Event and Time
Event Description
On June 24, 2021, judgment and orders were delivered in the case of *Hallett v Robert James Lawyers* [2021] VSC 363. The hearing was conducted via Zoom, with Mr. Krohn representing the appellant and Mr. Lodding appearing for the first respondent. The second respondent did not attend.
Application and Claims
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, ordering the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs related to the appeal. Following the judgment, Mr. Lodding submitted an email regarding the costs and requested a future hearing to apply for a certificate under the Appeal Costs Act 1998 (Vic) and to provide evidence related to the application.
Judicial Decisions
The court declined to accept an offer for an affidavit from the appellant regarding the receipt of a vital letter, asserting that the positions outlined were sufficient. The court observed that the first respondent's previous communication contributed to an error leading to the need for appeal, impacting procedural fairness. Ultimately, the court refused the first respondent's application for an indemnity certificate.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Appellant's Position:
- The appellant, represented by counsel, claimed he did not recall receiving a letter from the first respondent and could not verify receipt due to email account closure. - Despite not receiving the letter, he argued that it wouldn't have altered his position as he was aware of the hearing date in VCAT.
- First Respondent's Position:
- Mr. Lodding argued that the first respondent acted appropriately and sought an indemnity certificate under the Act, contending that their actions should not be viewed as inappropriate. - He claimed a 'Hardiman position' argument, suggesting their response was similar to a tribunal's passive role.