Radojevic v JDA Design Group Pty Ltd - [2017] VSC 554

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 03017

DRAGAN RADOJEVIC and IVANA RADOJEVIC	Plaintiffs
v
JDA DESIGN GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 129 690 008) trading as JDA ARCHITECTS and the MAGISTRATES' COURT OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Radojevic v JDA Design Group Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 554

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW — Practice and Procedure — Dispute between building owners and architect — Owners suing architect for damages in Magistrates’ Court and architect’s counterclaim for fees — Owners seeking stay of Magistrates’ Court proceeding alleging VCAT had jurisdiction to determine a domestic building dispute — Stay application dismissed — Owners also seeking transfer of proceeding to County Court — Judicial review of Magistrate’s decision — Application by architect to dismiss judicial review proceeding - Whether judicial review proceeding an abuse of process or lacked utility — Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 s 57; Civil Procedure Act 2010 s 7(2), 19, 24, 25, 28.

BUILDING CONTRACTS — Dispute between building owners and architect — Owners’ proceeding in Magistrates’ Court for damages and architect’s counterclaim for fees — Owners’ application to stay Magistrates’ Court proceeding because VCAT had jurisdiction — Stay application dismissed — Judicial review of Magistrate’s decision — Domestic Building Contracts Act1995 s 57.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Judicial review proceeding — Summons to dismiss on grounds that proceeding lacked utility or was an abuse of process.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr A C Blair	Prior Law
For the First Defendant	Mr M Lapirow	Davies Moloney

HIS HONOUR:

I have to determine the first defendant’s application to dismiss the plaintiffs’ judicial review proceeding which seeks to quash a Magistrate’s ruling to not stay a proceeding between them as building owners and the first defendant as their architect. The plaintiffs contended that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) had jurisdiction to determine the matters that were the subject of the Magistrates' Court proceeding. The issue arises in the following circumstances.

Dragan and Ivana Radojevic, the plaintiffs, (‘the Radojevics’) were building owners seeking the building and construction of four apartments in Brighton and JDA Design Group, the first defendant, (‘JDA Design’) provided the architectural services for the project. In November 2016, the Radojevics sued JDA Design in the Magistrates’ Court in tort and contract alleging defective work and unreasonable delay causing them loss. JDA Design denied these claims and counterclaimed for its unpaid fees.

On 4 July 2017, shortly before the case was to be heard, the Radojevics asked the Magistrates’ Court to stay the ‘matter’ under s 57 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (the DBC Act), because it could be heard in the VCAT and the Court had not heard any oral evidence concerning ‘the dispute’. In the alternative, they sought an adjournment of the…

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 Radojevic v JDA Design Group Pty Ltd 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: [2017] VSC 554
Decision Date: 15 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Radojevic v JDA Design Group Pty Ltd, the parties were engaged in a dispute concerning a domestic building contract. The owners, Radojevic, had commenced proceedings against the architect, JDA Design Group, in the Magistrates’ Court, seeking damages related to the construction of their home. In response, JDA Design Group counterclaimed for unpaid architectural fees. The owners subsequently sought to stay the Magistrates’ Court proceedings, arguing that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute. This application for a stay was dismissed by the Magistrate, leading to a judicial review of that decision by the owners.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judicial review proceeding was an abuse of process or lacked utility. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the owners' application for judicial review was a legitimate exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction over the Magistrate's decision or if it was merely a tactical maneuver without any real prospect of success. The court also considered whether the owners' application for judicial review was in line with statutory provisions governing domestic building disputes and the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court found that the judicial review proceeding was not an abuse of process nor did it lack utility. It held that the owners' application for judicial review was a legitimate exercise of the court's jurisdiction, as it sought to ensure that the Magistrate had correctly applied the law in dismissing the stay application. The court emphasized that judicial review was a crucial mechanism to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and prevent miscarriages of justice. Therefore, the application to dismiss the judicial review proceeding was dismissed, and the owners' challenge to the Magistrate's decision proceeded.

The court's final orders confirmed that the judicial review proceeding was a valid exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction. The owners were permitted to continue with their application for judicial review, and the court reserved its decision on the merits of the owners' challenge to the Magistrate's dismissal of the stay application. This outcome underscored the importance of ensuring that judicial review applications are not dismissed lightly, particularly in matters involving significant statutory frameworks such as the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.

Orders