Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 410

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2023 00577

S ECI 2023 03491
S ECI 2023 04461

ADRIAN CASPERSZ	Applicant/Appellant
v
GARRY & WARREN SMITH PTY LTD (ACN 004 753 333) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 410

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Application for leave to appeal dismissal of proceeding by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Various questions of law and extensive grounds of appeal – Various baseless and unsubstantiated allegations made against the Tribunal – Leave to appeal refused for all but one ground – Whether Tribunal correctly refused application to cross-examine witnesses – Leave to appeal granted – No unfairness in refusing application to cross-examine witnesses – Appeal dismissed – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ss 62, 78, 102 and 148 – Concrete Construction Systems Pty Ltd v Inglese [2024] VSC 266, Leon Holdings Pty Ltd v O’Donnell [2009] VSC 430 considered; Bahl Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sikandar [2025] VSC 394, Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd and Ors v Stephenson [2003] VSC 255, ACN 115 918 959 Pty Ltd v Moulieris [2024] VSCA 71, Patsuris v Gippsland and Southern Rural Water Corporation (2016) 218 LGERA 167; [2016] VSCA 109, Rugolino v Howard [2010] VSC 590 referred to.

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Appeal from decision of Associate Justice – Application for leave to appeal procedural orders of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Associate Justice dismissed application for leave – Associate Justice found no purpose served by proposed appeal in circumstances where Tribunal had dismissed proceeding and applicant had sought leave to appeal dismissal – No error shown in Associate Justices conclusion – Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2018 (Vic).

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Application for leave to appeal various orders consequent upon dismissal of proceeding by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant/Appellant	In person
For the First and Third Respondents	No appearance	Maddocks
For the Second Respondent	Ms F Cockram	CIE Legal

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Caspersz has three proceedings, each against the same three respondents:

(a) Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd;

(b) Honda Australia Pty Ltd (‘Honda’); and

(c) Garry & Warren Smith Group.

Each of the proceedings arise from Mr Caspersz’s dissatisfaction with orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’ or ‘the Tribunal’).

The first and third respondents did not seek to be heard before me and did not participate in the hearing of these matters. They have indicated they will abide with whatever decision the Court makes.

Honda opposed Mr Caspersz’s claims for relief.

The three proceedings

Proceeding S ECI 2023 00577 is an appeal from a decision of…

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 Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd 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: [2025] VSC 410
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd involved an application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of proceedings by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The applicant, Caspersz, sought to challenge the tribunal's decision to refuse an application to cross-examine witnesses and other orders that followed the dismissal of their proceeding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the tribunal correctly refused the application to cross-examine witnesses, and if the refusal constituted unfairness. The applicant also sought to challenge other orders made by the tribunal in the context of the dismissed proceeding. The court had to consider the broad grounds of appeal presented by Caspersz, which included baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the tribunal.

In its reasoning, the court found that the tribunal was correct in refusing the application to cross-examine witnesses, and that there was no unfairness in doing so. The court refused leave to appeal on most grounds, citing the lack of purpose in appealing the dismissal of the proceeding. However, the court granted leave to appeal on the issue of the refusal to cross-examine witnesses, finding no error in the tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the tribunal were upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, with leave to appeal granted only on the specific issue of the refusal to cross-examine witnesses, and no unfairness was found in that decision. The broader grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the tribunal's orders were affirmed.

Orders