1. Mr Giurina commenced this proceeding in March 2014. The application was against Ms Deak and Strata Connect.
2. On 27 March 2014 an application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The application was amended to show the claims were for an order about the manager for the OC, Ms Deak, a declaration that the OC was not indebted to Wisewould Mahony Solicitors and a declaration that Mr Giurina was not indebted to the OC for the sum of $4,529. The OC was joined as a respondent.
3. On 26 May 2014, the Tribunal made an order that, unless Mr Giurina paid the appropriate application fee by 17 June 2014, it would be struck out. As no fee was paid, that order was made.
4. On 27 January 2017, Mr Giurina paid the required fee and sought to exercise a right of reinstatement.
5. On 23 March 2017, the Tribunal made orders for the conduct of the reinstatement application. Mr Giurina was ordered to file and serve a document setting out the orders he would seek and against whom if the proceeding was reinstated and any further affidavit upon which he would rely.
6. The Tribunal then made the following order:

There is fixed for determination at 9:30am on 17 May 2017 before any Member at 55 King Street Melbourne a hearing on the question of whether the applicant should be permitted a hearing for the seeking of any and which of those orders, including (if necessary) whether he should be authorised under s165(1)(ba) to prosecute, on behalf of Owners Corporation Plan No 1579, a claim and any of which of those orders, with a whole day being allowed for the hearing.

1. In the meantime, the OC had made an application for payment of outstanding fees and costs against Ms Licia Giurina and Mr Giurina, the executors of the estate of Irma Locher (OC2688/2016 - referred to in these reasons as the 'fee proceeding'). Mr Giurina is the attorney for Ms Giurina and represented her in the fee proceeding.
2. The fee proceeding was listed before me for hearing on 15 May 2017. As this proceeding concerned related parties and similar issues, it was also listed for hearing before me.
3. At the conclusion of the hearing of this proceeding I made orders for filing written submissions after my orders and reasons in the fee proceeding were published.
4. I gave my decision in the fee proceeding on 21 September 2017, making orders that Ms Giurina and Mr Giurina pay the OC the sum of $11,161.72 plus costs from a specified date.[1]
5. The respondents filed written submissions in this proceeding on 27 September 2017.
6. In October 2017, Mr Giurina wrote to the Tribunal, including about matters relating to his appeal of the fee proceeding orders.[2] In doing so, he made submissions relevant to the respondent's contentions and the issues I have considered in making orders in this proceeding. After two extensions of time were granted, on 15 December 2017 Mr Giurina filed his written submissions and a further affidavit. The affidavit included annexures containing a copy of the Notice of Appeal for the fee proceeding and a copy of a statement Ms Deak made to police about a related matter. While no leave was granted for the filing of that affidavit, I have noted its contents.
7. I have also had regard to relevant parts of the affidavit material filed by Mr Giurina[3] and Ms Deak[4] and the submissions made at the hearing.

1. Mr Giurina has sought reinstatement of his application.
2. The power to reinstate a proceeding falls within the power to make orders and directions under section 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act). The Tribunal has an implied power to reinstate a proceeding that has been struck out. The exercise of that power is discretionary. The following are factors which are relevant to the exercise of the discretion:
   • The merits of the case and whether the complainant has any real chance of success;
   • The length of any delay in applying for reinstatement;
   • Whether there was an acceptable explanation for any delay; and
   • The possible prejudice to the respondent.
3. I accept Mr Giurina's submission that it is not necessary for him to demonstrate his submissions are correct - just that there is a prospect of success or at the very least the application is not bound to fail.
4. I also accept his contention that delay in applying for reinstatement is not a substantial factor in this case.
5. The respondents contended that, as a result of the findings of fact and law made in the fee proceeding, Mr Giurina is estopped from seeking orders in this matter and so the proceeding ought not to be reinstated as res judicata and issue estoppel apply to bind the parties. On that basis, the respondents say reinstatement would be an abuse of process. The respondents contended that, if the proceeding was on foot, it would be struck out under section 75 of the VCAT Act.
6. Section 75 of the VCAT Act provides that, at any time, the Tribunal may dismiss or strike out a proceeding whether or not all the evidence has been heard. It can do so if, in its opinion, all or part of the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance (section 75(1)(a)), or is otherwise an abuse of process (section 75(1)(b)). The strict test set out in section 75 of the VCAT Act is not necessarily required to be applied to a reinstatement application.
7. Mr Giurina submitted that I made a number of legal errors in the fee proceeding and that he has good prospects of successfully showing that to be the case in the Supreme Court and in this proceeding. His materials indicate his application for leave to appeal the fee proceeding orders will be heard in October 2018.
8. Given my orders in the fee proceeding have not been stayed, the findings I made stand - at present they represent the final determination of the relevant issues.[5]
9. I have had no difficulty finding a number of Mr Giurina's claims are an abuse of process because they have already been determined by me.
10. As to any new or separate matters, I have concluded no order would be made under section 165(1)(ba) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) (OC Act) authorising Mr Giurina to bring a proceeding on behalf of the OC to prosecute them and so there is no proper basis on which this proceeding should be reinstated.
11. I will first describe the law relied on by the respondents and then deal with each of the orders Mr Giurina seeks in this proceeding.

