• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Despite Mr Belcher being the permit applicant, the council issued the Notice of Decision to amend the permit addressed to Mr and Mrs James c/- Keen Planning Services Pty Ltd, and the Tribunal's Practice Note material resulted in the Tribunal serving the review application on Keen Planning Services (Reasons [2]). On 21 November 2008 Mr Belcher informed the Tribunal he was the permit applicant and sought to be joined as a party and filed a statement of grounds (Reasons [3]).

The Practice Day Hearing's function was to resolve whether the permit applicant's name on the record should be changed and whether the substantive hearing set for 24 February 2009 could proceed (Reasons [4]). The Tribunal found that, as permit applicant, Mr Belcher had an interest and should be joined. It noted a foreshadowed question of law about Mr Belcher's capacity to make the permit application and ordered the applicant to file the questions of law and an outline of submissions (Order 1; Order 2; Reasons [5]). The Tribunal also identified confusion in the council's handling: the council appeared to have treated the new application as an application to amend an earlier 2005 permit, the Notice of Decision contained errors about date and content, and the council had purported to issue a corrected planning permit under section 71 of the Act (Reasons [6]–[7]). The Tribunal required the council to attend the substantive hearing ready to explain what it had done and why, emphasising that the substantive merits must be capable of consideration under section 98(1)(d) of the VCAT Act (Reasons [9]). Orders were made joining Mr Belcher, setting a deadline for filing questions of law, and confirming the substantive hearing would proceed (Orders).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's reasoning turned on two broad considerations.

First, party joinder and interests: the Tribunal concluded that the permit applicant, Mr Belcher, had a direct interest in the proceeding and therefore should be joined under the Tribunal's joinder power (section 60 of the VCAT Act). The Tribunal explicitly states "Clearly, as permit applicant, Mr Belcher has an interest in the proceeding and I have joined him as a party" (Reasons [5]). Joinder was necessary to ensure all interested parties were before the Tribunal and to permit resolution of any disputes about applicant capacity.

Second, ensuring lawful process and proper determination of merits: the Tribunal was concerned that the council's procedural steps might not have complied with the Planning and Environment Act's provisions governing amendments to applications or permits (the Tribunal references sections 50A or 57A in a footnote) and that the Notice of Decision contained errors (Reasons [6]–[7]). The Tribunal invoked its broad procedural powers under section 127 and schedule 1 clauses 62 and 64 of the VCAT Act to amend documents and disregard non-compliance, describing these defects as "capable of rectification" (Reasons [9]; footnote [2]). However, because material provided by the council did not make clear what the council had done or why, the Tribunal required the council to attend the substantive hearing ready to explain its processes so that the substantive merits could be considered under section 98(1)(d) (Reasons [6], [9]). The practical effect was to preserve the hearing date while compelling clarification and document-based remedy as appropriate.

In short, the Tribunal's orders were driven by an effort to put all necessary parties before it and to ensure procedural regularity so the Tribunal could proceed to a proper merits determination.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision: VCAT procedure and powers are governed by the VCAT Act and the Planning and Environment Act sets out the statutory regime for planning permits, their amendment, and notices. The Tribunal already had inherent and statutory powers to join parties and to correct or amend documents in the proceeding.

After this decision: Breedon v Bayside CC applies those established statutory powers in a fact-specific way. It does not create a new legal doctrine, but it demonstrates the Tribunal's approach in practice-day circumstances: (a) prompt joinder of a permit applicant who has an interest, (b) requirement that parties identify questions of law to be argued, and (c) proactive insistence that the responsible authority explain and justify any procedural steps that could affect the tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the merits. The decision underscores that procedural irregularities by a council will be addressed by the Tribunal, which will seek rectification rather than immediate dismissal, provided the defects can be corrected and the Tribunal can still properly address the merits.

The decision therefore reinforces the practical application of: section 60 VCAT Act (joinder); section 127 and schedule 1 powers (document amendment/disregard of non-compliance); and the Tribunal's obligation under section 98(1)(d) to ensure substantive matters are capable of determination.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. "Clearly, as permit applicant, Mr Belcher has an interest in the proceeding and I have joined him as a party." [5]

   • Plain English: Because Mr Belcher applied for the permit, he has a stake in the case; the Tribunal therefore added him as a participant in the review.

