Legal Research
Cases
Luck v Renton

Luck v Renton

Case [2005] VSCA 210 23 August 2005

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 6650 of 2005

ALEX LUCK	Applicant
v.
KEVIN RENTON	First Respondent
and
JULIE RENTON	Second Respondent
and
DIANNE ALLAN	Third Respondent

---

APPLICATION ON SUMMONS

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P. and HARPER, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 August 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 August 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 210

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In Person
For the First Respondent	In Person
For the Second Respondent	No appearance
For the Third Respondent	No appearance

MAXWELL, P.:
HARPER, A.J.A.:

By summons dated 26 July 2005, the applicant, Ms Alex Luck, seeks leave to appeal from orders made by Hargrave, J. on 25 July 2005. By an amended summons dated 4 August 2005, Ms Luck seeks an order for expedition of the hearing of her appeal. She contends that the decision of the High Court in Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of State Revenue of the State of Victoria[1] gives her a right of appeal from his Honour’s decision, without the need to seek leave. For reasons set out below, we reject that contention, save in one respect.
[1](2001) 207 CLR 72.

Factual background

Ms Luck is the tenant of Flat 3, 59 Thames Promenade, Chelsea. The first respondent, Mr Kevin Renton, is her landlord. The second and third respondents are Mr Renton’s daughters. They have taken no part in the proceeding. Their position will be considered below.

Ms Luck made application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) under s.73 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) (“the RT Act”), seeking an order requiring Mr Renton to carry out specified urgent repairs. She sought a specific order that Mr Renton have a qualified tradesman attend to ensure that a gas heater, installed in the flat by Mr Renton on 14 March 2005, was safe.

The repair application came on before the Tribunal on 5 May 2005. The Tribunal ordered Mr Renton to carry out, by 12 May 2005, repairs made necessary by -

“● gas leak and explosion in the griller;
●dangerous electrical fault in relation to unsafe electrical fittings throughout the rented premises.”

Mr Renton was ordered to employ a qualified tradesman to do the work, and Ms Luck was ordered to make the rented premises reasonably available to Mr Renton to enable the order to be complied with.

The Tribunal further ordered, with Mr Renton’s consent, that Mr Renton employ a qualified tradesman to attend at the rented premises on or before 12 May 2005 –

“to inspect the installation of the gas heater and, if necessary, undertake any adjustments to the heater for the purpose of ensuring it complies with all safety requirements. The tradesman shall, upon completing the task, provide to the landlord, the tenant Ms Luck and the tenant of 2/59 Thames Promenade, Chelsea a copy of a compliance certificate.”

Finally, the Tribunal ordered Mr Renton to pay Ms Luck costs…

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.

Continue reading Luck v Renton

Details

AGLC: Luck v Renton [2005] VSCA 210
Case: [2005] VSCA 210
Decision Date: 23 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Alex Luck, sought leave to appeal against orders made by the Tribunal and the Trial Division in relation to residential tenancy disputes with the landlord, Kevin Renton. The appeal was dismissed by the Practice Court, and Luck sought leave to appeal against that dismissal. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed in part. The applications for leave to appeal in relation to the adjournment application and the application for VCAT transcript were refused. The appeal from the order refusing a stay of the application for possession in VCAT was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the orders dismissing the application for an extension of time and the applications for leave to appeal from the VCAT orders was granted. The Court treated the appeal as having been heard on 12 August and allowed the appeal. The result was that those applications would be remitted to the Trial Division for hearing. The Court expressed the view that the availability of an accurate transcript of the VCAT proceedings was essential to the proper hearing of those applications, but no order was made in that regard. The Court also suggested that it was highly desirable for steps to be taken to arrange for a mediation of the matters in dispute, but again, no order was made in that regard. There would be no order as to costs.

Orders