[5] All parties must attend the compulsory conference either in person or by a representative who has permission to settle the proceeding on their behalf.

1. The order also listed the proceeding for a hearing on 9 February 2026, via an online platform.
2. The review applicant failed to attend the compulsory conference, either in person, or by representative.
3. An order of the Tribunal issued on 17 November 2025, after the scheduled compulsory conference, identifies that Randah Jordan, town planner from Veris attended on behalf of the respondent/permit applicant, Mary Kirby. Emily Harding, town planner from Macedon Ranges Shire Council is also recorded as attending the conference. The 17 November 2025 order confirmed the hearing scheduled for 9 February 2026 and reserved costs, with the following remarks:

[1] This matter involves an application pursuant to section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to review the responsible authority's decision to issue a Notice of a Decision to grant a permit for an 18 Lot subdivision and removal of vegetation and native vegetation on the subject land.

[2] The Tribunal's order of 26 August 2025 scheduled a compulsory conference for 17 November 2025 to commence at 10.00am. Mr Hasan, the applicant for review, failed to attend the compulsory conference. He did not respond to calls from the Tribunal's registry when attempts were made to contact him by his nominated telephone number.

[3] Accordingly, the compulsory conference could not be conducted.

[4] My order confirms that the matter will proceed to a hearing, scheduled for 9 February 2026.

[5] Costs are reserved at the request of the respondent.

[3] No later than 5 business days before the hearing, the parties must provide an electronic copy of their submissions and associated material (such as supporting documentation, case law and photographs) to the Tribunal and all parties. The Tribunal requests that the submitted material be provided in a single PDF, if feasible. The copy for the Tribunal must be sent to admin@courts.vic.gov.au.

1. The 17 November 2025 order was emailed to all parties, including the nominated email address for the review applicant.
2. At 12:02pm on 2 February 2026, the Tribunal received a written submission from the council. The Tribunal then received a written submission from the respondent by email at 3:54pm on the same day. The respondent's submission included information to support a costs application, as permitted by the orders from 17 November 2025.
3. Both the council and respondent filed their submission with an email copy to other parties, including the review applicant, Mr Hasan, via his nominated email address.
4. At 4:42pm on 2 February 2026, the Tribunal received an email from the nominated email address for the review applicant, Mr Hasan stating:

Hello,

Arkin Hasan called and advised he no longer wanted to proceed with Vcat back on the 30th October.

Get Outlook for iOS

1. This email was sent to the Tribunal only, not copied to other parties.
2. At 9:11am the next day, 3 February 2026, the Tribunal emailed the review applicant, via their nominated email address, with a copy to other parties. In the email, the Tribunal stated that it had no record of any correspondence from the applicant seeking to withdraw proceeding P687/2025 at any stage since the review application was lodged. The Tribunal's email stated that if the applicant sought to withdraw the application it must be done in writing, and as soon as possible noting that the hearing was scheduled for 9 February 2026. The Tribunal email included a link to the VCAT website about applications to withdraw a proceeding.
3. At 12:29pm on 3 February 2026 the Tribunal received an email from the review applicant with a scanned copy of an application for withdrawal. The email was not copied to other parties for their consent. Under the section advising of 'reasons for applying to withdraw this application' the applicant stated:

Subdivision looks to be going ahead regardless and I have work commitments.

1. At 4:07pm on 3 February 2026, the Tribunal emailed all parties advising of the review applicant's request to withdraw the proceeding. The email set out that unless any party opposed the withdrawal by 4:00pm on 4 February 2026 the matter would be withdrawn. No party advised they opposed a withdrawal order being made, and the Tribunal subsequently made an order on 5 February 2026 withdrawing the proceeding.
2. The 5 February 2026 order also set out processes to address the costs application made by the respondent's submission for the hearing. This included orders 3 and 4 as follows:

[3] The respondent has made an application for costs in written correspondence received by email on 2 February 2026, at section 7 of submissions filed for proceeding P687/2025 that was scheduled for 9 February 2026. By no later than 4.00pm on 16 February 2026, the respondent must give the Tribunal and the parties updated submissions supporting its application for costs.

[4] The updated submissions must include the following information:

(a) The basis upon which costs are sought.

