[1994] 2 VR 328
METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADES BOARD v SCHIAVELLO BROS IMPORTS PTY LTD and
Another
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
BEACH J
8-, 09 February 1994
[1994] 2 VR 328
Administrative law — Practice and procedure — Jurisdiction of Magistrates'
Court — Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board — Fees for false fire alarm — Determination by Metropolitan Fire Brigades' Board of whether reasonable
excuse for alarm — Appeal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal — Fees
recoverable in Magistrates' Court — Whether Magistrates' Court had
jurisdiction to determine question of reasonable excuse — Metropolitan Fire
Brigades Act 1958 (No. 6315), s32D, s66A.
.
S32D(1) of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958 provided that the
Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board might require the owner or occupier of a
property to pay charges incurred by the board in responding to false alarms
of fire if the board determined that the owner or occupier did not have a
reasonable excuse for the alarm being given. S32D(2) established a right of
appeal against decisions of the board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
which had to be exercised within 30 days of receiving notice from the board.
S66A enabled the board to recover fees and charges incurred in responding to
false fire alarms as a debt in the Magistrates' Court.
The board determined that the defendants had no reasonable excuse for certain
false alarms being given and sought fees from them. It issued two complaints
in the Magistrates' Court pursuant to s66A for recovery of those fees. The
defendants had unsuccessfully applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
for an extension of time in which to apply for a review of the board's
decisions. The magistrate ruled that the defendants could raise as a defence
to the board's claims that they had a reasonable excuse for the false alarms
being given. The board sought orders prohibiting the magistrate from
considering and adjudicating upon this question.
The defendants argued that, as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had made
no decision on the merits of the defendants' case of reasonable excuse, the
Magistrates' Court was not deprived of jurisdiction to determine that
question.
Continue Reading This Report
[1994] 2 VR 328
Best Value
Digital Subscription
$45/mo
or $450/yrSAVE $90