Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2010-02-04

For the reasons set out above, the outstanding aspects of the strike out application are rejected and the Application for Enforcement Order must now be dealt with in the ordinary way.
Whilst the issue of "double jeopardy" was not pursued in the further submissions provided by Mr Burns, I:
- note that the outcome of a planning enforcement proceeding if orders are granted (eg remediation works) will typically be different to the outcome of a criminal conviction (eg a fine or going to jail); and
- refer to the statement in the original Council written submission at paragraph 51 that:

The Application is a civil proceeding - Greater Geelong CC v More (Red Dot) [2005] VCAT 1522 (20 July 2005) and it not intended to be punitive. The proceeding is in the nature of an injunction. The Respondents' assertion that an enforcement order is a "second punishment" is misconceived.

[1] See Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355 at page 381.

Manningham CC v Page [2010] VCAT 143 (4 February 2010)

Manningham CC v Page [2010] VCAT 143

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

Manningham CC v Page [2010] VCAT 143 (4 February 2010)