(b) The party that the respondent says should pay the costs sought.

(c) The amount and details of the costs claimed including any itemised bills with invoices where relevant.

(d) The basis on which the costs are calculated (for example, whether on a standard or indemnity basis, and whether on the County Court or Supreme Court scale. Note that under Rule 1.07 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2018 (Vic), the default scale of costs is now on a standard basis on the County Court Scale.

(e) The reasons why costs should be awarded having regard to the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

(f) A copy of any document relied upon in the costs application or supporting submissions.

1. This 5 February 2026 order also:
   • Provided opportunity for any other party, who wished to oppose or otherwise respond to the application for costs, to provide written submission explaining their position, by no later than 4:00pm on 2 March 2026.
   • Set out that the hearing of any application for costs will be conducted entirely based on documents, without the appearance of the parties or their representatives (i.e. 'on the papers') on 10 March 2026, unless a party directly sought a hearing in person.
2. The respondent filed updated written submissions for their application for costs on 16 February 2026, with a copy provided to the review applicant.
3. No submission was received from the review applicant, or the council as a result of the 5 February 2026 order and the further submission from the respondent.
4. No party sought a hearing in person about the costs application.
5. The consideration of the costs application is therefore made on the material before the Tribunal, being the submissions of the respondent/permit applicant, and done so in context of the provisions of section 109 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). ('VCAT Act').

1. The power to award costs is governed by section 109 of the VCAT Act which provides:

(1) Subject to this Division, each party is to bear their own costs in the proceeding.

(2) At any time, the Tribunal may order that a party pay all or a specified part of the costs of another party in a proceeding.

(3) The Tribunal may make an order under subsection (2) only if satisfied that it is fair to do so, having regard to -

(a) whether a party has conducted the proceeding in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party to the proceeding by conduct such as -

(i) failing to comply with an order or direction of the Tribunal without reasonable excuse;

(ii) failing to comply with this Act, the regulations, the rules or an enabling enactment;

(iii) asking for an adjournment as a result of (i) or (ii);

(iv) causing an adjournment;

(v) attempting to deceive another party or the Tribunal;

(vi) vexatiously conducting the proceeding;

(b) whether a party has been responsible for prolonging unreasonably the time taken to complete the proceeding;

(c) the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties, including whether a party has made a claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law;

(d) the nature and complexity of the proceeding;

(e) any other matter the Tribunal considers relevant.

(4) If the Tribunal considers that the representative of a party, rather than the party, is responsible for conduct described in subsection (3)(a) or (b), the Tribunal may order that the representative in his or her own capacity compensate another party for any costs incurred unnecessarily.

(5) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Tribunal must give the representative a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

(6) If the Tribunal makes an order for costs before the end of a proceeding, the Tribunal may require that the order be complied with before it continues with the proceeding.

(7) A power of the Tribunal under this section is exercisable by any member.

1. The respondent's application for costs made along in its submissions on 2 February 2026 states:

The Respondent seeks an order that the applicant for review pay the permit holder's costs arising from the applicant's failure to attend the compulsory conference listed on 17 November 2025. As a result of the applicant's non-attendance, the compulsory conference was unable to proceed, no issues were narrowed, and the permit holder incurred costs that would not otherwise have been incurred. The costs sought total $22,470 and are reasonable, proportionate and directly attributable to that failure to attend. They are detailed at paragraph 7.4 of the Veris submission for VCAT Reference No. P687/2025 dated 2 February 2026.

1. Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 of the Veris submission dated 2 February 2026 further sets out that the costs sought are as follows:

[7.4] Compulsory Conference Preparation and Attendance Review of the case file, Tribunal orders, permit application, Council decision and grounds of review Liaison with Council Review and updating of plans relied upon for the compulsory conference Preparation for attendance at the compulsory conference Post-conference reporting and advice regarding outcomes and next steps > > Fee: $10,430 + GST > > Hearing Preparation and Attendance Preparation of written submissions, including statutory assessment and responses to issues raised Collation and review of supporting documentation Preparation for and attendance at the VCAT hearing, including responding to Tribunal questions > > Fee: $12,040 + GST.

