Mr Greg Garde SC, instructed by Ryan Commercial Lawyers.

Ms Tania Cincotta, solicitor of Best Hooper, solicitors.

Mr Jeff Lynn, solicitor of Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers.

1. The Directions Hearing held on 6 June 2008 was largely to determine what further notice was required to be given of the application for review and to make preliminary arrangements for its re-listing.
2. The first order I have made largely follows the order made by His Honour Justice Cavanough as part of the consent order in Supreme Court Proceeding No. 4076 of 2008. Three additional issues arise in relation to this Order. I will deal with each of these in turn.
3. First, the form of notice is set out as an annexure to the Supreme Court Order. The form of notice contains a blank where a date is to be inserted by which time any person wishing to become a party to the application for review must make such application to this Tribunal. Ms Cincotta on behalf of the permit applicant and responsible authority suggested that this time should be 14 days, as is common for notice of planning applications. Mr Garde SC however suggested that a minimum of 21 days notice should be given. In this instance, I agree with Mr Garde, on the basis that the notice provides that any person considering applying to be joined as a party to the application for review can inspect plans, the application, legal submissions and witness reports previously provided to the Tribunal by contacting the Registry and inspecting those documents. The additional week from the usual timelines for notice will provide a more reasonable time for this potential inspection process to occur, and will not delay the ultimate hearing.
4. The second issue in dispute concerned the extent of further notice that the Tribunal might decide is appropriate, following the fourth component of Justice Cavanough's order which allows for additional notice to be given to such other persons as the Tribunal may decide. Ms Cincotta argued that the notice provided for in the earlier parts of Justice Cavanough's order was sufficient, and the notice on the land and publication in newspapers would alert persons more remote from the appeal site. Her argument was that the Supreme Court appeal had not arisen due to any prior defect in the extent of notice given, but rather that the original notice pertained only to heritage, rather than heritage and planning, grounds. Mr Garde argued for far more extensive notice to be given, particularly in an area proximate to the St Kilda Park Primary School. Whilst I am somewhat sympathetic to Ms Cincotta's argument, I believe a slightly larger area of notice should be undertaken, although not to the extent suggested by Mr Garde. The slightly larger area is reflective of the fact that broader planning matters (and not just heritage matters) are now of potential relevance. I have marked the area on a map which is included as Attachment A to these orders. Whilst this may seem to comprise a relatively large area, I note that more than half of the area is covered by the southern end of the Albert Park reserve.
5. The third issue concerns the listing of the matter. The order of Justice Cavanough indicates that I must direct notice in accordance with the form attached to his order. On its face, it would seem that I cannot amend that order, even if it may be appropriate to do so. Having re-listed the matter for hearing in November, the normal practice of the Tribunal would be to require that any additional notice or advertising included a prominent written statement advising potential parties of that hearing date. Given that I am technically unable to amend the form of notice itself, I have ordered in the alternative that the notice should include "or be accompanied by" a prominent written statement advising of the hearing date. Hopefully, the parties can quickly agree on the best mechanism for this to occur - preferably by inclusion as a final paragraph in the notice itself.
6. In addition to these matters, I have (as requested) listed the matter for a further Directions Hearing on 1 August 2008, at which time arrangements can be made for the hearing, and re-listed the matter for hearing on 10 November 2008 for five (5) days. In accordance with Justice Cavanough's order, that matter should be heard by a Tribunal constituted by members other than Senior Member Baird or Member Rickards. I have also exempted myself from being a possible member of the Tribunal constituted to hear the merits of the matter, given preliminary findings I had made prior to the last hearing on the question of the 'public land manager'. Although no conflict exists from this, the intent of the Supreme Court order is that the reconstituted Tribunal bring fresh minds to the relevant issues.
7. As a final matter, for the avoidance of doubt, I have indicated in the orders those persons whom (according to the Tribunal's records) are already the parties to this proceeding and entitled to be heard at the re-listed hearing without having to make further application to be joined as a party in accordance with the Notice to be given. At Mr Lynn's request (and there being no objection), I have included Cricket Victoria in lieu of the Melbourne Cricket Club) as the interested party representing the Junction Oval area and environs. I have also deleted Ms Susan Brennan as a listed party, as I understand her role to have been as a barrister for some of the objectors rather than as a party in any personal capacity.
8. If there is any error or omission in the list, the parties should notify the Tribunal as soon as possible such that it may be corrected, or any dispute resolved at the further directions hearing. Otherwise, any further persons wishing to participate in the hearing will need to respond and make application to be joined as parties in accordance with the Notice.