1 The applicant has requested the tribunal, constituted by Judge Dove, to re-constitute itself. Judge Dove has refused that request. I have now been asked to grant the request.

2 The applicant really has no ground for the request other that the fact that Judge Dove did not uphold a submission made by the applicant concerning certain documents. This is not a proper basis for a request that the tribunal be reconstituted. Nothing has been put before me to show that Judge Dove will be likely to be partial in the further conduct of this proceeding. The fact that Judge Dove has made a procedural ruling against the applicant is not evidence of lack of impartiality.

3 I also find that the application that has been made to Judge Dove and the subsequent application to me were unreasonably and unnecessarily made. The effect of the applications is that the hearing has been unreasonably prolonged. Under section 109 of the VCAT Act I believe it is fair if the costs incurred by the respondents in relation to the prolongation of the hearing are paid by the applicant. The estimate of costs put forward by the respondents is $800. Based on my experience in the law and my knowledge of legal costs, I believe that is a reasonable amount; indeed it is likely to be less than the actual costs. Thus I fix that amount as the cost that must be paid by the applicant to the respondents.