Development One (Australia) Pty Ltd v Cooper - [2005] VSC 181

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

No. 5527 of 2005

DEVELOPMENT ONE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
CHRISTIAN COOPER and ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 181

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for judicial review of magistrate’s interlocutory decision – relief sought in the form of certiorari - refusal to stay proceeding – whether jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record – relevant discretionary factors

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Goldblatt	Goldsmiths
For the First Defendants	Mr G Rice	S V Winter & Co
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff's originating motion and summons dated 14 April 2005 seek relief in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the second defendant (“the magistrate”), made on 21 March 2005. The magistrate refused the plaintiff's application dated 16 March 2005 for a stay of Magistrates' Court proceeding No S02639995 (“the MC proceeding”) pursuant to s.112 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (“FTA”) or ss.87 and 89 of the Retail Leases Act 2003, on the basis that the dispute ought to be determined by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”). The plaintiff also seeks an order from this court, staying the MC proceeding.

By a lease dated 28 April 2003, the first defendants ("the landlord") leased office premises at Suite 4, 1^st Floor, 23 Ringwood Street, Ringwood to the plaintiff ("the tenant"). The term of the lease was for three years commencing on 1 June 2003. The initial annual rental was $30,800 per annum, payable by monthly instalments.

The landlord issued the MC proceeding on 10 November 2004, seeking $30,203.05 in respect of unpaid rent between 1 June 2003 and 30 September 2004 and $1,496.06 for interest to 30 September 2004. On 17 November 2004 the tenant filed a defence in the MC proceeding. The defence contained a bare denial of liability, together with a pleading in the following terms:

"That this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings, alternatively this proceeding should be stayed.
PARTICULARS
(a)That the lease the subject of these proceedings is a Retail Lease within the meaning of the Retail Leases Act 2003 and the plaintiff does not have the certification as required by s.87 of that Act;
(b)Alternatively, pursuant to s.112 of the Fair Trading Act, this proceeding should be stayed."

The defence did not foreshadow any counter-claim or allege that the rent was not recoverable due to non-service of a disclosure notice. Although the defence asserted that the proceeding should be stayed, no application for a stay was issued until 16 March 2005, some four months later.

The material which was filed in support of the stay application included the affidavit of Gary David Goldsmith, the tenant's solicitor, sworn 16 March 2005. The exhibits to…

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 Development One (Australia) Pty Ltd v Cooper 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: [2005] VSC 181
Decision Date: 11 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Development One (Australia) Pty Ltd, who sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision made by a magistrate. The primary nature of the dispute was the refusal of the magistrate to stay a proceeding. The application for judicial review was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Development One, argued that the magistrate’s refusal to stay the proceeding constituted a jurisdictional error or an error on the face of the record.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the magistrate's decision to refuse the stay constituted a jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record, and if so, whether the discretionary factors considered by the magistrate were sufficient to justify the refusal. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal standards for assessing such refusals and evaluating the magistrate's exercise of discretion.

The court carefully examined the magistrate's decision-making process and the discretionary factors that were taken into account. It was noted that the magistrate had considered relevant factors, including the public interest and the likelihood of prejudice to the applicant if the proceeding was not stayed. The court found that the magistrate's decision, while stringent, did not exhibit a jurisdictional error or an error on the face of the record. The discretionary assessment was deemed reasonable, and the court concluded that the magistrate's refusal to stay the proceeding was justified based on the factors considered. As a result, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the application for judicial review, upholding the magistrate's decision not to stay the proceeding. The court's reasoning provided clarity on the standards for assessing such decisions and the scope of discretion available to magistrates in similar circumstances.

Orders