In re Article 2 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 2025 SDCR 26
In re Article 2 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 [2025] SDCR 26
| Date of judgment | 16 November 2025 |
| Judges |
|
| Held | The Inferior Court operates beyond its jurisdiction when presiding over an improperly filed case under Article 2 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge ppatpat
(with Judge Hmquestionable and Terak agreeing)
Introduction
[1] This case comes before us as a stated case on a question of law under Article 29 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 (“CPA”).
[2] The pre-trial court in mrgamerboy v mythrows [2025] Civ 35 [1] asks the following:
- [2.1] Is a document that fails to comply with Article 2 of the CPA a “Complaint” that has been validly “filed” for the purposes of the Act?
- [2.2] If not, should such a purported complaint be assigned to a judge at all; and if it has been assigned, does the court have power (on its own motion or at a party’s motion to dismiss) to quash the matter for want of a valid filing?
Considerations
[3] Article 2 of the CPA provides, so far as relevant:
“Article 2: Filing of complaint §1. A Complaint may be filed in any channel on the SimDemocracy Discord Server which the Registrar and all Judges and Justices are able to view; Provided that – (a) The channel’s title or description must reference the fact that it is meant for communication with the Judiciary, or for filings in court; (b) The channel must be owned by the government; and, (c) The Defendant must be notified of the filing of the complaint and must be able to see the complaint against them.”
[4] Article 2 does not merely recommend best practice. It says that “[a] Complaint may be filed … Provided that” three conditions are met. This is classic conditional language. The authorisation (“may be filed”) is expressly dependent on the satisfaction of (a), (b), and (c).
[5] We therefore hold that a document which does not comply with Article 2(1)(a)–(c) is not a “Complaint” and is not filed within the meaning of the CPA.
[6] That conclusion has direct consequences. If there is no complaint, there is no case to place on the pre-trial or trial lists. Article 20’s requirement that “A pre-trial shall be assigned to a Pretrial Judge” applies to civil trials properly before the court; it does not conjure jurisdiction where the initiating document fails to meet Article 2’s threshold.
[7] However, the Registrar’s role under the Act is administrative: to ensure that cases are channelled to judges on the appropriate rotation schedules. Nothing in the CPA confers on the Registrar the power to decide questions of law, as to whether a filing is valid. That power rests with judges, and judges alone.
[8] In a clear case of non-compliance with Article 2 however, for example, where the channel is plainly not a judiciary channel, or is not government-owned—the Registrar should not treat the document as a complaint and should not assign it as a case. The Registrar may inform the filer and invite a corrected filing, but cannot, by administrative decision, convert an invalid filing into a valid one.
[9] If, however, the Registrar has already assigned such a matter, the pre-trial or trial judge must then confront the question: on the proper reading of Article 2, was any complaint ever filed? If the answer is no, the proceedings are void at their root.
[10] For the matter at hand, the pre-trial judge themselves had to contact the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff themself admits they did not themselves notify the defendant or provide the complaint by any other route. They did not file the complaint on Reddit (which is a method of service of documents under the CPC), nor did they claim to have messaged the defendant. This shows that the defendant was not “notified of the filing of the complaint” during the filing of the complaint.
[11] The complaint was therefore not filed appropriately, and the Inferior Court has no jurisdiction over the case.
Verdict
[12] For the reasons above, a writ of prohibition is issued against the court in mrgamerboy v mythrows [2025] Civ 35 from continuing to hear the case, as it has not been filed in accordance with the CPA.
CONCURRING OPINION by Judge ppatpat
[13] I agree and join the Court’s opinion in full (as I wrote it).
[14] However, I would like to go further in explaining how I believe Article 2, §1, (c) should be interpreted.
[15] The Act requires that the defendant “be notified of the filing of the complaint.” The natural reading is that the defendant must actually be made aware that a complaint has been filed against them. The statute does not prescribe a particular method.
[16] The defendant must also have a practical ability to read “the complaint against them”. In practice, a publicly accessible Google Docs link is the golden standard for this.
[17] The meat and bones of Article 2, §1, (c) is that the defendant is not ambushed by proceedings brought in their absence. I am of the opinion that, so long as before pre-trial begins, the defendant in fact knows that they are being sued in this case, and is able to read the complaint somewhere they can access, the requirement that “The Defendant must be notified of the filing of the complaint and must be able to see the complaint against them” is satisfied. The Act does not privilege any particular route to that result: it cares that the defendant knows they are being sued and can see the complaint, not exactly how or by whom that knowledge is conveyed.
[18] For the reasons above, I concur.