Mitchell v Aveo Live Well

Mitchell v Aveo Live Well is a case that revolves around the dispute between Mitchell, a resident of Aveo, a retirement village, and Aveo Live Well, the management of the retirement village. The Appellant, Mitchell, contends that the interlocutory consent order made on 21 September 2012 is an admission of liability by Aveo, as distinct from a temporary measure to preserve the peace. Aveo rejects this assertion, saying that the relevant order was merely a “commercial resolution”, acceptable to it pending the trial, because from November 2011 to September 2012, the Appellant had minimal and inoffensive contact with village staff. The Appellant seeks a public apology, compensation and costs, claiming that the order was an admission of liability. The legal issues in this case are whether Aveo threatened the Appellant with removal from the retirement village or threatened with deprivation or restriction, whether any such threat was reasonably justified, and whether the Appellant is entitled to a public apology, compensation and costs. The court was also required to decide whether the interim consent order was a determination of the merits and whether there was an appellable error shown in the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s original application.

The court found that the interim consent order was not a decision on the merits, but an inartifically drawn interlocutory injunction, designed as a holding measure until a final decision could be made. The court held that the order amounts to no more, at the highest, than an admission that, prior to the order, Aveo threatened to impose restrictions upon the Appellant if the conduct in question continued. It decides nothing about reasonable justification. The court found that the primary decision is somewhat elliptical, but inadequacy of reasons is not one of the grounds of appeal. The court held that it is plain enough that the Member did not regard the interim order as a decision on the merits. The court held that the crux of this case is whether or not, in the light of events that allegedly occurred in the period June 2006 to October 2011, Aveo took “reasonable and necessary steps... to prevent or control exposure to [sic] village staff members to the risk of workplace harassment by the appellant”. The court held that Aveo was “reasonably justified” in requesting the Appellant to minimise his contacts with village staff, particularly in the village car park.

In conclusion, the court held that the interim consent order was not a decision on the merits, but an inartifically drawn interlocutory injunction, designed as a holding measure until a final decision could be made. The court held that the primary decision is somewhat elliptical, but inadequacy of reasons is not one of the grounds of appeal. The court held that Aveo was “reasonably justified” in requesting the Appellant to minimise his contacts with village staff, particularly in the village car park. The court held that the Appellant is not entitled to a public apology, compensation and costs. Leave to appeal is refused.