Decision describes grounds of appeal as prolix and difficult to understand
In an appeal challenging a finding of a repudiation of a share sale agreement, the South Australian Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s application seeking the discovery and production of a large number of documents before the appeal hearing.
In Du v Wang [2026] SASCA 34, the parties had a share sale agreement regarding a company set up to acquire and operate a Port Lincoln abattoir and butchery. They fell out almost right after setting up the company.
Under a settlement agreement the parties negotiated, the appellant would pay the respondent $389,500 for his shares in the company. At trial, the parties disagreed over the meaning and translation of the settlement document, which the court largely resolved in the respondent’s favour.
On 23 October 2025, a District Court judge determined that the appellant repudiated the share sale agreement.
On 13 November 2025, with legal representation, the appellant filed an initial appeal notice with eight grounds of appeal. On 19 December 2025, without legal representation, the appellant filed a revised appeal notice with 19 grounds of appeal.
The appellant applied for various orders. Apart from requesting the discovery and production of various documents, the appellant sought a video recording of a November 2020 court hearing, which allegedly revealed the true basis for the sale of the shares.
Upon dismissing the application, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s application costs, fixed at $500.
The appeal court ruled that the grounds of appeal in the revised appeal notice were prolix, were difficult to understand, and failed to identify material factual or legal errors. The appeal court saw two essential problems in the application.
First, the appeal court noted that the appellant did not attempt to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents to the grounds of appeal. Second, the appeal court pointed out that the appellant did not try to show compliance with the rules on fresh or additional appeal evidence.
The appeal court added that the appellant incorrectly suggested that he had permission to obtain the documents sought.
At a 6 February callover, the appeal court listed a half-day appeal hearing on 10 September 2026 and issued various timetabling orders. The appeal court then adjourned the matter to a 29 May 2026 callover, in the hopes that the appellant would have retained legal representation by then.
The appeal court acknowledged the need to refine the current grounds of appeal and to determine whether it needed any documents ahead of the September appeal hearing.
