Ralena Pty Ltd v VCAT - [2006] VSC 451

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 9115 of 2006

RALENA PTY LTD (TRADING AS NICK THEODOSSI PRESTIGE CARS AND NICK THEODOSSI PRESTIGE CAR AUCTIONS)	Applicant
v
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	First Respondent
- and -
XTSEA PTY LTD	Second Respondent
- and -
MOTOR CAR TRADERS GUARANTEE FUND CLAIMS COMMITTEE	Third Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Kaye J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17, 24 November 2006 (Further written submissions 21 and 23 November 2006)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ralena Pty Ltd v VCAT and ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 451

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Certiorari – Decision by VCAT – Whether s.4(4) of Administrative Law Act1978 applicable – Claim by customer under s.76(1)(c) of Motor Car Traders Act 1986 for compensation for loss by reason of motor car trader’s repudiation of contract to acquire two motor vehicles subject to lease/hire purchase agreements – Whether vehicles “sold” by hirer under s.76(1)(c) – Quantum of loss.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R. Kendall QC with Mr S. Palmer	Lewenberg & Lewenberg
For the First Respondent	No appearance
For the Second Respondent	Mr J. Slonim	Kliger Partners
For the Third Respondent	Ms J. Lardner	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

These proceedings have been commenced by Ralena Pty Ltd (“Ralena”) under the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Victoria) to review a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) of 11 September 2006. That decision was made in the matter of XTSEA v Motor Car Traders Guarantee Fund Appeals Committee. The respondents to the present proceedings are the Tribunal, XTSEA Pty Ltd (“XTSEA”), and the Motor Car Traders Guarantee Fund Claims Committee (“the Committee”). On 18 October 2006 Master Daly, on the ex parte application of the applicant, ordered that the respondents show cause why the determination of the Tribunal should not be reviewed, and why an order should not be made quashing that determination.

The facts which are relevant to the application are not particularly clear from the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. However, it would appear that the salient background circumstances to the dispute may be summarised as follows:

(1)Ralena conducts a business as a motor car trader under the name “Nick Theodossi Prestige Cars” and “Nick Theodossi Prestige Car Auctions”. XTSEA is a company which provides water sport facilities to the Marriott Hotel on the Gold Coast in Queensland.
(2)In early 2005 XTSEA had in its possession three Mercedes‑Benz motor vehicles, namely a Mercedes-Benz CLK 230 (“the CLK 230”), a Mercedes-Benz S420 (“the S420”) and a Mercedes‑Benz SLK 230 (“the SLK 230”). According to the reasons of the Tribunal[1], those vehicles were the subject of either lease or hire purchase arrangements between XTSEA and a finance company or finance companies.
[1]Reasons [2].
(3)XTSEA wished to acquire a Mercedes-Benz Convertible. The plan of its director, Mr Avery, was to “trade in” the three vehicles which XTSEA then had…

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 Ralena Pty Ltd v VCAT

Details

AGLC: Ralena Pty Ltd v VCAT [2006] VSC 451
Case: [2006] VSC 451
Decision Date: 29 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Ralena Pty Ltd, a motor car trader, and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Ralena sought judicial review of a decision made by VCAT, which upheld a claim by a customer for compensation under the Motor Car Traders Act 1986. The customer alleged that Ralena repudiated a contract to acquire two motor vehicles subject to lease/hire purchase agreements, entitling the customer to compensation under section 76(1)(c) of the Act. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the vehicles were "sold" by the hirer, and if so, whether section 4(4) of the Administrative Law Act 1978 applied to the decision made by VCAT. The court had to determine the quantum of loss, if any, to which the customer was entitled.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered whether the vehicles were indeed "sold" by the hirer as required by section 76(1)(c) of the Motor Car Traders Act 1986. It was established that the hirer had transferred ownership of the vehicles to Ralena, which satisfied the requirement of a "sale". The court also considered whether section 4(4) of the Administrative Law Act 1978 applied to VCAT's decision, potentially limiting its reviewability. The court found that the decision of VCAT was not subject to the limitations imposed by section 4(4) of the Administrative Law Act 1978. Consequently, the court was able to review the decision and determine the appropriate quantum of loss for the customer.

The court concluded that Ralena was liable to compensate the customer for the loss resulting from the repudiation of the contract. The court assessed the loss based on the difference between the contract price and the market value of the vehicles at the time of the repudiation. The court found that the customer was entitled to compensation in the amount of $X, which reflected the loss suffered due to Ralena's actions. The court dismissed Ralena's application for judicial review and upheld VCAT's decision. As a result, Ralena was ordered to pay the customer the sum of $X in compensation for the loss incurred due to the repudiation of the contract to acquire the two motor vehicles.

Orders