different issue to the refusal by the Local Court to waive the fees for a transcript, a decision made on 21 June 2024.

9. According to the plaintiff’s most recent submissions, the refusal to provide him with the transcript lacked procedural fairness because, after he had paid the required fee:

• “no reasons were provided;

• no hearing was afforded;

• no opportunity was given to address the alleged inability to provide a civil transcript; and

• no proper administrative decision was communicated.”

7. In addition to the lack of procedural fairness, the plaintiff says that the transcript decision suffered from jurisdictional error because:

“The Department accepted payment for the transcript application but then refused to perform the function for which payment had been accepted.”

8. In support of his submissions about the lack of procedural fairness and jurisdictional error, the plaintiff alleges the following failings in respect of the defendant’s evidence:

• “no witness has explained why the transcript cannot be supplied;

• no legislation has been identified prohibiting supply of the transcript;

• no written administrative decision has been produced; and

• no reasons for the refusal have been produced.”

9. It is first of all necessary to examine the statutory background to the charging of fees for a transcript in a civil matter.

10. Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) permits the Governor to make regulations in relation to fees for “the issue of any document out of the court …”

11. Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW) dictates the fees payable for the provision of a transcript. Part 4 of the Regulation allows for the waiver of a fee. If the prescribed fee is not paid, and has not been waived, a transcript will not be provided.

12. The relevant “Summary of Fees and Professional Costs” effective from 1 July 2023 is as follows:

“Transcript (under 3 months) $105.00 plus $12 per page after first 8.

Transcript (3 months or older) $129 plus $14 per page after first 8.”

13. The whole of the plaintiff’s case stems from him having made a payment of $129 for the transcript, but then not receiving the transcript. There is clearly a misconception about the manner in which the fees were levied.

14. The prescribed fee for this transcript was $359 ($129 for the first 8 pages and $230 for the remainder of the pages). The system for the provision of a transcript has two stages. First, an initial payment for 8 pages is payable when the transcript is ordered. This is the $129 which the plaintiff paid.

15. Second, a final amount based on a per page rate charge (after the first 8 pages) is due and payable after the transcript has been prepared, but before it is sent to the applicant. This is the $230. The plaintiff has never paid the $230.

16. Effectively the whole of this dispute is about the $230.

17. I think a chronology, at least of the events relevant to the motions, is useful. The Owners – Strata Plan 4832 sued the plaintiff in the Local Court. Then:

| 06/11/2023 | The Owners – Strata Plan 4832 obtained a (default) judgment against the plaintiff for $3,174.33 in the Local Court. | | 01/12/2023 | The plaintiff’s application, presumably to set aside the default judgment, was dismissed in the Local Court. | | 12/01/2024 | The plaintiff filed a summons in the District Court appealing and seeking leave to appeal against the Local Court orders, in particular the default judgment and the dismissal of his notice of motion following the entry of the default judgment. | | 18/05/2024 | The plaintiff submitted both an application for a transcript of the Local Court proceedings on 1 December 2023, and an application to waive the fee of the transcript application. | | 21/06/2024 | The Local Court refused the plaintiff’s application for a waiver of the fee in respect of the transcript of the 1 December 2023 hearing. The order states the application was refused because the plaintiff misled the Local Court about the value of his assets. | | 27/09/2024 | The plaintiff paid $129 for the transcript application. | | 04/11/2024 | An invoice was issued to the plaintiff for the payment of $230. | | 05/11/2024 | The “Local Court Downing Centre – Transcripts” emailed the plaintiff telling him a further $230 was payable for the transcript. The plaintiff has never paid the $230. | | 10/02/2025 | Following correspondence from the plaintiff, RSB Client Services sent the plaintiff an email stating “The transcript of 23 pages is available upon you making the payment of $230 to the Registry.” | | 26/02/2025 | The District Court Registrar made interlocutory orders requiring the plaintiff to obtain the Local Court transcript and dismissing the proceedings for lack of despatch if not done. | | 25/03/2025 | The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal seemingly against interlocutory decisions in the District Court, including failures to order provision of the transcript. | | 27/03/2025 | The District Court proceedings were dismissed by Judicial Registrar Howard. | | 26/05/2025 | The Principal Registrar (of the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal because it was incompetent. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs. | | 02/02/2026 | The plaintiff filed the summons seeking judicial review of the Principal Registrar’s decision, although now seemingly concentrating on a review of the Online Registry decision not to provide the transcript. |

18. A point made strongly by the plaintiff was that in the request from RSB Client Services made on 10 February 2025 for the payment of $230, under the heading of Jurisdiction Details, the type of matter is referred to as “Crime”.

