Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)

[2021] VSC 466

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2014 06088

BETWEEN:

JOEL LORENSZ BELING	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIAN LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER	Defendant

- and -

S ECI 2019 04627

BETWEEN:

JOEL LORENSZ BELING	Appellant
v
VICTORIAN LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 466

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW– Costs – Application to join VCAT as a party, serve interrogatories and notice to admit and to amend notices to appeal – All contested applications unsuccessful – Costs follow the event – Applicant to pay costs of the applications.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff and Appellant	In person
For the Defendant and Respondent	Mr MG McNamara	White Cleland Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

1. On 1 July 2021, I delivered judgment refusing interlocutory applications made by Mr Beling in these two proceedings.[1] Those applications were to join the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as a party and to  serve interrogatories and a notice to admit. In addition, I gave Mr Beling leave to file an amended notice of appeal in the 2019 proceeding but refused his applications to file other amended notices of appeal.

   [1]Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] VSC 390.

1. I now decide the question of the costs of the applications heard on 26 March 2021.

1. The defendant, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, sought orders that Mr Beling pay her costs of, and incidental, to the applications heard on 26 March 2021 on a standard basis to be taxed in default of agreement. She relied on the principle that costs ordinarily follow the event. Mr Beling did not succeed on any contested issue as the Commissioner consented to his application to file amended notices of appeal. As stated, I granted leave for Mr Beling to file one of the proposed amended notices of appeal.

1. Mr Beling sought a stay of the Court’s decision on costs on the basis of ‘reasonable grounds of appeal’ and as I understood it, his wish to appeal the orders made on 1 July 2021. He also sought an order that costs follow the event on issues on which he contended that he had succeeded.

1. He referred to what he alleged were  the Commissioner’s admitted change of position concerning an alleged conspiracy to engage in file tampering, her failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Act 2010, failure to negotiate costs and ‘widespread lax and serious misconduct’ which he argued disentitled the Commissioner from recovering costs. He claimed that he was entitled to an order for payment of his disbursements by the Commissioner and, or otherwise, her legal representatives personally. Alternatively, he submitted that exceptional, special and compelling circumstances existed as to why he should not be ordered to pay costs. He submitted that the Commissioner’s consent to all of the three proposed notices of appeal, including, so he said, admitting file tampering and the Commissioner’s settlement offer in County Court proceedings, demonstrated that the facts underpinning his proposed amendments and his applications had merit.

1. My task is to determine the appropriate order for costs in respect of the applications heard on 26 March 2021. Many of the allegations Mr Beling makes have no bearing on that matter. The final hearing of these two proceedings has not yet occurred, because the scheduled hearing date of 26 March 2021 was spent on hearing  his unsuccessful interlocutory applications. The proceedings are now fixed for final hearing on 5 October 2021.

1. The Commissioner’s consent to Mr Beling filing amended notices of appeal does not, in any way, involve an admission of the allegations contained in those notices.

1. Many of Mr Beling’s submissions on costs, in essence, seek to reargue matters that were raised at the hearing on 26 March 2021.  I do not propose to repeat them.

1. The fact that Mr Beling is seeking to appeal the orders of 1 July 2021 is no reason why I should not deliver my decision as to the costs of the applications heard on 26 March 2021.

1. Mr Beling has provided no reason why costs should not follow the event. Each of his contested applications was unsuccessful.  In each proceeding, Mr Beling is ordered to pay the Commissioner’s costs of and incidental to the applications heard on 26 March 2021.