2. Further submissions provided on 16 February 2026 by the respondent reiterate the total costs sought is $22,470.00. This is the sum of the two parts above.
3. The 16 February 2026 submission included further submissions, referred to as 'Appendix A - Schedule of costs, itemised invoices, fee proposal and client acceptance. At paragraph 6 of these further submissions it states:

(a) Preparation for and attendance at the compulsory conference listed 17 November 2025;

(b) Preparation of submissions and associated material in advance of the hearing listed 9 February 2026;

1. In seeking the costs, the respondent's 16 February 2026 submission states:
   • The failure of the applicant to attend the compulsory conference prevented that conference from being conducted and rendered the respondent's preparation and attendance wasted.
   • The failure of the applicant to withdraw the proceeding in a timely manner caused the respondent to incur further costs associated with preparation of hearing submissions.
   • The costs incurred by the respondent were unnecessary and avoidable.
   • The conduct of the applicant falls squarely within section 109(3)(a) and (c) of the Act.
2. The respondent then attached three invoices, described as 'itemised' accounts of the work undertaken. I examine these invoices in my consideration below.

1. The power to award costs is a discretionary one. Section 109(3) of the VCAT Act sets out the matters to be considered, however the starting point, as set out in s 109(1) is that each party should bear its own costs in a proceeding. It is only under s 109(3), if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is fair to do so, that it may make an order for costs under s 109(2).
2. As set out at paragraph 21 above, s 109(3) sets out the matters the Tribunal is to have regard to when determining whether it is fair to make such an order. These matters encompass the conduct of a party in the proceeding, the relative strength of a party&#821[1]s claim(s)1 in the proceeding, the nature and complexity of the proceeding and any other matter considered by the Tribunal to be relevant.
3. It has generally been the position of various divisions of the Tribunal that awarding costs is to be on a compensatory basis. It is not intended to deter people from making applications. It is intended to compensate the loss relating to a particular unnecessary disadvantage that arose in a proceeding, rather than to punish wrongdoing.[2]
4. In context of s 109, there must also be some conduct that takes a matter outside the normal bounds of a proceeding to make it fair that an award of costs be made. A party must be unnecessarily disadvantaged by a party's conduct of the proceeding to justify an award of costs. The test is therefore whether the disadvantage caused was unnecessary and that it is fair to be compensated for in the manner sought, not simply that a disadvantage arose.[3]
5. In consideration of the specific matters below I have had to analyse both whether an unnecessary disadvantage arose from the review applicant's conduct and then, if it did, is it fair to award the costs sought, based on the information provided by the respondent.
6. I address these matters below.

Costs incurred through failing to attend the compulsory conference

1. It is evident that the review applicant failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal, by not attending the compulsory conference without a known good reason. This was despite efforts made to contact the party on the day and no reason ever provided for failing to attend the conference. Such circumstances are ones that can be deemed to have caused unnecessary disadvantage to other parties who did attend the conference.
2. However, the question is then whether it is fair to award the costs sought by the respondent to compensate for the loss specifically relating to this disadvantage of not attending the compulsory conference.
3. The costs sought by the respondent for the review applicant's non-attendance at the compulsory conference is for an invoice provided totalling $10,430.00. This is for identified 'tasks completed' being:
   1. Review case file and Tribunal order - analyse the permit application, council's decision and grounds of review.
   2. Liaise with the council and the applicant to understand the potential settlement pathways.
   3. Review and/or update plans to be relied on at the conference.
   4. Prepare and attend the VCAT compulsory conference.
   5. Post-conference - 'next steps' engagement with VCAT, council and objector.
4. Of these items I find it is only item 36d) that directly relates to the potential cost incurred from the applicant not attending the compulsory conference. I find this as:
   • Reviewing the case file is a matter that would have been undertaken by the respondent upon the filing of the review application in August 2025. This was well before the compulsory conference non-attendance. It is not a cost that arises from the applicant not attending the conference. It is a cost I find sits reasonably within the need for parties to bare their own costs in accordance with s 109(1) of the VCAT Act.
   • Likewise there is nothing on the Tribunal file to indicate that any liaison occurred between the parties before the compulsory conference or that this may or may not have resulted in the review applicant failing to follow the orders of the Tribunal.
   • In context of s 109(3)(d) of the VCAT Act, the nature of the dispute was not complex. No 'without prejudice' plans or other material is recorded by the Tribunal as being provided by the respondent's representative. Nor is there any indication, that having familiarised themselves with the case upon receipt, that preparing for the conference would have been complex, and therefore costly.
   • Given the conference did not proceed it is not clear what, if any 'next steps' occurred. It is evident from the Tribunal comments in its 17 November 2025 order that the parties who did attend were advised the matter would proceed to hearing. This would then lead to parties preparing submissions for the hearing. This cost is addressed in separate invoice I discuss below.
5. The Tribunal's 5 February 2026 order required the respondent to provide the amount and details of the costs claimed including, any itemised bills with invoices where relevant. The invoice provided by the respondent is for matters set out in an overall fee proposal, not for the specific costs of attending the compulsory conference. No itemised costing was provided and no hourly rate that relates to the costs sought was provided to ascertain the claim sought. In these circumstances I find it not fair to award the costs sought. Nor am I able to fix a fair amount as there are no itemised costs for the attendance at the conference and no hourly rate by which such cost could be determined.
6. An order for costs to be assessed and reviewed by the Costs Court would also encounter the same issue of assessing invoices that relate to a fee proposal, not the specific cost incurred.
7. In conclusion, while I accept an unnecessary disadvantage occurred through the failure of the applicant to attend the compulsory conference, I find it is not fair to award the cost sought. I therefore decline to make an order to award such costs.

