1. On 28 November 2022 the First and Second Applicant's ('the Youngs') applied to the Tribunal for an order that a contract they entered into with the Respondent ('Ace Panel Worx') for the purchase and restoration of a 1959 F100 Ford truck ('the truck project') be cancelled, and that Ace Panel Worx pay the Youngs a refund of $52,872.00 for goods supplied which were not of acceptable quality and for services which were not supplied within a reasonable time.
2. The claim was made pursuant to the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) and was (at that time) supported by 14 pages of evidence comprising of handwritten notes and various invoices and payment receipts spanning the period 19 July 2019 to 2 September 2022.
3. On 20 March 2023 the Tribunal ordered the Youngs to file with the Tribunal, by 21 April 2023, Points of Claim setting out their allegations of relevant facts and events giving rise to their claim in chronological order and in numbered paragraphs. The Tribunal also ordered that the Ace Panel Worx not be sent any documents at that stage.
4. On 30 March 2023 the Youngs forwarded to the Tribunal by email their Points of Claim.
5. On 13 December 2023 at a hearing at which the Youngs and Ace Panel Worx attended, the Tribunal made orders, inter alia, that:
   • - by 13 February 2024 Ace Panel Worx must send to the Tribunal and the Youngs its Points of Defence briefly setting out its defence to the claim made against it, and file with the Tribunal and serve upon the Youngs any counterclaim it may make against the Youngs;
   • - by 13 March 2024 the Youngs must send to the Tribunal and Ace Panel Worx its Points of Defence briefly setting out its defence to any claim (Ace Panel Worx' counterclaim) made against it, and;
   • - a half day compulsory conference in the proceeding (and any counterclaim) be conducted at 9:30am on 29 May 2024 by videoconference.
6. Despite Ace Panel Worx commencing its counterclaim (proceeding C2189/2024) on 9 May 2024, months after the time allowed in the Tribunal's order of 13 December 2023, on 10 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order which, in effect, extended the time limit for the filing of the counterclaim and confirmed that the compulsory conference would proceed at 9:30am on 29 May 2024. This was the first of several breaches by Ace Panel Worx of the Tribunal's Orders.

1. On 29 May 2024 at a hearing at which the Youngs and Ace Panel Worx attended, the Tribunal made an order by consent referring both proceedings to an administrative mention on 12 July 2024, by which time the parties were required to have advised the principal registrar in writing of their recommendations for its further conduct. The order also stated that if the Youngs had not confirmed they wished to proceed against Ace Panel Worx, the application against Ace Panel Worx would be struck out with a right to apply for reinstatement.
2. On 11 September 2024 the Tribunal made orders, inter alia, that:
   1. The principal registrar is directed to list proceeding C7180/2022 for hearing at 9:30am on 31 October 2024 with estimated duration of three hours.
   2. Unless ACE Panel Worx Pty Ltd files with the Tribunal and serves on Alan Young and Cheryl Young Points of Defence to the claim made against it in proceeding C7180/2022 by 4 October 2024, it shall be taken to admit all of the allegations made by Alan Young and Cheryl Young in that proceeding and to consent to an Order being made against it without a hearing for the full amount of the claim plus reimbursement of any filing fee paid to issue the proceeding.
   3. In proceeding C2189/2024, by 4 October 2024 ACE Panel Worx Pty Ltd must file with the Tribunal and serve on Alan Young and Cheryl Young Points of Claim, which clearly set out its allegations giving rise to its claim against Alan Young and Cheryl Young, and contains a statement of how much is claimed and how that sum is calculated. The Points of Claim must be set out in a logical, chronological order broken into separate numbered paragraphs.
   4. If ACE Panel Worx Pty Ltd does not file and serve Points of Claim in proceeding C2189/2024, by 4 October 2024, that proceeding will be struck out.
3. In making the Order on 11 September 2024, the Tribunal noted by way of background:

In an attempt to comply with the Orders, in proceeding C7180/2022 Alan Young and Cheryl Young filed an expert's report by National Assessing and Engineering, on 22 July 2024. The Tribunal interprets this act as signifying that Alan Young and Cheryl Young wish to proceed with both cases.

1. On 15 October 2024 the Tribunal ordered Ace Panel Worx to pay the Youngs $53,315.00, being the sum claimed by the Youngs in this application and the application fee paid by the Youngs. This order was based on findings that:
   • - Ace Panel Worx failed to file before 4 October 2024 a Points of Defence (thereby failing to comply with the Tribunal's Order made 13 December 2023);
   • - Ace Panel Worx failed to file before 4 October 2024 its Points of Claim in proceeding C2189/2024 (thereby failing to comply with the Tribunal's Order made 11 September 2024), and;
   • - In accordance with the Tribunal's Orders dated 11 September 2024, Ace Panel Worx is deemed to have consented to having judgment made against it in this proceeding.
2. On 15 October 2024 the Tribunal also ordered that the hearing scheduled to take place on 31 October 2024 was vacated/cancelled as no hearing was required for either proceeding.

