Pong Property Development Pty Ltd v Strangio - [2005] VSC 217

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9798 of 2004

In the matter of section 148 of the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

PONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 005 441 140)	Plaintiff
v
BRUNO STRANGIO	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ashley J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 June 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 June 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pong v Strangio
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 217

---

Appeal – decision of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – decision involving the formation of an opinion by the Tribunal and an exercise of discretion – reasons for decision – appeal on a question of law – whether decision impeachable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. Andrew	Chua Tan & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr J. Bolton	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HIS HONOUR:

The Appeal

Before the Court, pursuant to leave granted by a Master, is an appeal on a question of law under s. 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (“the VCAT Act”) against the decision of a member of the Tribunal established by that Act (“the Tribunal”).

The decision, made on 25 November 2004, was reflected particularly in orders that:

“1.For the reasons given, I act under s. 75(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1995 to summarily discuss that part of the proceeding which relates to the question of payment into the Domestic Builders Fund of $50,000 as being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance or as being otherwise an abuse of process.
2.Consequently, having been invited to do so, I order under s. 75(2) of such act that the Applicant pay to the Third Respondent an amount to compensate that party for any costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding to the extent mentioned.”

The notice of appeal states the following questions of law:

“1.Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the part of the proceeding which related to the order was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance or was otherwise an abuse of process.
2.Was the Tribunal’s decision to order under s. 75(2) of the Act that the appellant pay to the defendant an amount to compensate that party for any costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience, and embarrassment resulting from that part of the proceeding which related to the question of payment into the Domestic Builders Fund of $50,000 so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the Court should find that the Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion?
3.Did the Tribunal in making the decision to order under s. 75(2) of the Act that the appellant pay to the defendant an amount to compensate that party for any costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience, and embarrassment resulting from that part of the proceeding which related to the question of payment into the Domestic Builders Fund of $50,000 act on wrong principle by reason of failing to take into account s. 109 of the Act…

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 Pong Property Development Pty Ltd v Strangio

Details

AGLC: Pong Property Development Pty Ltd v Strangio [2005] VSC 217
Case: [2005] VSC 217
Decision Date: 27 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pong Property Development Pty Ltd, the appellant, appealed against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in a dispute concerning the formation of an opinion and the exercise of discretion. The Tribunal had ruled on the appropriate compensation to be paid to the respondent, Strangio, following the termination of a contract for the sale of property. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the decision of VCAT was impeachable on a question of law.

The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on the sufficiency of the reasons provided by VCAT for its decision, particularly whether the reasons demonstrated that the Tribunal had properly formed an opinion and exercised its discretion in making its determination. The appellant argued that the reasons were inadequate because they failed to provide sufficient insight into the Tribunal's reasoning process and the factors it had considered in reaching its decision. The court was asked to determine whether this failure rendered the decision impeachable on a question of law.

In examining the reasoning of VCAT, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed formed an opinion and exercised its discretion, as required by law. The court held that while the reasons provided by VCAT could have been more detailed, they were sufficient to demonstrate that the Tribunal had considered the relevant factors and reached a reasoned decision. The court emphasised that the adequacy of reasons in such cases is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the complexity of the issues and the nature of the decision. The appeal was dismissed, as the decision of VCAT was not found to be impeachable on a question of law.

Orders