1. As noted above, the respondents rely on res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process. There is an interrelationship between those concepts - they are all concerned with finality in litigation, the unfairness of being harassed twice for the same cause and the 'scandal' of conflicting judgments.[6]
2. Issue estoppel arises where a state of fact or law is alleged or denied in a proceeding and the particular matter has been decided by a prior judgment or order. That same matter cannot be raised later by the same parties.[7] This rule avoids the possibility of contradictory findings on the same question of fact or law.
3. The term 'abuse of process' is not defined in the VCAT Act. It is a flexible concept designed to ensure that processes of the Tribunal are used in good faith. It can include any process used in a way that is manifestly unjust, oppressive or unfair to a party or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people.[8] The categories of abuse of process are not closed but include proceedings which are manifestly groundless, without foundation or which serve no useful purpose, as well as multiple or successive proceedings which cause or are likely to cause improper vexation or oppression.[9]
4. In Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University,[10] Chief Justice French said that abuse of process principles may be invoked to prevent attempts to litigate that which should have been litigated in earlier proceedings as well as attempts to re-litigate that which has already been determined.[11] He cited with approval the decision of Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Walton v Gardiner in which their Honours said that proceedings before a court should be stayed as an abuse of process if, notwithstanding that the circumstances do not give rise to an estoppel, their continuance would be unjustifiably vexatious and oppressive for the reason that it is sought to litigate again a case which has already been disposed of by earlier proceedings.[12]
5. I will now deal with the orders Mr Giurina sought in his 12 April 2017 document one by one.

