1. The Respondents applied under s. 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (hereafter "the VCAT Act") to strike out complaints brought by Dr Towie against the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, Mr John Smith and Mr Ian Stoney. On 17 June 2003, upon a consideration of the written material before me and on hearing oral submissions from the parties' respective Counsel (Ms Pettigrew for the Respondents and Mr Perkins for the Complainant), I decided that the complaints should be struck out pursuant to s. 75(1)(a) of the VCAT Act. I gave oral reasons on 17 June 2002 (amplified with written reasons on 18 June 2002).

2. When I had given my oral reasons on 17 June 2003 for striking out the complaints, Ms Pettigrew sought costs on behalf of the Respondents. Due to time constraints, I set dates for the provision of written submissions on the costs issue, and written submissions have been provided.

3. While the general rule regarding costs is set out in s. 109(1) of the VCAT Act, I consider that in this instance, a costs order should be made against the Complainant pursuant to s. 109(2) and (3). In brief, in the present circumstances, I am satisfied that it is fair to make a costs order against the Complainant because the Complainant pursued his complaints in circumstances where he had little, if any, chance of success.

4. The Respondents supported their application for a strike out order with written material filed with the Tribunal and served on the Complainant. The written material included:

* an explanation of the legal test that had to be satisfied if a complaint was to be struck out;

* detailed submissions as to why the Respondents considered the complaints were bound to fail; and

5. In response to the Respondent's written submissions, the Complainant made no attempt to address the matters raised by the Respondents. The Complainant simply stated that matters in the Respondents' affidavit material were disputed, and said he wished to cross-examine the deponents; denied that there was any reason to strike out the complaints; said he could not make a detailed response without discovery; and disputed that any of the acts in question were done in good faith.

6. Therefore, in the face of well-argued written submissions by the Respondents as to why the complaints should fail, the Complainant chose not to address such submissions. He chose to press on, regardless.

7. The Respondents gave the Complainant ample notice of their intention to seek costs against him - including at the Directions hearing on 5 May 2003 before Deputy President Urquhart, and in the Respondents' written submissions in support of the strike out application.

8. It is in these circumstances that I consider it fair to award costs against the Complainant. I consider that costs should be awarded against the Complainant as from 6 June 2003, the date of the Complainant's (one page) submissions in response to the Respondents' written submissions on the strike out application.

9. Pursuant to s. 111(1) of the VCAT Act and bearing in mind the statement of costs and expenses incurred by the Respondents (which statement is set out in the Respondents' written submissions in support of their application for costs), I fix the amount of costs to be paid by the Complainant at $5,225.18. (This is the total of the following items at page 9 of the Respondents' written submissions in support of their application for compensation or costs: the items for 6 June to 13 June 2003; for 16 June 2003; for 17 June 2003; and for Counsel's fees for attendance at the hearing on 17 June 2003.)