Costs incurred by potentially prolonging unreasonably the time taken to complete the proceeding

1. The second part of the costs application is for what the respondent says is the failure of the review applicant to withdraw the proceeding in a timely manner. The respondent says this meant they incurred further costs associated with preparation of hearing submissions. The second invoice provided by the respondent in support of its costs application is for a total of $4,572.00, for 'tasks completed' in its fee proposal, up until 23 January 2026, or one week prior to submissions being lodged with the Tribunal and the application then being withdrawn. This invoice is stated as costs to:
   1. Prepare written submission including statutory assessment and response to council and VCAT.
   2. Collate supporting documentation (plans, reports, photographs, relevant policies).
   3. Liaise with client to confirm instructions and refine case strategy.
   4. Liaise with council to confirm approach to conditions.
   5. Engagement with VCAT to understand process and approach regarding communication with the objector.
   6. VCAT hearing preparation.
2. Of these items, it is potentially arguable that the timing of the withdrawal application by the review applicant meant that costs in item 41a) above, being preparing the written submission, were unnecessarily incurred by the respondent. I am not satisfied that the other costs in the list are reasonably attributable to the potential disadvantage. This is because the costs incurred would have been incurred in the normal filing and consideration of a proceeding by a permit applicant. While costs were incurred, the ultimate withdrawal avoided the cost of the hearing itself. I say this also commenting that:
   • No conditions review under s 80 of the PE Act was sought by the permit applicant. The council had circulated the conditions, as formed part of the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, issued in August 2025. It is not clear that any further 'liaison' would have been required with the council about conditions before the hearing, given none were sought to be changed, or contested.
   • There is no record or indication from submissions about costs that any further engagement was made with VCAT about engaging with the objector, other than responding to the email of the Tribunal about the withdrawal request.
   • Given the matter was sought to be withdrawn almost immediately after written submissions were circulated, it is not clear that any cost for further 'hearing preparation' beyond preparing the written submission would have been incurred.
3. In assessing if costs should be awarded for 41a) above, I do so in context that the review applicant is not professionally represented. Their knowledge and understanding of Tribunal proceedings may be more limited than a professional advocate.
4. The review applicant advised in its email on 2 February 2026 that 'Arkin Hasan called and advised he no longer wanted to proceed with Vcat back on the 30th October'. However, it is not clear who he called or how the email sender this was aware of such information. The Tribunal has no record of any such telephone call from Mr Hasan. In any event, the proper course is for a party to withdraw a proceeding in writing, as is set out on the Tribunal website and in various Tribunal documents.
5. The written application for withdrawal received the next day included comments that it seemed the 'subdivision looks to be going ahead regardless.' Whether the applicant expected this before receiving the written submissions, or intentionally delayed withdrawing is unknown. What is known is that immediately after receiving the written submissions, the applicant sought to withdraw the review application, albeit initially via an incorrectly phrased email. In the formal application then made to withdraw, the review applicant's comments seem to indicate they considered their application unlikely to succeed.
6. There is nothing before me to indicate the review applicant sought to vexatiously or deliberately delay their withdrawal. Indeed the work undertaken in preparing and filing submissions by other parties may have led the review applicant to withdraw, having seen the weight of arguments against them in these submissions.
7. Having withdrawn when they did, rather than continuing to a hearing, the review applicant avoided further costs to parties in attending the hearing in circumstances where the review applicant acknowledged, after receiving submissions, that they thought their prospects of success in the proceeding were limited.
8. I therefore am not satisfied that the timing of the withdrawal application after the written submissions of other parties were filed was deliberate, or unreasonably extended the proceeding in a way that can be considered to have resulted in unnecessary disadvantage to the respondent.
9. I also note that even if I did find costs of preparing submissions should be awarded, I would have found the costs sought unfair for the same reasons that I have determined not to award the costs sought for the failure of the applicant to attend the compulsory conference.

