Lillas and Loel Lawyers Pty Ltd v Santo Antonio Celona

Lillas and Loel Lawyers Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of the Vice President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) who refused leave to reopen an order made at a compulsory conference. The order was made in the absence of the respondent, Santo Antonio Celona, who failed to appear at the conference. The crux of the appeal was whether the compulsory conference constituted a 'hearing' for the purposes of section 120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, and whether the respondent's unsatisfactory affidavits adequately explained his failure to attend. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether attendance by telephone would suffice as appearing at the compulsory conference.

The court was required to determine whether the compulsory conference was a 'hearing' under the Act, as the definition of 'hearing' is pivotal to the respondent's right to seek a reopening of the order. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the adequacy of the affidavits provided by the respondent, which were deemed unsatisfactory, and consider whether attending via telephone would constitute an appearance at the compulsory conference. The court also needed to address whether personal attendance is mandatory unless a party has been previously excused.

The court held that the compulsory conference was not a 'hearing' within the meaning of section 120 of the Act. It was found that the respondent's affidavits did not adequately explain his failure to attend. The court further clarified that personal attendance is required at a compulsory conference unless a party has been previously excused, and attendance by telephone does not suffice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not find merit in the arguments presented by the appellant, and thus, the decision of the Vice President was upheld.