Wright v VCAT

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 4901 of 2000
No. 4902 of 2000

KEVIN FRANCIS WRIGHT	Appellant
v.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 AUGUST 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 AUGUST 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	FRANCIS WRIGHT v. VCAT & ANOR.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 321

---

CATCHWORDS: Application for leave to appeal from Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Arguable error of law by Tribunal – Denial of natural justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. I. Jones	Garland Hawthorn Brahe
For the Respondents	Mr. R.M. Niall	Tenants Union of Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me applications by the plaintiff, Kevin Francis Wright, for leave to appeal from decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made on 2 December 1999, 9 December 1999 and 6 March respectively.

The basis upon which the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal is that he contends he was denied natural justice by the tribunal on the three occasions in question.

Having considered the material placed before me in both proceedings, I think that the plaintiff has an arguable case that so far as the three hearings in question were concerned, he was denied natural justice in a number of significant respects .

As this is only an application for leave to appeal, it would be quite inappropriate for me to go into any detail so far as the matters which have influenced me in arriving at that decision are concerned. To do so could well inhibit the judge who is to hear the appeals. In that regard, I refer to the observations of Lord Diplock in Antaios Compania Naviera S.A. V. Salen Rederierna A.B. (The Antaios) (1985) 1 A.C. 191; Fullagar, J. In Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v. Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd [1992] 2 V.R. 505; and my own observations in Department of Human Services v. John Thwaites [1999] VSC 163.

The following are the orders I make in each proceeding.

1.I extend the time within which the plaintiff may make an application for leave to appeal in respect of each order to 14 June 2000. (I should state I have chosen that date because that was the date upon which the plaintiff filed his amended originating motions pursuant to the leave given to him to do so that day by Master Wheeler.)
2.The plaintiff have leave to appeal against the whole of the orders and decisions of member G.Teh of the Residential Tenancies List of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made on (a) 2 December 1999; (b) 9 December 1999; (c) 6 March 2000.
3.The orders made by the tribunal in each proceeding on 9 December 1999 and 6 March 2000 are stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeals or further order.
4.Subject to any direction of the judge hearing the appeals to the contrary, the appeals be heard together.
5.I refer each proceeding to the Listing Master to enable a date to be fixed for the hearing of the appeals in the Causes List.

6. I reserve the costs of the applications for leave to appeal.
7.I direct that within 48 hours these orders be prepared by the solicitors for the plaintiff and be brought to me for authentication.

MR JONES: Your Honour, I was wondering if we need an order for filing of the Notice of Appeal in each case, do we need a formal order to that effect?

HIS HONOUR: I do not believe you need a formal order. But if your research indicates that a formal order is necessary, then a paragraph to that effect may be inserted in my order .

---

The case of Wright v VCAT involves an application for leave to appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centres on the Tribunal's denial of natural justice, where the applicant, Mr Wright, claims that his right to a fair hearing was compromised. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had made an error of law warranting the granting of leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had indeed committed an arguable error of law by failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice. This included examining whether the Tribunal provided Mr Wright with adequate notice of the case against him and whether he had a fair opportunity to respond. The court also had to consider whether the Tribunal's decision was influenced by procedural errors that affected the outcome of the case.

In examining the matter, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed failed to observe the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not provide Mr Wright with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, thus breaching procedural fairness. The court concluded that this breach constituted an arguable error of law. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, allowing Mr Wright to challenge the Tribunal's decision on the merits. The court's reasoning underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for administrative tribunals to adhere to the principles of natural justice in their proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established