Bashour v VCAT (No 2)

In this case, the plaintiff, Bashour, brought an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) seeking an extension of time to file a response to a motion to strike out the plaintiff's claim. The second to fifth defendants opposed the application. The primary dispute was whether the second to fifth defendants should be liable for the plaintiff's costs incurred during the extension of time application. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The key legal issue was whether the second to fifth defendants should bear the costs of the plaintiff's application for an extension of time. The court had to consider the circumstances that led to the necessity of the extension, the opposition to the application, and the outcome of the application itself. The court also had to weigh the factors that would determine whether the second to fifth defendants' opposition to the application was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the application for an extension of time was necessary to enable the plaintiff to challenge the jurisdiction of VCAT to make a strike out order. The second to fifth defendants' opposition to the application was deemed to be vexatious and without merit, as the application was ultimately successful. Consequently, the court ordered the second to fifth defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs on a standard basis. The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ss 77(1), 77(3), the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 32, and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 O 56, r 63.14.

The final order of the court was that the second to fifth defendants were to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for an extension of time on a standard basis. The court's reasoning was that the opposition to the application was found to be frivolous and vexatious, and the plaintiff's application was ultimately successful. This outcome was consistent with the applicable statutory provisions and rules.