JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Biddle v Miele Australia Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 146

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT – Plaintiff claims neurological disorder arising out of a motor accident in 2021 – Proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in which the plaintiff claims to have been discriminated against by his employer – VCAT made orders in respect of the production of documents – Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law – Subsequent interlocutory hearings in the course of which statements and submissions were made in affidavits, written submissions and by counsel – Plaintiff applies in respect of multiple claimed breaches of ‘overarching obligations’ in the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Plaintiff claims that the defendants and their solicitor breached the implied undertaking applying to documents produced under compulsion – Plaintiff self-represented litigant with claimed disability – Pursuant to s 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendants and any legal representative not be permitted to participate any further in the proceeding – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 148, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), ss 8(3) and 24(1), Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 29 – Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Oswal (2013) 41 VR 302; Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 5) (2014) 48 VR 1; Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council (2017) 51 VR 624; Doughty-Cowell v Kyriazis [2018] VSCA 216; Roberts v Harkness (2018) 57 VR 334; and Hazell-Wright v 32 Domain Pty Ltd (ACN 163 035 603) [2020] VSCA 129 considered and discussed – Application dismissed.

COSTS – Application for leave to appeal on a question of law from order of VCAT refusing an application for adjournment – Plaintiff also applies for a stay at VCAT and the expedition of his application for leave to appeal – Applications and summonses returned before Judicial Registrar – Orders made for management of applications for leave to appeal against a background of underlying proceedings at VCAT – Application for leave to appeal affected by ‘supervening’ event – Whether plaintiff enjoyed a practical success – Plaintiff applies to discontinue application for leave to appeal – Whether Court should ‘otherwise order’ in respect of the costs of the proceeding –…

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.

Continue reading Biddle v Miele Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Biddle v Miele Australia Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 146
Case: [2025] VSC 146
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Biddle v Miele Australia Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, a self-represented litigant with a claimed disability, who sought to appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a neurological disorder as a result of a motor accident in 2021 and that he had been discriminated against by his employer, Miele Australia Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought an order for the production of documents and subsequently claimed that the defendants and their solicitor had breached the implied undertaking applying to documents produced under compulsion. The plaintiff also sought an order that the defendants and any legal representative not be permitted to participate any further in the proceeding.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had demonstrated good reasons for discontinuing his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and whether the court should otherwise order in respect of the costs of the proceeding. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had enjoyed a practical success and whether the application for leave to appeal was affected by a supervening event.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal and found that the plaintiff had demonstrated good reasons for discontinuing the application. The court noted that the plaintiff had a history of withdrawing applications and that he had enjoyed a practical success. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was affected by a supervening event, and therefore, no order should be made as to costs. The court referred to the principles set out in Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 and Soteriadis v Nillumbik Shire Council [2015] VSC 363.

The court granted leave to discontinue the proceeding with no order made as to costs.

Orders