Declaration that Mr Giurina is the OC Manager

1. The declaration Mr Giurina sought has its genesis in earlier litigation.
2. In brief:
   • Mr Giurina was the appointed OC manager from December 2004;
   • On 1 May 2012, Deputy President Lulham decided a proceeding brought by the OC and three lot owners (Ms Maria Ricotta, Ms Maria Picone and Ms Gabrielle New) against Mr Giurina.[13] DP Lulham declared that a management agreement between Mr Giurina and the OC terminated on 24 July 2011 as a consequence of a resolution passed at an annual general meeting (AGM) of members; and
   • Mr Giurina appealed DP Lulham's decision to the Supreme Court. On 10 October 2012, her Honour Associate Justice Lansdowne gave her decision.[14] Leave to appeal was refused and the originating motion was dismissed. While Lansdowne AsJ found DP Lulham made an arguable error of law, she was satisfied the core findings made were 'unassailable' and so there was no substantial injustice to Mr Giurina in refusing leave. An application for leave to appeal that decision was refused.[15]
3. As part of his defence to the claim for outstanding fees in the fee proceeding, Mr Giurina contended that, despite the Tribunal and Court decisions, he was the then current OC manager. Mr Giurina relied on the same contentions and evidence to seek the declaration in this proceeding.
4. Mr Giurina's argument turned on his contention that some of the voting members at the 24 July 2011 AGM were not financial and in part on a special general meeting (SGM) he purportedly called on 19 January 2014. Mr Giurina contended the latter meeting was validly called and passed the necessary resolution for him to be appointed as manager. Mr Giurina also contended that, due to irregularities, all subsequent AGMs had been called improperly and so all resolutions passed were invalid. Strata Connect was re-appointed manager of the OC at each of the AGMs in issue.
5. A police statement made by Ms Deak on 24 October 2017 (which was annexed to Mr Giurina's 15 December 2017 affidavit) said she was first approached about Strata Connect being the OC manager in around August 2011, after the relevant AGM. Other than to record that statement had not been made at the time of the hearings before me, no further consideration of the statement is necessary.
6. That is because, relying on DP Lulham's undisturbed findings, in the fee proceeding, I found the OC had resolved at the 24 July 2011 meeting to both terminate its agreement with Mr Giurina and to appoint Strata Connect as manager.[16] I found the relevant meetings were validly called and/or any irregularities had been overcome such that, at all relevant times after July 2011, Strata Connect was the properly appointed manager of the OC.[17]
7. I found Mr Giurina had no power to convene an SGM on 19 January 2014 and that he was not appointed as manager of the OC on or after 19 January 2014.[18]
8. Having already made findings about those matters, I am satisfied issue estoppel applies and it would be an abuse of process for Mr Giurina to attempt to re-agitate them.

