LG v Melbourne Health

The matter before the court was an appeal against orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) appointing a guardian and administrator for the first appellant, LG. The appeal raised questions about the adequacy of VCAT's reasons for its decisions, the consideration of human rights in making the orders, and the entitlement of the self-represented appellant to claim professional costs. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether VCAT's reasons were sufficient, whether it had properly considered the relevant human rights, and whether the appellant was entitled to professional costs despite not holding a current practising certificate.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of VCAT's reasons for its decisions, the extent to which it had considered the appellant's human rights, and the applicability of the Chorley exception to the appellant's claim for professional costs. The appellant argued that VCAT had failed to give adequate reasons for its orders, did not properly consider her human rights, and was entitled to professional costs despite not holding a current practising certificate. The respondents contended that VCAT had provided sufficient reasons, had appropriately considered the human rights, and that the Chorley exception did not apply because the appellant was not currently practising as a lawyer.

The Court of Appeal held that VCAT's reasons for its decisions were inadequate as they did not address a submission seriously advanced and worthy of consideration. The Court found that VCAT had not properly considered the appellant's human rights in making the guardianship and administration orders, contrary to the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Regarding the costs, the Court ruled that the Chorley exception, which allows a legally qualified person to claim professional costs, applied only to a lawyer entitled to practise. Since the appellant was not holding a current practising certificate, she was not entitled to professional costs under the exception.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of VCAT, and remitted the matter back to VCAT for reconsideration. The Court did not make any order for the payment of professional costs to the appellant.