Kumaran v Bakowli - [2025] VSC 573

THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2025 00053

KARTIK KUMAR KUMARAN	Applicant
v
AJMAL BAKOWLI	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Finanzio J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9-10 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kumaran v Bakowli
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 573

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal pursuant to section 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) – Landlord and tenant - Litigants in person – Non-payment of rent – No reasonable excuse for not attending earlier hearing – Decision not to re-open earlier order under section 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) – Warrant of possession over tenant’s property - Appeal out of time - No evidence providing explanation for delay – No prospect of success on appeal – No error of law established – Application of extension of time refused – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	In person

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The Applicant, Kartik Kumar Kumaran (‘Mr Kumaran’) seeks leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, appeals the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ or ‘VCAT’) pursuant to s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘VCAT Act’) against orders made by the Tribunal on 21 August 2024. Mr Kumaran’s application for leave was not made within 28 days of the Tribunal’s decision, indeed it was not made until 8 January 2025. Accordingly, Mr Kumaran also seeks an extension of time to commence the proceeding pursuant to s 148(5) of the VCAT Act.

The Respondent, Ajmal Bakowli (‘Mr Bakowli’) is the landlord of a property located in Cranbourne North (‘Property’).

At the outset of the hearing in this matter, I advised the parties that I had read the material, and that I was not prepared to hear the appeal before first considering whether the extension of time should be granted, and separately whether Mr Kumaran should be granted leave to bring the appeal.

Mr Kumaran’s application was supported by five affidavits filed with this Court on 6 February 2025, 26 March 2025, 4 April 2025, 22 May 2025 and 21 June 2025. Mr Kumaran relied upon written submissions filed in accordance with orders of this Court. Mr Bakowli relied upon two affidavits which were filed with this Court on 7 February 2025 and 9 May 2025. All affidavits were received into evidence.

Both Mr Kumaran and Mr Bakowli were self-represented in this Court. Their submissions to me were a combination of oral argument and evidence from the bar table. During the course of the hearing, Mr Bakowli referred to orders made by the Tribunal which were tendered.

On 12 February 2025, Lorenz JR made orders requiring Mr Kumaran to obtain a transcript of the hearing of 21 August…

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 Kumaran v Bakowli 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 573
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kumaran, the landlord, brought an application for judicial review against Bakowli, the tenant, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on non-payment of rent and the subsequent issuance of a warrant of possession over the tenant’s property. The tenant, acting as a litigant in person, failed to attend an earlier hearing without providing a reasonable excuse, leading to the initial decision being made in the landlord's favour. The tenant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the earlier order, which was dismissed by the primary judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a reasonable excuse for the tenant's failure to attend the earlier hearing, whether the court should re-open the earlier order under section 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), and whether the application for leave to appeal was out of time. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was a prospect of success on appeal and whether any error of law was established.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the tenant had failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not attending the earlier hearing. The court found no grounds to re-open the earlier order, as the tenant did not present any new evidence or demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay. Furthermore, the court found that the appeal was out of time, as the tenant provided no evidence to explain the delay in lodging the application for leave to appeal. The court also concluded that there was no prospect of success on appeal and no error of law had been established. Consequently, the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal were both refused.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the text. However, based on the court's decision, it can be inferred that the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed, and the earlier order for a warrant of possession over the tenant’s property remained in effect.

Orders