VCAT to be Utilised Less Frequently for Complex and High Value Domestic Building Disputes
Plunkett v Portier Pacific [2024] VCAT 205:
Impact on VCAT’s Jurisdiction in relation to Domestic Building Disputes
The decision in early March 2024 of Justice Woodward in Plunkett v Portier Pacific [2024] VCAT 205 (Plunkett) has far-reaching implications for VCAT’s jurisdiction in relation to domestic building disputes. The consequence of this decision is that VCAT will be utilised less frequently for more complex and high value domestic building disputes.
Background
Plunkett’s was commenced in VCAT as a civil claim. The respondents applied under s 77 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act) to have the claim transferred to the Supreme Court on the basis that:
(a) The dispute was complex;
(b) It was valued at more than $1M;
(c) It would take more than 10 days to hear the dispute at a final hearing; and
(d) It required significant resources which VCAT could not provide.
Decision
Justice Woodward accepted the respondents’ argument and granted the transfer to the Supreme Court. The decision in Plunkett provides that in deciding whether a dispute should be moved from VCAT to the courts, consideration should be given to
(a) VCAT’s capacity to appropriately deal with the dispute;
(b) The resources of VCAT;
(c) The complexity of the factual and legal issues;
(d) The Court’s powers to order pleadings and other necessary court management procedures.
The implications
Justice Woodward summarised factors which should be considered when evaluating whether a claim would be better managed in a court of competent jurisdiction opposed to a tribunal. These are laid out at [41] and [42]:
Where the quantum of damages exceeds the County Court’s historical jurisdictional limit of $500,000.00;
Where the hearing of the proceeding, including any closing submissions, is estimated to last 10 days or longer;
Where the proceeding involves multiple parties, where there are third party claims, counterclaims, claims for apportionment, and where those proceedings would benefit from regular case management, by a single decision maker;
Where other factors such as a history of frequent interlocutory applications suggest that the proceeding would benefit from case management by a single decision maker; and
Where the proceeding involves novel points of law or particularly complex and detailed facts, especially cases which might end up on appeal.
The consequence of this decision is that VCAT will be utilised less frequently for more complex and high value domestic building disputes.
To learn more about the decision discussed here, or if you require legal assistance, please contact Chris Moshidis, Director and Principal Lawyer on +61 9521 7956 or chris@urbanlawyers.com.au.