D'Angelo v The Domicile Group Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 395

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2025 03520

MICHELE D’ANGELO	First Plaintiff
and
EVA INNOCENTI D’ANGELO	Second Plaintiff
v
THE DOMICILE GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 097 447 455)	First Defendant
and
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	D’Angelo v The Domicile Group Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 395

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Plaintiffs alleged that by reason of their reliance upon the Australian Consumer Law (Cth) (‘ACL’) in VCAT proceedings VCAT did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding – Plaintiffs’ application for judicial review involved a matter arising under the Commonwealth Constitution – Plaintiffs failed to serve notices of a constitutional matter upon Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and States – Whether necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to grant an urgent interlocutory injunction – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 78B(1), 78B(5).

INJUNCTIONS – Application for urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain VCAT from hearing a proceeding – Whether VCAT lacked jurisdiction to hear proceeding by reason of plaintiffs’ reliance on the ACL – Whether the reference to the ACL in points of claim in VCAT proceeding referred to ACL as a law of the Commonwealth or as a Victorian law – When read in context the reference to the ACL was a reference to the ACL as a Victorian law – Not necessary in the interests of justice to restrain VCAT from continuing to hear the plaintiffs’ claim – Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) schedule 2, ss 18, 236 – Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) ss 8, 12, 13, 224 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 Order 56.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C Dawlings	Fairweather Legal
For the First Defendant	Mr R Harris	Marchesin & Co Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the first defendant in the Building and Property List of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in August 2020. In further amended points of claim dated 22 November 2022,[1] the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the first defendant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 18 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (‘ACL’).[2] The prayer for relief included a claim for damages under s 236 of the ACL.[3] The same claims were repeated in second further amended points of claim filed on 15 April 2024.[4]
[1]Further Amended Points of Claim dated 22 November 2022, 1-7 of the exhibit to the Affidavit of David Fairweather sworn 23 June 2025.
[2]Ibid, 5-6 [18]-[21].
[3]Ibid, 7.
[4]Second Further Amended points of Claim dated 15 April 2024, 8-18 of the exhibit to the Affidavit of David Fairweather sworn 23 June 2025.

The plaintiffs’ claim was listed for a…

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 D'Angelo v The Domicile Group 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 395
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a challenge by D’Angelo to a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to hear a proceeding brought by D’Angelo against The Domicile Group Pty Ltd. D’Angelo argued that VCAT lacked jurisdiction because the proceeding involved the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which D’Angelo claimed was a law of the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether it should issue an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain VCAT from hearing the proceeding. The case raised issues concerning the proper interpretation of the ACL and jurisdictional questions pertaining to the role of VCAT and the Commonwealth.

The primary legal issue was whether the reference to the ACL in the points of claim in the VCAT proceeding referred to the Commonwealth law or the Victorian law. D’Angelo argued that the reference was to the Commonwealth law, thereby giving VCAT no jurisdiction. The Court considered whether the context of the proceeding suggested a reference to the Victorian law, as opposed to the Commonwealth law. Additionally, the case involved a procedural requirement under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for notices of constitutional matters to be served on the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and States, a procedural step that D’Angelo had failed to observe.

The Court found that the reference to the ACL in the points of claim, when read in context, was a reference to the ACL as a Victorian law. Consequently, VCAT had jurisdiction to hear the proceeding. The Court also noted that the failure to serve notices on the relevant Attorneys-General did not necessitate an interlocutory injunction, as it did not appear to be in the interests of justice to restrain VCAT from continuing to hear the proceeding. The Court concluded that it was not necessary to intervene at that stage, as the matter could be resolved through the normal course of litigation.

The Court did not grant the interlocutory injunction, and the proceeding before VCAT continued as planned. The Court's decision underscored the importance of correctly identifying the applicable law in jurisdictional disputes and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in constitutional matters.

Orders