Order that Strata Connect's appointment as manager be revoked

1. Mr Giurina contended that, if I found Strata Connect was the appointed OC manager, it should have its appointment revoked on the basis that he had no confidence in Ms Deak or Strata Connect. That lack of confidence was based on his view that Ms Deak failed to disclose a conflict of interest in respect of arrangements for the OC insurance, her engagement of and instructions to lawyers in relation to matters affecting his interests and her conduct in the course of various legal proceedings, including issuing a bankruptcy notice to Mr Giurina and the settlement of a debt proceeding.
2. As noted above, in the fee proceeding decision, I found Strata Connect had been properly appointed as manager.
3. Arguably, I could reinstate this proceeding in order for consideration to be given to whether, under section 165(1)(ba) of the OC Act, Mr Giurina ought to be authorised to apply to the Tribunal for an order revoking Strata Connect's current appointment.
4. Section 165(1)(ba) may be relied on where the relevant owners corporation has not passed the required special resolution to commence a proceeding and a lot owner wishes to do so in the owners corporation's name.
5. In Grimer v Quantum United Management Pty Ltd,[19] Senior Member Vassie listed the following as matters which may be relevant to the question:
   • Why no special resolution was obtained;
   • The degree of support amongst the other lot owners;
   • What the benefit to the OC would be if the orders sought were made; and
   • Whether the proceeding has a prospect of success or is at least not bound to fail.
6. Mr Giurina submitted that he had sought a special resolution to deal with the management of the OC at the time he convened the SGM in January 2014. As none of the other lot owners attended, he was unable to ensure the necessary special resolution was passed but relied on an interim resolution passed at the meeting to bring this proceeding. As noted above, I found Mr Giurina had no power to convene the January 2014 SGM and so none of the resolutions passed may be relied on.
7. As is apparent from the reasons in the fee proceeding and the other litigation involving this OC, Mr Giurina has no support from other lot owners for his activities and, in particular, his calls for removal of Strata Connect and his appointment as manager.
8. The four other lot owners made affidavits in this proceeding - Mr Russell Ward, Ms Picone, Ms New and Ms Ricotta.[20] In each of their affidavits, the other lot owners stated they did not want Mr Giurina to be made manager again. The affidavits referred to the difficulty they had removing Mr Giurina, the many legal proceedings between the OC and him and the legal costs they have incurred.
9. Mr Giurina contended Mr Ward had perjured himself in relation to evidence about his attendance at the 10 February 2012 AGM and so his other evidence could not be relied upon by me. I make no comment on that submission.
10. Mr Giurina contended that Ms New and Picone's credibility is questionable because they have acted with the goal of causing him harm. Mr Giurina further contended the other lot owner's affidavits ought not to be relied on in circumstances where he believed they were drafted by Wisewould Mahony lawyers and were the words of the draftsperson rather than those of the witnesses.
11. The way the affidavits came to be drafted is not material in my mind when considering whether Mr Giurina ought to be appointed to represent the OC in further litigation. The fact there is ill-feeling between the other lot owners and Mr Giurina was self-evident. I have no reason not to accept the evidence before me that the other lot owners all opposed Mr Giurina having control over the OC and objected to the litigation he has involved them all in over the years.
12. I accept the following matters relied on by the respondents are relevant:
    • DP Lulham found Mr Giurina had breached his obligations as manager in respect of $8,000 collected to pay a building debt (discussed further below);
    • Mr Giurina is the subject of criminal charges of theft and making a false document which are still before the courts. Those charges arose out of conduct relating to his dealings with the affairs of the OC;
    • The Supreme Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal on the basis that DP Lulham's findings about the termination of his earlier appointment as manager were 'unassailable';
    • An application brought by Mr Giurina for an extension of time to challenge the costs order made arising from the matter before DP Lulham was dismissed by Wood AsJ because it had little or no prospect for success; and
    • Garde J dismissed an earlier proceeding seeking to challenge a costs order on the basis the solicitors had not been properly engaged as an abuse of process.
13. Other relevant matters are the following:
    • DP Lulham declared Mr Giurina had attempted to deceive the Tribunal within the meaning of section 78(1)(e) of the VCAT Act;[21]
    • Mr Giurina commenced defamation proceedings against Ms Picone and Ms New;[22] and
    • In the fee proceeding, I rejected Mr Giurina's evidence (as contained in a 3 May 2017 affidavit and confirmed in evidence before me) that he was the solicitor for the OC for the entirety of the period between 2006 and 2017.[23]
14. I give particular weight to Mr Giurina's past inappropriate conduct in respect of the financial and other interests of the OC and the absence of any support for his actions amongst the other lot owners.
15. The other lot owners would suffer real prejudice if the question of the appointed manager was revisited again. That prejudice relates not only to legal costs but also to having these same matters re-agitated.
16. Mr Giurina's continued prosecution of this and related issues is an abuse of process. I consider his conduct to be an example of the processes and procedures of the Tribunal, being converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness.[24] I am satisfied that allowing the continuation of a proceeding about Mr Giurina's role as manager and the consequential matters would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people.
17. In the circumstances of this case and given the findings already made about the appointment of Strata Connect as manager, I do not consider it would be a proper exercise of the discretion in section 165(1)(ba) of the OC Act to authorise Mr Giurina to pursue legal action on behalf of the OC to seek to replace Strata Connect with himself.
18. Accordingly, I would not make an order in Mr Giurina's favour under section 165(1)(ba).

Declarations that all business conducted at meetings convened since 2012 is null and void

1. Mr Giurina contended that the meetings called by Strata Connect after July 2011 were improperly called and so all business conducted at them was null and void and of no legal effect.
2. Mr Giurina also contended that three of the lot owners who attended relevant meetings were unfinancial and so, as a consequence of section 94 of the OC Act, not entitled to vote.
3. In the fee proceeding, I found, on and from 10 February 2012, Strata Connect was the appointed manager of the OC and was entitled to convene a meeting that day and those convened up to and including 3 May 2016.[25]
4. In the fee proceeding, I heard the available evidence about the financial status of the relevant lot owners and reviewed documents relevant to the 10 February 2012 AGM.
5. Mr Giurina claimed he had, in his then capacity of OC manager, distributed fee notices to lot owners at the 24 July 2011 SGM. He contended that the amounts in those notices had not been paid and so the lot owners were in arrears and not entitled to vote. He also relied on evidence that, from time to time, some lot owners had arrears.
6. In the fee proceeding, I found Mr Giurina had not proven:
   • The fee notices he produced before me had been distributed to lot owners in July 2011; or
   • Other records supported a finding lot owners were in arrears as at 10 February 2012.[26]
7. Accordingly, in the fee proceeding I found, Mr Giurina had not demonstrated the relevant lot owners who attended and voted at the 10 February 2012 meeting were ineligible to vote.
8. Mr Giurina alleged that lot owners were also unfinancial after 2012 and so not entitled to vote at subsequent meetings. At paragraphs 27 and 36 of his 12 April 2017 affidavit, he explained he had reviewed the relevant OC business records and there was no sign the lot owners had paid the arrears he believed were due as at February 2012, they had not paid him amounts owed to him as manager (presumably arising from the July 2011 fee notices) and so they continued to be unfinancial at subsequent meetings.
9. After considering all available evidence before me in the fee proceeding, I found the other lot owners present at the 10 February 2012 AGM were eligible to vote.[27]
10. Given that finding and the findings made in the fee proceeding about the July 2011 fee notices, the issues raised by Mr Giurina do not require further consideration.
11. I find issue estoppel applies to these questions and it would be an abuse of process for another proceeding to reconsider them.

