Spilkin v Rosenberg

[2011] VSCA 128

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Reconstitution of tribunal
5. › Application under s 108 VCAT Act
6. › Whether Vice-President erred in refusing reconstitution
7. › Whether denial of natural justice established
8. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), ss 108, 148
1. Administrative Law
2. › Natural justice
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Right to legal representation
5. › Unrepresented party
6. › Whether tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity to present case
7. › Whether refusal of adjournment denied procedural fairness
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Appeal on question of law from VCAT
4. › Criteria for grant of leave
5. › Whether sufficient doubt attending decision below
6. › Whether substantial injustice
7. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 148(1)

Quick Take

Complaints about adverse rulings by a VCAT member (such as refusal to disallow legal representation or refusal to adjourn) do not, without more, amount to questions of law for the purposes of an appeal under s 148 of the VCAT Act. A question of law is raised where the contention is that it was not open to the decision-maker to conclude that there was no breach of natural justice. The power to reconstitute a tribunal under s 108 of the VCAT Act must be used for proper means and a proper purpose and cannot be used to achieve a de facto review or appeal of rulings made during the hearing.