Event and Time
Event Description
- Appellants Jack Zhang and Dilina Quan initiated a proceeding against James Bajada and others at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on November 18, 2019.
- On September 13, 2022, VCAT struck out the appellants' claims against the respondent and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.
Application and Claims
- The appellants alleged breach of a building contract and a duty of care, as well as contraventions of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) and Australian Consumer Law for misleading conduct by the builder (now deregistered) and the respondent, who was the builder's sole director.
- The initial claim against the respondent included allegations of involvement in the builders’ misleading conduct.
Judicial Decisions
- VCAT struck out the appellants’ claim against the respondent due to a perceived lack of substantive claim.
- The tribunal ruled that there was no claim on foot against the respondent, leading them to issue a costs order against the appellants.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Appellants' Arguments:
- Claimed breach of contract and misleading conduct against the builder, implicating the respondent due to his role. - Argued that the claims presented were valid and contended against the strike out order.
- Respondent's Arguments:
- Argued that the appellants' pleading conflated representations about future matters with contractual terms. - Filed an application to dismiss the claims, asserting there was no actionable claim against him.
- Tribunal's Reasoning:
- Initially ruled the appellants’ claims against the respondent as misconceived or lacking in substance under section 75(1)(a) of the VCAT Act. - Upon review, the tribunal's actions drew scrutiny for potentially failing to recognize claims' validity based on the nature of the proceedings.