Declaration that Strata Connect and Maria Deak are not and have never been authorised to act for the OC

1. Mr Giurina's contentions about Strata Connect's authority to act for and on behalf of the OC turn on the conduct of the AGM on 10 February 2012.
2. Having already confirmed I found Strata Connect was properly appointed in February 2012 and thereafter, no declaration of the kind sought would be made.
3. I also made a finding in the fee proceeding that Strata Connect had been authorised to act on behalf of the OC.[28]
4. In those circumstances, it would be an abuse of process to consider those matters again.
5. As I understand it, Mr Giurina considers Ms Deak acted improperly in her capacity of Director of Strata Connect.
6. For the same reasons as set out above, I do not consider it would be appropriate for an order to be made under section 165(1)(ba) of the OC Act, allowing Mr Giurina to have the question heard by the Tribunal.

Declaration as to settlement of building debt and order for repayment by Strata Connect and Ms Deak

1. Mr Giurina sought a declaration that an offer of settlement made to a company called Building Solutions (Victoria) Pty Ltd (Building Solutions) by Strata Connect on behalf of the OC in September 2013 was not authorised and was of no effect.
2. I described the background to this issue in the reasons in the fee proceeding. That background is as follows:
   • In 2010, Building Solutions performed work for the OC under an insurance claim. Mr Giurina considered that there were defects in its work;
   • The OC, through Mr Giurina as manager, obtained a 'contribution' from the four other Lot owners of $2,000.00 each to go towards payment of Building Solutions bill. Mr Giurina did not make an equivalent 'contribution';
   • Mr Giurina did not deposit any of the $8,000.00 received from the lot owners into the OC's bank account. Instead he deposited those funds into his own bank account;
   • Building Solutions sued the OC and Mr Giurina for its debt in the Magistrates' Court;
   • Mr Giurina did not disclose the litigation to any other lot owner but he did file a defence on his own behalf and on behalf of the OC;
   • On 2 April 2012 Mr Giurina consented to judgment for $7,000.00 plus costs of $2,324.26 with a stay of one month that expired on 2 May 2012;
   • Mr Giurina did not propose to pay Building Solutions the consent judgment debt on 2 May 2012, but rather planned to seek to negotiate instalments by alleging that the work done was defective;
   • The fact that Building Solutions had not been paid came to the attention of the other lot owners by around July 2011. Mr Giurina gave evidence that he did not inform the other lot owners about the judgment debt because he did to want to burden them;
   • In around 2013, Mr Giurina had successfully applied to the Magistrates' Court for judgment to be set aside despite the fact that it had been entered by consent. I understood Mr Giurina again failed to disclose that matter to the OC and it would appear he took that step without the authority of the OC, despite DP Lulham's decision having been given in May 2012 terminating his role as manager; and
   • Around this time, the solicitors for Building Solutions became aware Strata Connect was the OC manager. They wrote to Ms Deak in September 2013 referring to the judgment debt of $9,324.96 and stating that Building Solutions would accept the OC's offer to repay the debt by instalments commencing in October 2013 with the final payment due on or around 30 September 2014.
3. While acknowledging some shortcomings in the evidence, in the fee proceeding, I was comfortably satisfied that Strata Connect as represented by Ms Deak was authorised by the OC to settle the debt owed to Building Solutions and that a levy raised to cover the costs was authorised.[29]
4. It is clear that issue estoppel applies to this matter and so it would be an abuse of process for it to be considered again.
5. Mr Giurina also sought an order that Strata Connect and Ms Deak account for and return the monies paid to Building Solutions with interest, such payment to be sent to him by way of cheque made out to 'Body Corporate 1579'.
6. In light of my findings about the debt and the fact Mr Giurina is not the OC manager, no such order would be made.