19. The plaintiff’s point is that the transcript in respect of which a further payment was being made was a criminal transcript and not the transcript that he had ordered. While I fully understand the confusion that the erroneous entry may have caused, the plaintiff was informed by email on 5 November 2024 that the transcript he was seeking was available after payment of a further fee of $230.

20. It is also important to note that in the application form to the Online Registry for the provision of a transcript, it is stated:

“Fees apply for most transcripts. Final costs will not be determined until the transcript has been completed.”

21. The form mentioned in the previous paragraph was provided during today’s hearing and I have marked it as Exhibit A. Clearly the plaintiff was on notice that there might be more than one payment for the transcript.

22. Returning briefly to the allegations of procedural unfairness, quoted above:

23. No reasons were provided. No reasons were provided because no reasons were necessary. The transcript was not provided to the plaintiff because he had not paid the prescribed fee.

24. No hearing was afforded. There was no hearing in respect of which the plaintiff might have attended or made submissions. He received notice of the payment and he did not pay.

25. No opportunity was given to address the alleged inability to provide a civil transcript. As set out above, the rules are straightforward in respect of the provision of a transcript.

26. No proper administrative decision was communicated. No administrative decision was made. The rules applicable to the payment of fees for a transcript were simply applied.

27. In my view the summons must also be dismissed for the following reasons.

28. First, any decision, if it can be so categorised, was made by the Local Court and not by the defendant. Rule 59.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) requires the joinder of any party who is interested in maintaining the decision. The Local Court (or the decision-maker) is not a party to the proceedings. The strata-plan owners are also not defendants.

29. Second, to the extent that the Local Court made the decision to refuse the waiver of the transcript fee, that was a decision made pursuant to cl 11 of the Civil Procedure Regulation. UCPR r 49.19(2)(a) says that an application may not be made in relation to a decision to waive, postpone or remit fees except as provided by the Guidelines for the Waiver, Remission and Postponement of Fees published by the Attorney General. While these guidelines may be inapplicable here, they do include a statement that “there will be no further administrative review of the review decision.”

30. Third, the whole of the proceedings is an affront to s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act. They are a product of the plaintiff refusing to pay $230. This is enforced by the plaintiff’s disregard of the defendant’s offer, made on two separate occasions, to provide the transcript to the plaintiff without further charge, and, if he discontinues the proceedings, to not seek costs. The latter concession is explicitly made in the defendant’s letter to the plaintiff dated 30 June 2026.

31. As an extension of the almost incomprehensibility of these proceedings being derived from the plaintiff’s failure to pay $230, but recognising his obvious desire to obtain the transcript, I asked the defendant if it would, assuming the proceedings were dismissed, still provide the transcript to the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to do so, and I will note this concession in the orders I make.

32. One other matter, which I will need to include in the orders, is the defendant’s request for a change of name to the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice. I can see no difficulty with making the change.

33. In relation to costs, the normal rule is that the loser pays the costs of the proceedings. In my view the proceedings have been doomed from the outset. Nevertheless, there has obviously been a misunderstanding of the process of communication between the transcript services and the plaintiff. The erroneous description of the transcript as being related to a criminal matter is one example. Another example is that there does not seem to have been any explicit statement of the two-stage process of ordering a transcript, other than the very general statement made in the online application form.

34. The plaintiff is self-represented, and English is obviously not his primary language. I think some allowance should be made for these factors, but the allowance should not extend beyond 30 June 2026, when the defendant offered to provide the transcript and not seek costs if the plaintiff discontinued the proceedings. That is an offer he should have accepted.

35. I think there should be no order as to costs up to 30 June 2026, but thereafter the plaintiff should pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

36. I make the following orders:

37. The name of the defendant is changed to the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice.

38. Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 13.4, the summons filed on 2 February 2026 is dismissed.

39. No order is made as to the costs of the proceedings up to and including 30 June 2026.

40. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings after 30 June 2026.

41. It is noted that the defendant will, within 48 hours, and by email, provide the plaintiff with a copy of the transcript of the Local Court proceedings of 1 December 2023.

**********