Vero Insurance Ltd v Body Corporate Strata Plan No 41716B [2005] VSC 56

Supreme Court of Victoria|2005-03-10|Before: Balmford J

For the reasons given, the application of the insurers is dismissed. Counsel may wish to make submissions as to costs.

[4] [1950] VicLawRp 12; [1950] VLR 45 a 654; reversed on appeal on the admission of further evidence Lang [sic] v Registrar-General of the State of Victoria [1950] VicLawRp 53; [1950] VLR 307

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996

Judicial Review - Application under Order 56 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 - VCAT decision - Whether VCAT functus officio - Whether order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus should be made - Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163. Whether plaintiff can apply to re-open an order of VCAT in accordance with s 120 VCAT Act - Whether plaintiffs were "a person in respect of whom an order" was made.

Mandamus will lie, speaking generally, where the respondent has refused to comply with a demand by the applicant to perform a public duty. In R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal: Ex parte Bott [1933] HCA 30; (1933) 50 CLR 228, Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ said at 242:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (6)