Tweet Justice Sifris banned palm tree justice in VCAT in a mercifully concise judgment: Christ Church Grammar School v Bosnich [2010] VSC 476, overturning President Morris’s decision in Law v MCI Technologies Pty Ltd [2006] VCAT 415, which was against the tide of NSW authorities.  Peter Riordan SC led Will Alstergren for the School. As [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet Virgtel Ltd v Gadens Lawyers [2010] VCAT 1584 might be VCAT’s Legal Practice List’s highest value case.  Not all that long ago in the scheme of things, I remember learning that VCAT had certain jurisdictions which were unlimited, and realising that — shock! — it might hear cases which the Magistrates’ Court could not [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24, Chief Justice French, and Justices Gummow and Bell said: ‘The jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Appeal 17.  It is necessary to refer to the nature of the jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Appeal in an appeal from an [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In Seachange Management Pty Ltd v Madgwicks, [2010] VCAT 599, Senior Member Vassie decided that solicitors who allegedly falsely wrote to the Registrar of Titles advising that proceedings had been instituted to substantiate the claim of their client, a caveator, did not engage in trade and commerce even if the conduct was misleading and [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In Gluyas v Google Inc [2010] VCAT 540, an Australian blogger sued Google in VCAT.  Google Inc is an American company.  VCAT struck out the suit on another basis, but indicated that there are no provisions for the service of VCAT applications on persons outside Australia, unlike in the Supreme Court, so that VCAT [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In Gluyas v Google Inc [2010] VCAT 540, an Australian blogger took Google to VCAT to complain about the content of a blog published in America on Google’s blogger platform.  The blog criticised people with the blogger’s disability. The blogger sought relief under the Equal Opportunity Act, 1995 (Vic.), claiming that Google had authorised [...]

[Read more →]

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

[Read more →]

Tweet Two men litigated a case over $10,000 in VCAT’s Civil List before a sessional member. As per the norm in that list, they were unrepresented. That Civil List is a place a world away from the proceedings you read about in the law reports.  I must say I like the idea of an accessible [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet In recent times, I have not found legal regulators forthcoming in advising in advance the evidence to be tendered against a practitioner, and have generally sought directions for disclosure where it could not be sorted out between the parties’ representatives, sometimes attracting ire in the process.  I have had disagreements, too, about who should [...]

[Read more →]

Tweet Update, 24 February 2010: An appeal failed: [2010] VSCA 17. Original post: Rule 1.17(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (the County Court’s and Magistrates’ Court’s rules are to similar effect) reads as follows: “Except where otherwise provided by or under any Act or these Rules, a corporation, whether or not a party, shall not [...]

[Read more →]