Francis-Wright v VCAT - [2001] VSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 4901 of 2000
No. 4902 of 2001

KEVIN FRANCIS WRIGHT	Appellant
v
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Firstnamed Respondent
and
ARNOLD GANYA and BRENDAN BANDMAN	Secondnamed Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 and 14 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 February 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wright v VCAT and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 35

---

Appeal against orders made by VCAT – Denial of natural justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr I.R. Jones	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
For the Firstnamed Respondent	No appearance
For the Secondnamed Respondents	Mr S. Tudo

HIS HONOUR:

Before the court are two appeals in two separate proceedings against orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in respect to two applications made by former tenants against a landlord. The appeals are brought pursuant to s.148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ("the Act").

On 1 August 2000, Beach J granted leave to appeal in each appeal and directed that they be heard together subject to any other order. The parties agree that the appeals should be heard together as they raise similar issues arising out of the same circumstances.

Parties

The appellant in each of the appeals is Kevin Francis-Wright ("the appellant"). In Proceeding No. 4901 of 2000 he joined the Tribunal as first respondent, and Mr Arnold Ganya ("Mr Ganya") as the second respondent. In Proceeding No. 4902 of 2000 the appellant joined the Tribunal and Mr Brendan Bandman ("Mr Bandman") as the second respondent.

The appellant at all material times was a registered proprietor of the premises known as 567 Maroondah Highway, Croydon ("the premises"). During the year 1999 he conduct the business of a rooming house at the premises which accommodated five tenants and himself. On 30 October 1999, he entered into a tenancy agreement with Mr Bandman for the occupation of a room within the premises. The agreement was in writing and was for a fixed term of three months ending on 30 January 2000. The rental was $100 per week and Mr Bandman was also obliged to pay three weeks' rent to the landlord in advance.

On 16 November 1999, the appellant entered into a written Tenancy Agreement with Mr Ganya for occupation of a room at the premises. The term was for a period of three months ending on 16 February 2000. The rental was $100 per week with three weeks rental paid in advance.

On 16 November 1999, the appellant entered into a written Tenancy Agreement with Mr Ganya for occupation of a room at the premises. The term was for a period of three months ending on 16 February 2000. The rental was $100 per week with three weeks rental paid in advance.

The appellant has joined the Tribunal as a party to the appeal. According to s.148 of the Act, the appeal is on a question of law.…

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 Francis-Wright v VCAT

Details

AGLC: Francis-Wright v VCAT [2001] VSC 35
Case: [2001] VSC 35
Decision Date: 14 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Francis-Wright v VCAT, the appellant contested orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), alleging denial of natural justice. The respondent, VCAT, had issued a decision that adversely affected the appellant's interests. The primary contention was that the appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case, leading to an unjust outcome.

The court was required to determine whether VCAT's process violated the principles of natural justice, specifically whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness. This involved examining whether the appellant had adequate notice of the issues and was given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The court also needed to consider whether the decision-making process was impartial and whether there were any apparent biases.

The court found that the appellant's concerns regarding the denial of natural justice were well-founded. It was determined that the appellant did not receive sufficient notice of the issues at stake, which impeded their ability to adequately prepare and respond. Furthermore, the tribunal's failure to provide an opportunity for the appellant to address the concerns raised constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court quashed the orders made by VCAT and remitted the matter for reconsideration, ensuring that the appellant would be afforded a fair hearing.

Orders