Miller v Schlicht

[2021] VSC 98

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 04587

JAMES EDWARD MILLER	Appellant
v
ANTHONY THEORDORE SCHLICHT	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	MOORE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Miller v Schlicht
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 98

---

APPEALS – Appeal from Magistrates’ Court – Whether Magistrate erred in law – Where appellant did not identify any errors of law in notice of appeal – Jurisdiction not enlivened – Where appellant did not tender into evidence transcript of trial – Court cannot be satisfied that findings of fact not open – No error of law established – Appeal dismissed – Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, s 109 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 58.09 – Ericsson (Australia) Pty Ltd v Popovski (2000) 1 VR 260, applied – Wong v Carter [2000] VSCA 53, applied – Indevelco Pty Ltd v Betts [2002] VSC 537, followed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	In person
For the Respondent	S Buchanan	Simon Nixon & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an appeal brought by James Miller under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (the Act) from an order made by the Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2019 requiring him to pay Anthony Schlicht $36,250 plus interest and costs. Mr Miller represented himself before the Magistrates’ Court and in the hearing of this appeal.

1. Mr Schlicht is a barrister at the Victorian Bar.  He represented Mr Miller in a proceeding brought by Mr Miller in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which was heard over seven days in 2016 (the VCAT proceeding).[1]  Mr Miller was unsuccessful in that proceeding.

   [1]Proceeding BP244/2015.

1. Mr Schlicht rendered invoices totalling $93,050 for work undertaken by him in relation to the VCAT proceeding.  Of this sum, $56,800 was paid, leaving a balance of $36,250.  Mr Schlicht successfully sought recovery of this amount in the proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court which resulted in the orders the subject of this appeal (the Magistrates’ Court proceeding).

1. Mr Miller was the second defendant in the Magistrates’ Court proceeding; the first defendant was Vasilaras & Co Pty Ltd, the firm of solicitors which briefed Mr Schlicht to appear on behalf of Mr Miller in the VCAT proceeding. 

1. On 16 July 2019, Mr Schlicht and Vasilaras & Co signed a minute of consent providing for an order dismissing the proceeding brought by Mr Schlicht against Vasilaras & Co. 

1. Mr Schlicht’s claim against Mr Miller in respect of his unpaid fees was heard in the Magistrates’ Court over three days in August 2019.  As I have noted, an order in Mr Schlicht’s favour was made on 9 September 2019. On the same day, the Magistrate delivered oral reasons for judgment.

The VCAT proceeding

1. Before considering the Magistrate’s reasons, it is necessary to first say something about the VCAT…