Order for Strata Connect and Ms Deak to repay management fees

1. Mr Giurina sought an order that Strata Connect and Ms Deak account for and return all management fees with interest, such payment to be sent to him by way of cheque made out to 'Body Corporate 1579'.
2. As recorded earlier, in the fee proceeding I found Strata Connect had been appointed as OC manager under management contracts from February 2012 onwards. There was no evidence before me that fees were paid to Strata Connect inconsistent with those contracts.
3. For the same reasons as set out earlier, I would not make an order authorising Mr Giurina to commence a proceeding about this matter on behalf of the OC.
4. Accordingly there is no basis on which the declaration or order sought would be made. Further, there is no basis for an order to be made for a payment to be sent to Mr Giurina, irrespective of how the cheque is made out.

Declaration as to engagement of solicitors and for repayment of legal fees by Strata Connect and Ms Deak

1. Mr Giurina sought a declaration that the OC was not indebted to the firm of Wisewould Mahony (the OC's solicitors in this and other proceedings, including those before DP Lulham and Lansdowne AsJ) on the basis that the OC did not validly decide to retain the firm.
2. He also sought an order that Strata Connect and Ms Deak account for and return all monies paid to the firm in respect of a Federal Court proceeding, with interest, such payment to be sent to him by way of cheque made out to 'Body Corporate 1579'.
3. The documents exhibited to Mr Giurina's 12 April 2017 affidavit indicate the Federal Court proceeding was brought by him against the OC and three of the other lot owners and concerned his application to have a bankruptcy notice set aside. That notice seemed to relate to costs orders made in earlier proceedings involving the OC or other lot owners. I record that the bankruptcy notice was set aside by the Federal Court on 24 October 2013 and the respondents were ordered to pay Mr Giurina's costs of $200.
4. In his 15 December 2017 submissions, Mr Giurina contended that this proceeding ought to be reinstated to allow for consideration of whether Ms Deak was authorised to issue the bankruptcy notice which led to the Federal Court proceeding. He noted that was a new matter which had not been raised in the fee proceeding,
5. While I made findings in the fee proceeding about Strata Connect's authority to commence that proceeding and instruct solicitors to do so, those findings did not extend to the other proceedings, in particular the Federal Court proceeding.[30]
6. As I understood it, Wisewould Mahony relied on an email from Ms Deak instructing it to act on behalf of the OC (and other respondents) in certain proceedings. In his materials in this proceeding, Mr Giurina contended that, as the email only referred to 'the owners' and not 'the Owners Corporation' and no special resolution was referred to, the firm was not authorised to act.
7. The evidence before me does not allow me to make a finding about the basis for Strata Connect retaining the firm to act for the OC.
8. What is apparent is that the Supreme Court has already made costs orders against Mr Giurina in proceedings in which Wisewould Mahony acted for the OC and other lot owners. I accept the respondents' contention that the declaration and order now sought by Giurina would defeat existing costs orders.
9. For the same reasons as expressed above, I would decline to exercise my discretion to order that Mr Giurina may pursue this claim on behalf of the OC, including as to the propriety of the issuing of the bankruptcy notice. Even if I did so, as noted above, there is no basis for an order to be made for a payment to be sent to Mr Giurina.

1. Mr Giurina sought an order that all documents relating to the OC and OC members held by Strata Connect and Ms Deak be returned to him.
2. As I have found Strata Connect, not Mr Giurina, is the OC manager, no such order would be made.

