Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2020] NSWCA 171 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 7 August 2020 Decision date: 07 August 2020 Before: Macfarlan JA; Payne JA Decision: Notice of motion dismissed with costs. Catchwords: APPEALS – notice of motion seeking to set aside orders refusing application for leave to appeal – impermissible attempt to re-agitate matters previously determined – vexatious and an abuse of process Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 157 Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 60 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.2 Cases Cited: Attorney General (NSW) v Markisic [2014] NSWSC 1596 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Li Wang (Applicant) State of New South Wales (First Respondent) Colin Hodgson (Second Respondent) Representation: Self-represented Applicant File Number(s): 2019/328872 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: [2014] NSWSC 909 [2019] NSWSC 1332 [2019] NSWSC 1599 Date of Decision: 8 July 2014 1 October 2019 21 November 2019 Before: Harrison J Adamson J Harrison AsJ File Number(s): 2013/128929 2019/227867 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: On 28 July 2020 Ms Wang filed a notice of motion seeking to set aside the orders we made by our judgments of 20 February, 20 April and 20 July 2020 ([2020] NSWCA 21, 64 and 148). 2. Pursuant to the judgment of 20 July 2020 we made, inter alia, an order in the following terms: "(2) Should Ms Li Wang seek to file any further application against the State of New South Wales or Mr Colin Hodgson in respect of any of the matters the subject of this Court's decisions of 20 February 2020 and 20 April 2020 ([2020] NSWCA 21 and [2020] NSWCA 64) Ms Wang must at the same time file a document of no more than five pages showing cause why this Court should not in Chambers summarily dismiss the application as vexatious and an abuse of process." 1. On 28 July 2020 Ms Wang, in accordance with a direction made by the Registrar, filed a four page written submission purporting to show cause why her motion of 28 July should not be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to Order 2 made on 20 July 2020. 2. Ms Wang's submission recites background matters and repeats assertions with which we have previously dealt. It does not raise any additional matter of substance. 3. In so concluding we note that Ms Wang's notice of motion asserts that there was a breach of Part 60 Division 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) involved in a person temporarily acting in the position of associate to one of the members of the Court certifying one of our earlier judgments. That complaint is misconceived. Pt 60 of the Supreme Court Rules is concerned with the role and powers of Associate Judges, not people acting as an associate to a judge of the Court. There is no, even arguable, error in a person who is acting as an associate to a judge of the Court certifying a copy of the Court's reasons for judgment; see generally s 157 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); Rule 36.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and Attorney General (NSW) v Markisic [2014] NSWSC 1596 at [81]-[87]. 4. As with her motion which we dealt with in our judgment of 20 July, Ms Wang's current motion constitutes an impermissible attempt by her to re-agitate matters previously determined. 5. She has not therefore shown cause why her motion should not be summarily dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process. That course should thus be taken. 6. Accordingly, we order that Ms Wang's notice of motion filed on 28 July 2020 be dismissed with costs. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision 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 or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 August 2020