[1994] 1 VR 220
J AND C CABOT and ANOR v CITY OF KEILOR and ANOR
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
GOBBO J
1 July 1993, 02 July 1993
[1994] 1 VR 220
Administrative law — Costs — Administrative Appeals Tribunal — Appeal against
issue of planning permit — Power of tribunal to award costs — Proceedings
brought vexatiously or frivolously — Meaning of "proceedings" — Costs order
against person who brought the proceedings — Costs order against non party
who sponsored the bringing of the proceedings — Meaning of "sponsored" — Planning Appeals Board Act 1980 (No 9512), s34(2)(e), s58 — Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (No 45), s150 — Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1984
(No 10155), s52.
.
Sadler applied to the Council of the City of Keilor for a planning permit to
rebuild an existing bottle shop. Mr and Mrs Cabot objected to the granting of
the permit. As the council failed to reach a decision within the statutory
period, Sadler lodged an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Soon
after the appeal was lodged, the council determined to grant the permit with
conditions acceptable to Sadler. However, Mr and Mrs Cabot continued to
oppose the issue of the permit. At the hearing before the tribunal, they were
represented by Zukanovic, a council member who had opposed the granting of
the permit within the council.
The tribunal found that the permit should be issued and that the grounds of
appeal relied on by the objectors were obviously untenable and utterly
hopeless. All parties were given the opportunity to be heard in relation to
costs, and no challenge was made to the tribunal's power in the circumstances
to make an order for costs under s150 of the Planning and Environment Act
1987. The tribunal found that the appeal was brought vexatiously or
frivolously within the meaning of s150(4) and that the bringing of the appeal
was sponsored by Zukanovic. Costs orders were accordingly made against Mr and
Mrs Cabot and Zukanovic. They appealed from these orders to the Supreme Court
pursuant to s52 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1984, submitting
that the tribunal had no power to make orders under s150 against them because
they were not persons who had brought the proceedings. They further argued
that it was not open to the tribunal to find that the proceedings were
brought vexatiously or frivolously or that Zukanovic sponsored the bringing
of the proceedings.
Continue Reading This Report
[1994] 1 VR 220
Best Value
Digital Subscription
$45/mo
or $450/yrSAVE $90