1. Mr Giurina seeks an order that Strata Connect remove its sign from the common property front brick fence.
2. As Strata Connect is the OC manager, there is no basis on which such an order would be made.

1. Mr Giurina asked that the Tribunal investigate, or refer to an appropriate body for investigation, Strata Connect and Ms Deak in relation to the OC insurance brokerage arrangements.
2. It is not the Tribunal's role to undertake investigations or to make referrals of the kind sought.
3. In the fee proceeding, I found the quarterly administration levies which included insurance premiums payable by the OC had been authorised by the OC.[31]
4. The respondents' submissions noted that all of the other lot owners have filed affidavits stating that they are aware of the commission paid on the insurance (which totals $262.73) and wish Strata Connect to continue as manager.
5. For the same reasons as set out above, I would not make an order authorising Mr Giurina to pursue this matter on behalf of the OC as such an order would be contrary to the expressed preferences of all other lot owners.

1. Where the issues raised by Mr Giurina have already been decided, it would not be appropriate to reinstate them to be considered further.
2. As indicated, many of the orders sought by Mr Giurina would not be made as they would be inconsistent or incompatible with my earlier findings.
3. For the reasons given, for those issues where findings have not been made previously, I did not consider Mr Giurina would be an appropriate person to prosecute a proceeding on the OC's behalf. That decision would not prohibit the OC itself from taking action in future in respect of the matters Mr Giurina has raised. The OC is armed with knowledge of Mr Giurina's concerns about the conduct of Ms Deak and Strata Connect and may make its own assessment as to whether any action is appropriate.
4. In those circumstances, I decided to dismiss the application for reinstatement.

1. The respondents sought an opportunity to be heard on costs, once my decision in this proceeding has been handed down.
2. I have made orders for the necessary procedural steps to be taken.

[1] Owners Corporation RP001579 v Giurina (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 1509.

[2] Letters dated 16 October 2017 and 24 October 2017.

[3] Affidavits sworn on 4 and 25 March 2014, 12 April 2017 and 15 May 2017.

[4] Affidavits sworn on 23 March 2014 and 2 May 2017.

[5] In support of this contention, Mr Giurina referred me to Re Martin: ex parte Amtron Australia Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1281. As the issue in that case was whether issue estoppel applied to an interlocutory judgment, the case is distinguishable from a case where a decision is subject to an application for leave to appeal. Mr Giurina also referred me to Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [1981] HCA 20 which deals with the same point and so is also distinguishable.

[6] Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 per Lord Bingham, cited with approval by French CJ in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 at paragraph 34; Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42 per Deane and Gaudron JJ at paragraph 10.

[7] Blair v Curran per Dixon J; Anshun per Gibbs CJ, Mason and Aicken JJ at paragraph 17; Ramsay v Pigram [1968] HCA 34; (1967) 118 CLR 271 per Barwick CJ at 276.

[8] Molyneux v VCAT & Anor [2007] VSC 89 at paragraph 53.

[10] [2009] HCA 27.

[12] [1993] HCA 77, per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ at paragraph 23.

[13] Owners Corporation RP 1579 v Giurina [2012] VCAT 643.

[14] Giurina v Owners Corporation No 1579 & Ors [2012] VSC 466.

[15] Giurina v Owners Corporation No 1579 & Ors [2013] VSC 39.

[16] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 46, 50, 52 and 94.

[17] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 50, 52, 75 and 98.

[18] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 91 to 94.

[19] [2016] VCAT 1960.

[20] Affidavits sworn on 23 March 2014, 20 March 2014, 21 March 2014 and 22 March 2014 respectively.

[21] Owners Corporation RP 1579 v Giurina [2012] VCAT 643, order 5 - see discussion at paragraphs 21 to 27.

[22] Mr Giurina's witness statement sworn on 12 April 2017, paragraphs 82, 87 and 88.

[23] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 209 and 213.

[24] Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77, per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ at paragraph 23.

[25] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraph 98.

[26] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 128 to 134.

[27] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraph 134.

[28] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraph 170.

[29] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraph 152.

[30] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraphs 168 and 170.

[31] Fee proceeding reasons, paragraph 165.