1. A third invoice was also attached to the costs application, for which costs are sought. It is described as 'Our Professional Fees and Services up to and including 16 February 2026.' This invoice includes various tasks purported to have been undertaken and incurred unreasonably because of the review applicant's actions.
2. The 'tasks completed' listed in this invoice include:
   1. Prepare written submission including statutory assessment, case law references, and responses to council or other parties. (listed twice)
   2. Collate supporting documentation (plans, reports, photographs, relevant policies). (listed twice)
   3. Liaise with client to confirm instructions and refine case strategy. (listed twice).
   4. Prepare for the VCAT hearing - present submission.
   5. Prepare for the VCAT hearing, including presentation preparation.
   6. Correspond with and engage with the Tribunal registry regarding the Applicant's failure to attend the compulsory conference and to clarify procedural steps required following non-attendance.
   7. Review Tribunal correspondence and orders concerning withdrawal of the proceeding and the reserved costs issue.
   8. Undertake additional procedural work to clarify the status of the proceeding, including preparation of communications to the Tribunal in relation to the Applicant's non-attendance and subsequent withdrawal.
   9. Advise the Respondent regarding procedural implications of the Applicant's conduct, including explanation of costs process, likely outcomes, and required steps to progress the matter to resolution.
3. The invoice then provides a lump sum sought for the items above. No hourly rate was provided on which the costs were derived.
4. In context of the failings of the review applicant to not attend the compulsory conference and only withdrawing the application immediately after written submissions were circulated, I find that none of these above costs are reasonable to be awarded. I say this as:
   • The itemised tasks duplicate each other, and other costs already invoiced in previous invoices. There is no indication that any further actual cost was incurred.
   • Given the application was sought to be withdrawn almost immediately after the written submission was circulated, I cannot substantiate the claim that unreasonable costs would have been incurred in preparing to present at a hearing. This is particularly so in the context that the matters in the proceeding were not complex.
   • Interpreting the Tribunal's orders about the withdrawal should not have been complex or an unreasonable expectation of the respondent, regardless of the actions of the review applicant.
   • The documented correspondence of the Tribunal from the respondent's representative about the withdrawal are very limited and not complex. They are not unreasonable costs to be incurred by a party in context of s 109(1) of the VCAT Act.

1. I find that the review applicant's conduct associated with the failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal to attend a compulsory conference did cause an unnecessary disadvantage to the respondent. However, I find it is not fair to award the costs sought and I cannot fix costs from the application for costs material provided.
2. I find the timing of the review applicant's withdrawal did not unnecessarily disadvantage the respondent through the preparation of unnecessary written submissions. This is because there is nothing to indicate the applicant's withdrawal immediately after written submissions were circulated was vexatious, or sought to unnecessarily disadvantage other parties.
3. I therefore refuse to make the order for costs sought.

[1] Or in a merits review, the relative strength of the grounds relied on by a party in respect to its case about the merits.

[2] Country Endeavours Pty Ltd v Baw Baw SC (No.8) [2011] VCAT 2403, [19].

[3] Falconbridge v Yarra CC (Red dot) [2005] VCAT 2449 [19].