Varasdi as Litigation Representative for Mimi Varasdi v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Varasdi, as the litigation representative for Mimi Varasdi, brought a claim against the State of Victoria, represented by the Department of Education and Training. The primary dispute arose from an application by the respondents for the consolidation of two separate proceedings, both of which had a common foundation but were being pursued by the applicants through different legal representatives. The court was tasked with determining whether the proceedings should be consolidated and, if so, the extent of such consolidation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the court could order that the proceedings be heard and determined together, despite the applicants' decision to engage different solicitors for different aspects of the proceedings. The court also needed to consider the potential impact on the parties and the overall fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

The court found that while the applicants had engaged different solicitors for the two matters, this did not preclude the court from ordering that the proceedings be heard and determined together. The court emphasised the significant issues of commonality that would benefit from being heard and determined in a single proceeding. The court also noted that compelling the formal consolidation might impose significant cost detriments to the applicants and cause further delay. Therefore, the court opted for a less constraining means of addressing the issue by ordering that the proceedings be heard and determined at the same time, with the evidence of one being the evidence of the other. The court concluded that the just and fair conduct of the proceedings would not be prejudiced by this approach and that it adequately reflected the applicants' entitlement to maintain their choice of solicitors.

The court made orders that the proceedings VID 518 of 2019 be removed to the docket of Justice O’Callaghan and be heard together with proceeding VID 367 of 2017, with evidence in one being evidence in both. The court also granted the respondents leave to file submissions in support of an order for costs, with the applicants having the opportunity to file responsive submissions. The court did not make any order as to costs unless an application was made within the specified timeframe.