Krongold Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Thurin

Krongold Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd brought an action against Thurin in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to resolve a building dispute. Thurin subsequently sought to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, raising questions about VCAT’s jurisdiction to hear the matter, the effect of the referral on limitation periods, and the invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over third parties. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether VCAT's referral mechanism effectively transferred jurisdiction to itself, whether the referral constituted a new action for limitation purposes, and whether the referral could validate an earlier invalid exercise of federal judicial power.

The court examined the nature of VCAT’s referral process under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, section 77, and found that a referral invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without requiring an additional initiating process. The distinction between a proceeding and the subject matter did not affect the legal consequence of the referral. The court held that the referral did not constitute a new action for limitation purposes, as the limitation periods had already been satisfied in VCAT, and the referral was designed to bring the action to conclusion in the appropriate forum. Additionally, the court concluded that the referral could not validate the earlier invalid exercise of federal judicial power by VCAT in ordering the joinder of third parties, distinguishing it from the case of Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd v Victoria.

The Supreme Court held that the referral by VCAT invoked its jurisdiction over the proceeding, but the limitation periods did not bar the claims as they were satisfied in VCAT. The referral did not constitute a new action for limitation purposes. Furthermore, the referral did not validate the earlier invalid exercise of federal judicial power by VCAT in ordering the joinder of third parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court could not exercise jurisdiction over the third parties involved in the dispute. The court ordered that the matter proceed in the Supreme Court without the third parties.