Luck v Renton

[2006] VSC 90

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8169 of  2005

ALEX LUCK	Appellant
v
KEVIN RENTON & ORS	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Luck v Renton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 90

---

Appeal from order of a Master – Refusal to identify error of law in respect of a VCAT member’s ruling as to an adjournment – No substantive right affected – No apparent error of law – Unrepresented litigants - Appeal dismissed with costs - Luck v Renton [2005] VSCA 210.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	The appellant appeared on her own behalf.
For the Firstnamed Respondent	The respondent appeared on his own behalf.

HIS HONOUR:

1. This matter was an appeal from an order of Senior Master Mahony of 5 October 2005 dismissing  an application for leave to appeal from a ruling of a member of VCAT. The ruling sought to be appealed was a ruling on 2 September 2005 that a hearing in which the now appellant was a respondent in the Residential Tenancies List be adjourned so that she could have the proceeding recorded; that is to say the now appellant was seeking leave from Senior Master Mahony to appeal a ruling which it appears she had sought and obtained.

1. Ms Luck appeared in person as did Mr Renton, one of the respondents. The other respondents did not appear.  Ms Luck made a preliminary application for an adjournment based on the fact that VCAT had not appeared at today's hearing.  That application was refused as VCAT had notified the Court of its submission to any order the Court may make so that its presence was not required.  Ms Luck sought to canvass the ruling refusing an adjournment in an aggressive manner, demonstrated by her voice, demeanour, stance and body language.

1. The appellant was then invited to address the court on the appeal from Senior Master Mahony and, in particular, to identify the question of law in respect of which the VCAT  member was in error. Ms Luck refused to do this, insisting that she wished to attack Senior Master Mahony’s ruling. She commenced to shout. She was given the opportunity again to enunciate the relevant question of law but again refused to do so.  She appeared to become hysterical and said she was ill. She again requested an adjournment. I was satisfied that she was not ill. Her aggressive, truculent manner had not changed, nor had her demeanour or attitude, since she commenced addressing the Court, and particularly since her initial application for an adjournment on the ground of VCAT’s non-attendance was refused. I am also satisfied that her feigned illness was merely a purported justification for not wishing to proceed with her appeal from Senior Master Mahony for some unstated reason. The adjournment application was again refused.

1. The appellant was then again invited to identify the question of law she wished to raise on her appeal from VCAT. However, she then left the court taking her papers with her.

1. It is necessary for the Court to be aware of the particular needs of unrepresented litigants as referred to in the recent Court of Appeal judgment concerning this appellant: Luck v Renton [2005] VSCA 210. However, in this instance, the apparent total lack of merit in the appellant’s application and her behaviour generally have the consequence that the prolongation of this proceeding imposes considerable and unjustified vexation and injustice on Mr Renton who, it should be noted, is also an unrepresented party who had travelled a long distance at some expense to be present.

1. Having regard to the appellant’s refusal to present a case on the question of law to be raised on her appeal,  the fact that the VCAT order sought to be appealed was apparently made at her request, that it affected no substantive right (being merely an order of adjournment) and that the prolongation of this matter by further adjournment would cause grave inconvenience and injustice to Mr Renton who has travelled a long distance to be present, the appeal from Senior Master Mahony is dismissed with costs.

---