Legal Research
Cases
Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd v Stephenson

Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd v Stephenson

Link copied

Case Copied 4 July 2003 48 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4244 of 2003

BELL CORP VICTORIA PTY LTD (ACN 070 026 925) AND ORS	Plaintiffs
v
CHRISTINE ESSIL STEPHENSON	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ASHLEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 June 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 July 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd and Ors v Stephenson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 255

---

Appeal – decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in exercise of discretion – question of law – whether Tribunal in exercise of discretion committed an error of law justiciable on appeal under s. 148(1), Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr M. Shand, QC and Mr P. Baker	Wilmoth Field Warne
For the Defendant	Mr M. Dreyfus, QC and Mr D. Flynn	McMahon Fearnley

HIS HONOUR:

The circumstances of the Appeal

This is an appeal by leave under s. 148 of Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (“the Act”) against the whole of the orders made by a deputy president of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 10 December 2002.

Extant before the Tribunal on the morning of 10 December 2002 was a claim by the first plaintiff, Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd against Mrs Christine Stephenson; and a counterclaim by Mrs Stephenson against Bell Corp and three members of the Bell family[1]. The claim and counterclaim arose out of a contract entered into between Bell Corp and Mrs Stephenson in October 1998 by which Mrs Stephenson purchased, apparently off the plan, a penthouse apartment and accessory lots at 184 Albert Road, South Melbourne for $1.1M. Bell Corp alleged that it was owed money under the contract; and was additionally entitled to money on a quantum meruit. Mrs Stephenson alleged that she was entitled to damages under a variety of heads. The damages were partly quantified at a total of about $400,000, and were otherwise unspecified. Later I will describe the claim and counterclaim in more detail and provide a chronology of events with respect thereto.
[1]It was in part a set off against the claim by Bell Corp; but it is convenient to describe the whole as a counterclaim.

So matters stood on the morning of 10 December. On that day the Tribunal made these orders:

“1. The claim is struck out.
2.The amended counterclaim is determined in favour of the respondent (Stephenson) as against all and each of the respondents (Bell) to the Counterclaim.
3.The hearing date of 24 February 2003 is cancelled.
4.I make no determination as to quantum or as to costs.
5.I set aside for separate hearing the question of quantum on the amended counterclaim and the question of costs of this day and otherwise in respect of the proceeding to a date to be fixed after 31 January 2003 to be notified to the parties.”

The orders were made in reliance on s. 78 of the Act.

By this…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd v Stephenson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] VSC 255
Decision Date: 4 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd sought an appeal against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled in favour of Stephenson in a dispute over the termination of a rental agreement. The Tribunal had exercised its discretion under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to order the return of the rental bond, despite the landlord's objections based on the tenant's failure to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court of Victoria was called upon to determine if the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was legally sound and if any error of law was present.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions governing the return of rental bonds and whether the Tribunal's decision demonstrated an error of law that could be reviewed under section 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the Tribunal's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory framework and if the Tribunal had considered all pertinent factors.

The court found that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion correctly and did not commit an error of law. The Tribunal had appropriately weighed the statutory requirements and considered the circumstances surrounding the termination of the tenancy. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was within the bounds of the statutory authority and that the Tribunal had not overlooked any significant legal principles. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The decision reinforces the principle that the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in such matters is to be respected, provided it adheres to the statutory guidelines and considers all relevant factors.

Orders