Vergara v Chartered Accountants ANZ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

Not Restricted

S ECI 2018 0507

CLAUDIO VERGARA	Plaintiff
v
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (ARBN 084 642 571)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2-4 and 23 September 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 February 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Vergara v Chartered Accountants ANZ
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 34

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Relief sought in the nature of certiorari and mandamus – Applicability of Datafin principle – Whether decision by the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand susceptible to judicial review.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Whether available to quash a decision made by a domestic body established by Royal Charter and Supplemental Charters to refuse readmission to membership.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Application of a domestic body established by Royal Charter and Supplemental Charters of grounds for review - Construction of By-Laws and Regulations – Whether rule applies to a decision to refuse readmission to membership.

CONTRACT – Extent of rights and entitlement arising from contract relating to application for readmission and/or original membership contract – Claims in relation to breaches of contract – Deprival of natural justice - Unreasonable restraint of trade – Whether Regulations are in the nature of an unreasonable restraint of trade.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms A Wilson	Bleyer Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr I Waller QC with Mr P Noonan	Baker McKenzie

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. These Reasons concern an application by Claudio Vergara (the plaintiff) challenging the decision of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (the defendant) to decline his application for readmission to membership of the defendant on 25 May 2018.

1. It is common ground that on 25 May 2018 the defendant declined the plaintiff’s application for readmission to membership of the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff did not comply with the defendant’s requirements in relation to an application for readmission, in particular by not producing three references from persons who are members of the defendant.[1]  Rather, the plaintiff produced three references from persons who are members of CPA Australia and an additional reference from a person in a senior finance management role.[2]

   NOTE:  FCB and Tab references are references to the tabs and page numbering of the agreed Filleted Court Book produced by the parties

   [1]FCB Tab 12, [23].

   [2]Ibid [6].

1. The plaintiff, by his Statement of Claim dated 8 February 2019, pursues the following causes of action and relief:

(a)   Judicial review:

The plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Decision of the defendant and an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the defendant to properly consider the plaintiff's application for readmission according to law.

(b)  Relief on the basis that the defendant has not afforded the plaintiff natural justice:

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Decision is invalid and/or contrary to law and therefore void and a…