VCAT Required to Ensure a ‘Fair Hearing’ under the Charter
Carwoode Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC (Red Dot) [2008] VCAT 1334 (23 June 2008)
This was a case regarding an application for permits to subdivide land and construct various buildings ancillary to a freeway which would involve the removal of native vegetation to the detriment of the Growling Grass Frog. During the hearing of the merits, a challenge was made to VCAT’s jurisdiction to hear the matter and submissions were made that VCAT had failed to abide by the principles of natural justice and the Charter.
The matter was heard by Philip Martin, the Presiding Member, and David Rae, Member.
The members determined that the Charter applied to the proceedings and must be complied with, particularly the fair trial requirement under s 24. The members determined that, as VCAT was reviewing the failure of the Council to make a decision in the statutory period, VCAT constituted a tribunal ‘acting in an administrative capacity’ as per s 4 (1)(j) of the Charter (and presumably constituted a public authority that must act compatibly with the Charter).
However the members rejected the argument that s 24 now requires all VCAT site inspections to be accompanied. In relation to natural justice issues raised generally, the members determined that the VCAT Act 1998 (Vic) provides VCAT with broad powers as to how it conducts its hearings and VCAT is not required to conduct hearings in the same manner as court proceedings. VCAT is intended to be less formal than a court and VCAT hearings should take place with ‘as much speed’ and ‘…as little formality and technicality’ as possible, in accordance with the VCAT Act. The members determined that in this instance VCAT had followed a fair process, consistent with natural justice principles, and had complied with the Charter right to a fair trial.
While receptive to Charter arguments, the members were critical of the applicant’s failure to refer to any relevant case law from comparable overseas jurisdictions with a human rights charter, as is permitted by s32(2) of the Charter.
The decision is available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2008/1334.html.
Melanie Schleiger is a lawyer on secondment to the HRLRC from Lander & Rogers
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more
Young campaigners landmark victory for children’s rights as new coal-fired power generation deemed unconstitutional in South Africa
The High Court of South Africa ruled that the government’s plans to add 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power stations were “unlawful and invalid”. In a youth-driven petition brought by three civil society organisations, the Court found that the plans failed to adequately consider the impacts of coal-fired power on children’s rights, particularly their constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Tribunal found Southern Restaurants imposed unreasonable conditions on a young breast-feeding mother leading to a finding of discrimination
A young breastfeeding mother was found to have been discriminated against by her employer and awarded $90,000 in compensation.
Read more
Acknowledgement of Country
The Human Rights Law Centre acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands across Australia, including the lands of the Wurundjeri, Boon Wurrung, Gadigal, Ngunnawal, Darug and Wadawurrung people where we work from.
We pay our respect to Elders past and present. This land always was, and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. Sovereignty has never been ceded.
WARNING: This site contains images or names of people who have passed away.