Manningham City Council v Kazantzidis - [2008] VSC 365

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 365 of 2008

MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL	Appellant
v
KAZANTZIDIS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 September 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 September 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Manningham City Council v Kazantzidis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 365

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Summary dismissal – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s75(1) – Whether there is sufficient knowledge of damage sustained by plaintiff to justify summary dismissal of an imprecise claim

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Dr R. Sadler	Hunt & Hunt
For the Respondent	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

On 26 October 2007, Paul Kazantzidis and Penelope Kazantzidis, the respondents in this appeal, commenced a proceeding in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Civil Claims List, against Manningham City Council (the appellant in the present proceeding) and another respondent about whom nothing further need be said for the purposes of this appeal.
The proceeding at VCAT was commenced by the completion of an application to the Civil Claims List dated 24 October 2007, to which was attached a letter dated 30 April 2007. Their claim may be briefly summarised as follows.
Mr and Mrs Kazantzidis booked the Doncaster Rovers Soccer Club hall for their son’s 21^st birthday party. When they arrived at the venue to set up on the day of the party, they found there had been a double booking, despite the assurances they had previously sought and received from the soccer club.
They had to move the party to the cricket club rooms, quite a distance away. Their application describes the difficulties which surrounded this change of plan, including being unable to use equipment they had hired, difficulties for their guests, loss of enjoyment of the occasion and general embarrassment.
Manningham City Council, the first respondent below and the appellant in this proceeding, leases the soccer club hall to the soccer club, which in turn had hired out the hall to Mr and Mrs Kazantzidis for the party. The council had then hired the hall to someone else for a party on the same day.
Mr and Mrs Kazantzidis have been reimbursed for the amount they have paid to hire the soccer club rooms and now claim $24,380. They claim $3,180 for what they spent on food, drinks and equipment, $1,200 for legal costs and $20,000 for stress, suffering and loss of enjoyment.
By an application dated 22 January 2008, the appellant sought an order from VCAT pursuant to s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (“the VCAT Act”) that the proceeding be dismissed and the respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application and of the proceeding. The grounds of the application were:
1.The proceedings are an abuse of process as the tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
2.That part of the proceeding that claims $20,000…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manningham City Council v Kazantzidis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] VSC 365
Decision Date: 12 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Manningham City Council sought an appeal against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the Council's claim for summary dismissal of a proceeding brought by Mr Kazantzidis. The dispute involved an alleged negligent damage to Mr Kazantzidis' property caused by the Council's workmen. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient knowledge of the damage sustained by Mr Kazantzidis to justify the summary dismissal of his imprecise claim. The court considered whether the knowledge requirement under section 75(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 had been met. The Council argued that Mr Kazantzidis' claim was imprecise and should have been summarily dismissed due to the lack of specific details about the damage.

The court found that the knowledge requirement was met, as the Council had been made aware of the damage caused by their workmen to Mr Kazantzidis' property. The court held that the imprecise nature of the claim did not preclude the Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision to not summarily dismiss the claim was not in error.

The court did not make any further orders, as the primary issue of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim was resolved in favour of the respondent. The Council's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

Orders