Weber v Deakin University

Weber lodged an application for leave to appeal an Associate Judge’s decision to refuse Weber’s request to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Associate Judge had concluded that Weber had not identified a sufficient error that warranted an appeal. Weber’s application was dismissed. Weber appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The appeal was based on the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 17(3) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) s 148.

The court was required to determine the nature of an appeal from an Associate Judge, whether such an appeal is a rehearing, hearing de novo or an appeal stricto sensu, the type of error that must be demonstrated in such an appeal, and whether an appeal can be heard if there is no error. The court was also required to determine whether a court order had ‘worked an injustice’.

The court determined that the appeal was not a rehearing and was not a hearing de novo. The appeal was an appeal stricto sensu. The court determined that the appeal was not a rehearing because it was not a rehearing of the evidence. The court determined that the appeal was not a hearing de novo because it was not a new hearing of the evidence. The court determined that the appeal was an appeal stricto sensu because it was an appeal of the Associate Judge’s decision. The court determined that the type of error that must be demonstrated in such an appeal is a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court determined that an appeal can be heard if there is no error if a court order has ‘worked an injustice’. The court determined that a court order has ‘worked an injustice’ if it is palpably unjust or oppressive.

The court dismissed Weber’s appeal. The court found that the Associate Judge had not made an error in refusing Weber’s request to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the Associate Judge had not identified a sufficient error that warranted an appeal. The court found that the Associate Judge’s decision was not palpably unjust or oppressive. The court found that the Associate Judge’s decision was not a substantial miscarriage of justice.