Re Greco - [2018] VSC 175

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2017 01507

JOHN PAUL GRECO	Plaintiff
v
MELBOURNE CITY COUNCIL & ORS	Defendants

-AND-

S CI 2017 01509

JOHN PAUL GRECO	Plaintiff
v
CITY OF STONNINGTON & ORS	Defendants

-AND-

S CI 2017 01510
S CI 2017 01512
S CI 2017 01513

JOHN PAUL GRECO	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIA POLICE & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	KEOGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 April 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Greco
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 175

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judicial Review – Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Extension of time within which to commence proceeding – Special circumstances required – No special circumstances disclosed – No arguable case for judicial review – Lazarevic v Victoria Police [2014] VSC 479 – Craig v South Australia [1995] 184 CLR 163 – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For Victoria Police	Mr L Brown
For Melbourne City Council	Mr A Sim

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Greco was served with 61 infringement notices issued pursuant to the Infringements Act 2006 (the Act)[1] by Victoria Police, Melbourne City Council, City of Stonnington and Traffic Camera Office in relation to offences those agencies alleged occurred between October 2012 and July 2014 (the infringement notices). An infringement notice requires payment of the infringement penalty within a period specified in the notice. A person served with an infringement notice who wishes to contest the infringement offence may elect to have the matter heard and determined in the Magistrates’ Court. Mr Greco did not pay the infringement penalties or make an election to have the offences heard and determined in the Magistrates’ Court. Consequently, enforcement orders were made requiring payment of each infringement penalty together with certain prescribed costs.
[1]The Act has since been amended. In these reasons I refer to pre-amendment provisions of the Act as they apply to this proceeding.

Mr Greco’s application to an infringements registrar to revoke the enforcement orders was refused and his revocation application was then referred to the Magistrates’ Court. That application was heard by Judicial Registrar Bartlett, and was refused. Mr Greco’s application for review of the decision of Judicial Registrar Bartlett was refused by Magistrate King on 28 October 2016.

In these proceedings Mr Greco applies pursuant to O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (the Rules) for review of the order made by Magistrate King. The grounds for review upon which Mr Greco relied are reproduced below at paragraph [27]. The proceedings were commenced out of time. Mr Greco made an application to extend the time to commence proceedings. Mr Greco was self-represented at the hearing before me.

Melbourne City Council and Victoria Police appeared and opposed the application for extension of time within which to commence the proceedings, and submitted the application for review by Mr…

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 Re Greco

Details

AGLC: Re Greco [2018] VSC 175
Case: [2018] VSC 175
Decision Date: 13 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Greco was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Greco, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Planning. The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court should grant an extension of time for Greco to commence proceedings against the Minister's decision. Greco argued that the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit due to special circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had demonstrated special circumstances warranting an extension of time, and whether there was an arguable case for judicial review. The court examined the relevant rules and precedents, particularly Lazarevic v Victoria Police and Craig v South Australia, to determine if Greco had made out a case for relief. The court found that no special circumstances had been demonstrated, and that there was no arguable case for judicial review.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the stringent requirements for extending time in judicial review proceedings. The court noted that while the Rules permit the court to extend time in special circumstances, the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate such circumstances. The court concluded that Greco had not satisfied the requisite standard, and that the application should be dismissed. The court also found that there was no arguable case for judicial review, as the applicant had failed to establish a basis for questioning the Minister's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time be dismissed, and that the application for judicial review be dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of strict adherence to time limits in judicial review proceedings, and the need for applicants to clearly demonstrate special circumstances where an extension of time is sought.

Orders