Shaw v Rigby Cooke Lawyers

In Shaw v Rigby Cooke Lawyers, the appellant, a litigant in person, appealed against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which had refused leave to appeal a decision rejecting the appellant’s claims. The appellant sought to assert that the respondent, a law firm, had acted negligently, breached contract, and breached the Fair Trading Act 1999. The appellant also sought to challenge the assessment of loss, suggesting that it was incorrect.

The central legal issues before the court were whether VCAT erred in rejecting the appellant's claims against the respondent for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the Fair Trading Act 1999. Additionally, the court had to determine if VCAT erred in its assessment of loss and whether there were procedural irregularities in the tribunal's handling of the case, particularly in suggesting that the appellant bring a new claim under the Fair Trading Act and permitting it to be heard concurrently with existing proceedings. The court also had to examine if the respondent's conduct was vexatious or if the appellant pursued untenable claims.

The court found that VCAT did not err in dismissing the appellant’s claims as they were either legally untenable or unsupported by the evidence. VCAT was not found to have erred in suggesting the appellant bring a new claim under the Fair Trading Act and allowing it to be heard concurrently, as there were no procedural irregularities that prejudiced the appellant. The court also held that the respondent’s conduct was not vexatious, and the appellant did not pursue untenable claims. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. This included indemnity costs for the conduct of the appeal, given the vexatious nature of the appellant’s claims and the pursuit of untenable grounds. The court also noted that the offer of compromise made by the respondent was capable of acceptance and should have been considered by the appellant.