Lazarides v Di Lorenzo - [2019] VSC 693

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 00348
S CI 2018 02215
S CI 2018 00621

BILL LAZARIDES	Plaintiff
v
NERINA DI LORENZO & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Cavanough J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 October 2019 First Revision: 18 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lazarides v Di Lorenzo & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 693

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Applications for personal safety intervention orders – Applications made against officers of municipal council and officer of RSPCA in relation to conduct connected with the enforcement or administration of the law – Applications refused by Magistrates’ Court and County Court – Applications legally and factually misconceived and involving abuse of process – Applications for judicial review likewise baseless – Applications for judicial review dismissed – Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic) ss 4, 5, 11, 13, 61, 96, 97.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	The plaintiff in person
For the First Defendant in S CI 2018 00348 and S CI 2018 002215	Mr A Halse	MNG Lawyers
For the First Defendant in S CI 2018 00621	Mr A Burnett	HWL Ebsworth

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and overview

The plaintiff, Mr Bill Lazarides, has been in dispute with the Moreland City Council for many years over many issues, including issues relating to the sanitary condition of a certain house in which he has an interest in Cleve Road, Pascoe Vale, within the municipal district of the Council. The issues relate in part to pet dogs which Mr Lazarides has kept from time to time at the house. The dogs have also been the subject of actions taken from time to time by officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (‘RSPCA’) under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (‘PCA Act’). In particular, in 2017, an officer of the RSPCA, as informant, brought criminal proceedings under the PCA Act against Mr Lazarides in relation to the dogs. Those proceedings then went on appeal to the County Court of Victoria in 2018.

Another major issue as between Mr Lazarides and the Council relates to the moving or impounding by the Council of various motor vehicles that from time to time were left in a street or streets in the vicinity of the house, being vehicles said by Mr Lazarides to belong to him. Those actions appear to have been taken by the Council under cl 3 of sch 11 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic), on the basis that the vehicles were considered to be unregistered or abandoned.

In 2017 and 2018, Mr Lazarides commenced applications in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria against the Chief Executive Officer and other officers of the Council and, in one case, against the Chief Executive Officer of the RSPCA. The applications purported to be made under the Personal Safety Intervention…

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 Lazarides v Di Lorenzo 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: [2019] VSC 693
Decision Date: 17 October 2019 First Revision: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Lazarides and another, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Magistrates’ Court and County Court, which refused to grant them personal safety intervention orders (PPIOs) against officers of a municipal council and an officer of the RSPCA. The applicants argued that the conduct of these officers in connection with the enforcement or administration of the law caused them to fear for their personal safety. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants' applications for judicial review were legally and factually misconceived and whether they constituted an abuse of process. The legal issues included the interpretation and application of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic) and whether the applicants' claims were within the scope of the Act.

The Supreme Court found that the applicants' claims were legally and factually misconceived and represented an abuse of process. The court held that the applicants' applications for PPIOs were baseless as the alleged conduct of the officers did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of personal harm. The court noted that the officers were acting within the scope of their duties and the PPIOs were not intended to be used as a means to challenge or interfere with the lawful exercise of public authority. The court further held that the applications for judicial review were likewise baseless and dismissed them. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applications for judicial review and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs. The court held that the applicants' claims were legally and factually misconceived and constituted an abuse of process. The court found that the applicants' applications for PPIOs were baseless as the alleged conduct of the officers did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of personal harm. The court emphasised that the PPIOs were not intended to be used as a means to challenge or interfere with the lawful exercise of public authority.

Orders