East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd v Singleton - [2025] VSC 572

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 06365

EAST GIPPSLAND BUILDING PERMITS PTY LTD (ACN 070 449 633)	First Applicant
and
BRIAN DOUGLAS ROSS	Second Applicant
and
MARGARET SINGLETON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd & Anor v Singleton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 572

---

APPEAL – Appeal from Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Building dispute – Tribunal allowed the respondent to file amended points of claim – Identical application had been previously refused – Whether the Tribunal applied the wrong test – Overriding principle what is in the interests of justice – No error of law – Whether proposed amendments futile because statute barred – Not a ‘clear case’ where limitation issues should be determined before final hearing – Whether Tribunal decision legally unreasonable – Tribunal decision not unreasonable – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed – DA Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582; Nominal Defendant v Manning (2000) 50 NSWLR 139 considered; Tenth Vandy Pty Ltd v Natwest Markets Australia Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 170; Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr T Scotter	McGuinness Legal
For the Respondent	In-person

HIS HONOUR:

On 31 October 2024 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’ or ‘the Tribunal’) allowed the respondent, Ms Margaret Singleton, to amend her points of claim. The applicants in this matter, East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd and Mr Brian Douglas Ross (‘the Ross Parties’) seek leave to appeal that decision.

For the reasons that follow, I would grant leave but dismiss the appeal.

Factual Background to Commencement of Proceedings

On 11 June 2009 Ms Singleton entered into a contract with builders Geoffrey G Lawrence and Jeanette M Lawrence (‘the Builders’) for construction of a home on land situated at 51 Seaview Parade, Kalimna, Victoria.

The Builders engaged East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd (ACN 070 499 633) (‘East Gippsland Building Permits’) to provide building surveying services. Brian Douglas Ross, the company’s director, was the individual building surveyor responsible for carrying out four mandatory inspections required to enable the relevant building permits to be issued for works carried out by the Builders.

Construction work commenced shortly after Mr Ross issued a building permit on 3 September 2009. During the build Ms Singleton formed the view that there were issues with the building project including visible deviations and suspected non-compliance with approved plans. Despite these expressed concerns an occupancy permit was issued on 10 January 2011, signalling the completion of the home’s construction.

During the build, Ms Singleton had engaged a building consultant who carried out a number of inspections and subsequently provided a report outlining a range of alleged defects, including:

(a) accessibility issues which…

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 East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd v Singleton 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 572
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that allowed the respondent, Singleton, to file amended points of claim. Singleton had previously submitted an application that was refused, but later sought to amend his points of claim. The appellant argued that VCAT applied the wrong test and that the proposed amendments were futile due to being statute barred. The appellant further contended that the limitation issues should have been determined before the final hearing, and that VCAT’s decision was legally unreasonable.

The court considered whether VCAT applied the correct legal test when allowing Singleton to file amended points of claim. It was noted that VCAT's decision should be overturned only if it was legally unreasonable. The court found that VCAT did not err in its application of the relevant principles and that the overriding consideration was what is in the interests of justice. The court found that it was not a ‘clear case’ where limitation issues should be determined prior to the final hearing. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was not legally unreasonable given the circumstances, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court examined precedents such as DA Christie Pty Ltd v Baker and Nominal Defendant v Manning, which support the proposition that a tribunal's decision should not be overturned lightly. The court also considered Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia and Tenth Vandy Pty Ltd v Natwest Markets Australia Pty Ltd, which emphasised that the overriding consideration is the interest of justice. The court concluded that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and the appellant was not granted leave to appeal.

Orders