2. "It is unclear from the material supplied by the council pursuant to Practice Note PNPE2 whether the council has followed the procedures set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 relating to amendments to a permit application by the responsible authority." [6]

   • Plain English: The documents the council gave the Tribunal do not explain whether the council followed the correct legal process when it changed the nature of the application; the Tribunal needs clarification.

3. "The Notice of Decision to amend a permit issued by the council contained errors regarding the date and what the permit allows." [7]

   • Plain English: The council's notice had mistakes about when it was dated and what it authorised; that's a problem that must be fixed or explained.

4. "All these matters are capable of rectification." [9]

   • Plain English: The Tribunal believes the mistakes can be fixed, but the council must be ready to show how at the hearing.

5. Footnote: "The Tribunal has wide powers to amend documents in a proceeding and to disregard failures to comply with procedures pursuant to section 127 and clauses 62 and 64 of schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998." [footnote to Reasons]

   • Plain English: The Tribunal can change documents or ignore some procedural mistakes when it is appropriate to do so.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is most directly applicable where:

• A planning permit application has been lodged by one person (a permit applicant), but notices or decision documents are addressed to a different person or to the landowner, creating ambiguity about who the applicant is (Reasons [2]–[5]).
• A responsible authority appears to change the nature of an application (for example from a new permit application to an application to amend an existing permit) without clear documentary evidence of following the statutory procedures for amendments under the Planning and Environment Act (Reasons [6]).
• Notices of decision or corrected permits contain errors about dates or content and the responsible authority purports to correct them under a statutory provision (here s71), but it is not clear that the correction was made to the appropriate document or with proper notice (Reasons [7]).
• The Tribunal needs to decide whether to proceed to a substantive hearing when procedural irregularities exist, and whether those irregularities are capable of rectification using the Tribunal's powers (Reasons [9]; footnote [2]).

If you see these fact patterns, Breedon exemplifies the Tribunal's likely approach: join interested parties, require clarification and legal points in advance, and proceed to a merits hearing only once the responsible authority can explain or cure defects.

How later courts have treated it

This judgment is short and procedural; it does not cite later appellate treatment within its text. The decision itself does not purport to establish a novel authority beyond the ordinary exercise of VCAT's joinder and procedural powers, and the Reasons rely principally on statutory powers in the VCAT Act and the Planning and Environment Act (see Reasons [5], [6], [9] and footnotes). The judgment does not record any follow-up or appellate review within its Reasons. Therefore, to determine how later courts or tribunals have treated Breedon v Bayside CC, one must undertake a targeted case-law search of subsequent Tribunal or appellate decisions citing [2009] VCAT 206. The decision, however, is of clear persuasive value within the VCAT context for handling party joinder and procedural rectification where the responsible authority's material is unclear.

Still-open questions

Breedon flags several unresolved or practical questions that the Tribunal left to the substantive hearing:

• Did Bayside City Council, in fact, comply with the specific statutory procedures for amending an application or permit (sections 50A or 57A as referenced)? The Tribunal found the supplied material did not make this clear and required the council to explain at hearing (Reasons [6]).
• Why did the council purport to issue a corrected planning permit under section 71 rather than correct the Notice of Decision to amend a permit, given the Notice contained errors about date and content? The Tribunal asked for an explanation but did not resolve the point (Reasons [7]).
• What precisely is the nature and extent of any rectification the Tribunal will permit under section 127 and schedule 1 clause powers? The Tribunal said defects were "capable of rectification" but the limits and conditions for such rectification were not articulated on the practice day (Reasons [9]; footnote [2]).
• The applicant foreshadowed a question of law regarding Mr Belcher's capacity to make the permit application; the Tribunal required the applicant to file particulars of that legal question and submissions (Order 2; Reasons [5]). How that standing/capacity question will be resolved on the evidence remains to be seen.

Practically, practitioners dealing with similar situations should ensure that responsible authorities provide clear documentary trails showing which procedural mechanism was used to amend applications or permits, and, if there is any doubt about who the applicant is, applications to join or correct the party list should be made early. Where Notices of Decision contain errors, both the form of correction and the statutory basis for any correction should be explicitly recorded and disclosed to the Tribunal to avoid the procedural impasse seen in this matter (Reasons [6]–[7], [9]).