JUDGE:	FORBES J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wang v South West Conveyancing
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 615

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST — Adjournment of hearing because of medical condition — Whether applicant provided with an opportunity to address the Tribunal on its consideration of using powers under s 78 to find that the applicant ‘caused the adjournment’ and that her conduct in doing so unnecessarily disadvantaged the defendants — Whether the applicant afforded natural justice to respond to costs orders and to order striking out claim if order for payment of costs not complied with — Sections 78 and 109 of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) — Bell Corp Victoria v Stephenson [2003] VSC 255.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Applicant in person	—	—
For the First Respondent	A Gaber	Barry Nilsson
For the Second Respondent	A Healer	Legoll Lawyers

Contents

A.. Introduction

B.. Background

C.. The VCAT proceeding

C.1          Points of claim
C.2          Prior trial listings
C.3          The conduct of the hearing

D.. Consideration - Grounds of Appeal

D.1         Grounds not giving rise to questions of law
D.2         Natural justice grounds
D.2.1        Substantive hearing
D.2.2        Costs hearing – natural justice

D.3 No evidence ground

E... Outcome

HER HONOUR:

A Introduction

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal/VCAT) made orders on 7 August 2024 that Ms Wang (the applicant) pay the costs of an application to adjourn a hearing in the Civil Claims List, following the hearing that commenced the previous day. The Tribunal also fixed the amount of costs and ordered that unless those costs are paid and an application made to relist the hearing by 7 November 2024, the proceeding be struck out (together the costs orders).
On 18 September 2024, Ms Wang filed a notice of appeal. As the notice of appeal was filed later than the 28 day period provided for in s 148(2)(a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (the VCAT Act), the applicant requires an extension of time to appeal. If time is extended, then she also requires a grant of leave to appeal. An appeal is limited to questions of law[1] and leave to appeal requires an applicant to establish that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success.[2]
[1]S 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (‘VCAT Act’); Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 207 CLR 72; and Alex Hoe v Manningham City Council [2011] VSC 37.
[2]S 148(2A) of the VCAT Act; Red…

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 Wang v South West Conveyancing

Details

AGLC: Wang v South West Conveyancing [2025] VSC 615
Case: [2025] VSC 615
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Wang sought judicial review of a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to adjourn a hearing due to the applicant’s medical condition. Wang argued that she was not given the opportunity to address VCAT on its consideration of using powers under section 78 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) to find that she ‘caused the adjournment’ and that her conduct in doing so unnecessarily disadvantaged the defendants. Wang also argued that she was not afforded natural justice to respond to orders for costs and to order striking out her claim if the order for payment of costs was not complied with. The defendants argued that Wang was given the opportunity to address VCAT on the adjournment and that VCAT had considered her submissions. The defendants also argued that Wang was given natural justice in relation to the orders for costs and striking out the claim.

The court considered whether the applicant was given the opportunity to address VCAT on its consideration of using powers under section 78 of the Act to find that she ‘caused the adjournment’ and that her conduct in doing so unnecessarily disadvantaged the defendants. The court found that Wang was given the opportunity to address VCAT on the adjournment and that VCAT had considered her submissions. The court also found that Wang was given natural justice in relation to the orders for costs and striking out the claim. The court noted that the applicant was given the opportunity to address VCAT on the adjournment and that VCAT had considered her submissions. The court also found that Wang was given natural justice in relation to the orders for costs and striking out the claim.

The court dismissed Wang’s application for judicial review. The court found that the applicant was given the opportunity to address VCAT on the adjournment and that VCAT had considered her submissions. The court also found that Wang was given natural justice in relation to the orders for costs and striking out the claim. The court held that VCAT had not failed to afford the applicant natural justice in relation to the adjournment, the costs orders, or the striking out order.

The court made no orders for costs.

Orders