Arik v Vicinity Centres PM Pty Ltd & Ors

ARIK
v
VICINITY CENTRES PM PTY LTD & ORS
[2024] HCASL 133
M101/2023

The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Niall and Macaulay JJA, Kennedy JA dissenting), allowing an appeal against an order of a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Richards J) quashing a determination of a Medical Panel in respect of a medical question referred to it in accordance with s 28LWE of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
The reasoning of the majority of the Court of Appeal is plainly correct. Further, the application does not involve a question of law of public importance and the interests of the administration of justice weigh against the grant of special leave.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
9 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Arik v Vicinity Centres PM Pty Ltd & Ors, the applicant sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had allowed an appeal against an order of a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The single judge had quashed a determination of a Medical Panel in relation to a medical question referred to it under section 28LWE of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The Court of Appeal’s majority judgment upheld the appeal, reversing the initial decision of the single judge. The applicant now appeals to the High Court, seeking special leave to challenge this decision.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the scope of the Court of Appeal’s authority to overturn a single judge’s decision that had already quashed a determination of a Medical Panel. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the appeal and whether the matter involved a question of law of public importance. Additionally, the court considered whether granting special leave would be in the interests of the administration of justice.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court noted that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal was correct and that the application did not involve a question of law of significant public importance. The court emphasised that the interests of the administration of justice were best served by not allowing the special leave to proceed. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, with the court ordering the applicant to pay the costs associated with the application.

The final orders of the High Court confirm the dismissal of the application for special leave to appeal and direct the applicant to pay the costs of the application. This decision upholds the Court of Appeal’s judgment and affirms the legal principles applied in the lower courts, providing clarity on the limits of the Court of Appeal’s authority in such matters.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established