Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2) was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the council sought indemnity costs against the Romsey Hotel. The council, as the successful appellant in the original proceeding before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), sought indemnity costs in relation to the costs incurred during the appeal and in the VCAT proceeding. The basis of the council’s claim was the conduct of the Romsey Hotel during the VCAT review, which the council argued was unreasonable and vexatious.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council was entitled to indemnity costs under the Appeal Costs Act 1998 (Vic) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the conduct of the Romsey Hotel warranted such a costs order and whether the grant of an indemnity certificate was appropriate under the relevant legislation. The Romsey Hotel argued against the award of indemnity costs, contending that its conduct did not merit such an order.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Victoria found that the Romsey Hotel’s conduct during the VCAT review was indeed unreasonable and vexatious. The court considered that the hotel’s actions significantly prolonged the proceedings and caused unnecessary expense to the council. As a result, the court concluded that an order for indemnity costs was warranted. The court further determined that the grant of an indemnity certificate was appropriate under the provisions of the Appeal Costs Act and the VCAT Act. The court’s decision emphasised the importance of parties conducting themselves reasonably and responsibly in administrative proceedings to avoid such costs consequences.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that the Romsey Hotel pay the council’s costs of the appeal and the VCAT review on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court granted an indemnity certificate, confirming that the hotel’s conduct justified such an order. This decision serves as a reminder to parties involved in administrative proceedings of the potential financial consequences of unreasonable and vexatious conduct.