17 I preface this ruling with the following observations. They apply equally to the ruling in relation to Perpetual and the rulings which shall be made in the matters involving Arrow.
18 Mr Herskope has referred to the fact that, but for jurisdictional matters, this proceeding would be in the Building Cases List of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and, given that a large sum of money is involved, the rules relating to pleadings and the approach that would be adopted in the Supreme Court should effectively be applied and adopted here. To my mind, that is not to the point. The matter is before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Section 98 of the Act requires this Tribunal to conduct each proceeding with as little formality and technicality, and to determine each proceeding with as much speed as the requirements of the Act and the enabling enactment and a proper consideration of the matters before it permit. This Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence or any practices or procedures applicable to courts of record except to the extent that it adopts such rules, practices and procedures. The second reading speech of the Minister delivered when the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill was introduced refers to the establishment of a system which is modern, accessible, efficient and cost effective. Certainly, as I have earlier stated, in appropriate cases documents akin to pleadings will be ordered and more formal case management structures put in place. That has occurred in the present case. However, the basic aim remains the disposal of matters with such speed and with such lack of formality and technicality that can be achieved consistent with compliance with the rules of natural justice and the obtaining of a fair result in accordance with the substantial merits of the case - see s.97. It is important that each party understands the case which it is to meet. However, this does not mean that matters should become enmeshed in a web of technicalities. The fact remains that this Tribunal is not a court of pleadings.
19 In the present case, in my opinion, the Further and Better Particulars supplied by Perpetual are adequate. The setting out of the details of the sums advanced pursuant to the loan agreements is sufficient, and makes chronological sense. Ultimately Mr Herskope effectively conceded this, but submitted that the additional sentence relating to the merger of the deeds should be excised in each instance. I do not agree. Firstly, that complaint seems to be almost that too much information has been supplied. This is preferable to too little. Furthermore, the additional sentence assists in the understanding of the particulars supplied. As is only logical, the advances made prior to the execution of the further loan agreement were made pursuant to the loan agreement. Those made after the execution of the further loan agreement were made pursuant to it. However, in addition, there is a clause in the further loan agreement which, on its face, merges the two. Therefore, Perpetual is alleging that all sums advanced are now to be treated as having been made pursuant to the further loan agreement. The Further and Better Particulars make this clear and should assist Indevelco in understanding the case which it must meet.
20 The same can be said of the particulars given in relation to advances made pursuant to the tripartite deed. As submitted by Mr Frenkel, a particular sum advanced can be so advanced pursuant to either loan agreement and pursuant to the tripartite deed. What Perpetual is saying is that no advances were made by Perpetual to Indevelco pursuant to the tripartite deed. All of the advances made by Perpetual to Arrow on behalf of Indevelco were made pursuant to the tripartite deed. It is to be remembered that it is the tripartite deed which allegedly links Arrow to Perpetual. The Further and Better Particulars already advanced seem to me to be quite clear.
21 In relation to the particulars of the requests made by Indevelco of Perpetual, I again agree with Mr Frenkel. Given that the requests enquired of are requests in fact made by Indevelco, particulars should already be in its possession. Furthermore, I can find no reference to requests in paragraph 10 of Perpetual's Amended Points of Claim. I agree with Mr Frenkel in this regard.
22 Finally, in relation to the request for particulars of each advance made by Perpetual to Arrow on behalf of Indevelco pursuant to the tripartite deed, when paragraph 10 of the Amended Points of Claim is read in conjunction with paragraph 1(c) of the Further and Better Particulars, the necessary information has already been provided. I agree with Mr Frenkel concerning the words quoted above in paragraph 11 and which are attached to the final request for particulars relating to the tripartite deed. Whether they be based upon an hypothesis or require some type of assumption of fact to be made, they do not seem to me to constitute a proper or necessary request for particulars. Submissions of fact and law of this type will doubtless be dealt with at some future date.
23 In summary, in my opinion adequate and proper Further and Better Particulars of its Amended Points of Claim against Indevelco and Zervos have already been supplied by Perpetual and Indevelco's application fails.