Modern Tools v Automaint Solutions - [2011] VSC 400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2011 00214

MODERN TOOLS (VICTORIA) PTY LTD	Appellant
v
AUTOMAINT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Modern Tools v Automaint Solutions
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 400

---

APPEAL FROM VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW – Obligation of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to assist parties – Fair hearing – Failure to call a witness - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, ss 97, 98(1)(a) and 102(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M. Black	Sharrock Pitman Legal
For the Respondent	Mr B.J. Murphy	Scanlan Carroll

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In June 2009, the respondent, Automaint Solutions Pty Ltd, purchased from the appellant, Modern Tools (Victoria) Pty Ltd, a used Mazak lathe plus accessories to it, including a Fagor 2 Axis package and a Haas quick change tool for a total cost of $9,900.

On 2 December 2009, Automaint lodged an application at VCAT against Modern Tools seeking an order that Modern Tools “collect the machine and refund all monies paid”. The basis of the claim was set out in a letter dated 9 November 2009 from Automaint’s solicitors addressed to Modern Tools.

The case came on for hearing before VCAT on 16 July 2010. Automaint was represented by its director, Mr Barry Staff. Modern Tools was represented by its director, Mr Phillip Caruso. In answer to a question from the presiding member as to whether there were any other witnesses on either side. Mr Caruso said that there was only a Mr Mark Stoneham.

The case was heard on 16 July 2010 and 7 December 2010. Following the conclusion of the hearing, VCAT gave judgment in favour of Automaint and made orders as follows:

“1. The Tribunal orders that the respondent [Modern Tools] must pay the applicant [Automaint] the sum of $9,130.
2. The Mazak lathe, the Fagor 2 Axis package and the Haas quick change tool … are the property of the respondent [Modern Tools].”

On 8 March 2011, Modern Tools obtained leave to appeal on a question of law under s 148 of the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The question of law was stated in the following terms:

“Whether
(a)s 97 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (‘the VCAT Act’); and/or
(b)s 98(1)(a) of the VCAT Act; and/or
(c)s 102(1) of the VCAT Act; and/or
(d)the requirements of natural justice; and/or
(e)the requirements of procedural fairness

operating alone or in conjunction required the Tribunal to assist the appellant by:
(f)identifying the issues which were central to the determination to be made by the Tribunal in the proceeding before it, namely:
(i)whether any, and if so what, representations were made to the respondent in the course of negotiation for the purchase of the Mazak lathe (‘the lathe’) being…

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.

Continue reading Modern Tools v Automaint Solutions

Details

AGLC: Modern Tools v Automaint Solutions [2011] VSC 400
Case: [2011] VSC 400
Decision Date: 26 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Modern Tools appealed against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on the grounds that VCAT had not provided a fair hearing, nor fulfilled its obligation to assist the parties. Specifically, Modern Tools argued that VCAT should have called a witness in the proceedings. The dispute arose from a contractual disagreement between the two companies, which had been escalated to VCAT. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether VCAT had breached any statutory obligations or denied natural justice by failing to call the witness.

The primary legal issues were whether VCAT was required to assist the parties by calling a particular witness, and if VCAT's failure to do so constituted a denial of natural justice or a breach of the statutory obligation to provide a fair hearing. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, particularly sections 97, 98(1)(a), and 102(1). The Court also considered whether the failure to call the witness was a material irregularity that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal held that VCAT had not erred in law or denied natural justice by not calling the witness in question. The Court found that there was no obligation on VCAT to call a specific witness and that the tribunal had acted within its discretion in deciding not to do so. The Court further held that the absence of the witness did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore did not deny the appellant a fair hearing. The Court found that VCAT had acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed. The decision of VCAT was upheld, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.