Does Ace Panel Worx have a reasonable excuse for not complying with the order made on 11 September 2024?

1. On 22 January 2025 Ace Panel Worx applied for review of orders made in cases C7180-2022 and C2189-2024. In its written application for review, Ace Panel Worx does not identify any date/s of the orders for which it seeks review. However, from further information provided in the application for review (set out as follows), it is clear Ace Panel Worx's request for review centres upon its desire to have the Tribunal's Order made on 15 October 2024 set aside. The Tribunal notes Ace Panel Worx's application for review (made on 22 January 2025) was made over three months after, and 14 weeks since the Tribunal sent to the parties it's Order made on 15 October 2024 that Ace Panel Worx is deemed to have consented to having judgment made against it. The time limit for a person to seek a review of an order is within 14 days of the person becoming aware of the order: r4.24(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rules 2018 (Vic). Ace Panel Worx filed its application for review well after the expiration of this time limit, and it has not sought an extension of time nor given any grounds on which an application for extension of time could be entertained. The application for review was opposed by the Youngs.
2. The first question that must be determined under s120 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) is whether Ace Panel Worx has a reasonable excuse for not complying with the Tribunal's Order of 11 September 2024, and that question must also be considered in the context of whether it had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the previous Orders made on 13 December 2023 and 29 May 2024. It is these failures by Ace Panel Worx that resulted in the Tribunal deeming Ace Panel Worx's non-compliance as Ace Panel Worx consenting to having judgment made against it as, and upon which the Order was made on 15 October 2024.
3. As described below, it is plain that in making its application for review, Ace Panel Worx seeks to distinguish itself from its Director Luke Preston. Mr Preston asserts several times to how 'he' allegedly did not know of information or receive documents, where of course it is Ace Panel Worx that is the respondent in the proceeding and the applicant for review. Mr Preston seeks to assert that Ace Panel Worx's reasons for not complying with the orders made on 13 December 2023 (to file its Points of Defence by 13 February 2024) and on 29 May 2024 (advise in writing of its recommendations for the further conduct of both the Youngs' application and Ace Panel Worx's counterclaim) and on 11 September 2024 (to file its Points of Claim by 4 October 2024) as being:

I attended the conference [on 29 May 2024], I was not aware of any further requirements because I did not see the correspondence with orders requiring me to file my defence & counterclaim. I employed a new manager in my business who was solely working from a new email address. The email address on file with VCAT was mistakenly not being looked at. Since the conference I have had a new baby & medical appointment from a work explosion. this matter slipped my mind.

1. At the hearing of the application for review of the Tribunal's order made on 15 October 2024, Ace Panel Worx referred to the written witness statement by Luke Preston dated 5 June 2025, in which Ace Panel Worx submits, inter alia, that:
   1. Between 29 May 2024 and 12 July 2024, I checked my emails regularly awaiting correspondence from either the Applicants and/or VCAT. After 12 July 2024 I assumed that that was the end of the matter having not received correspondence.
   2. I did not receive anything from VCAT in respect to the 12 July 2024 deadline and never received correspondence from the Applicants directly confirming they were proceeding with the matter prior to 12 July 2024. I therefore did not file my defence and counterclaim.
   3. I did not receive the expert report by National Assessing and Engineering from either VCAT or the Applicants nor did I see the order made on 11 September 2024.
   4. In early September 2024, I employed a new manager in my business, a new email was set up and we were working solely from this email address. The email address on file with VCAT was mistakenly not being looked at.
   5. On 30 September 2025 (sic), my wife Claire and I had a baby. Claire was sick in the weeks leading up to the birth of our child and I was not in the workshop through this time.
2. At the review hearing Luke Preston of Ace Panel Worx gave oral evidence consistent with the above explanation, that in essence, in not hearing anything further after the 29 May 2024 hearing (until 10 December 2024 when his wife was given a letter from the Youngs), he assumed the Youngs' application was 'thrown out'.
3. At the review hearing the Youngs challenged the claim made by Ace Panel Worx (that it assumed the Youngs' application was 'thrown out' when nothing was heard after 29 May 2024) by pointing out that Ace Panel Worx sought an adjournment on 14 or 15 October 2024. In response to the Youngs' challenge, Mr Preston stated:

We've since found out was sent by my by my [sic] new manager at the time I was off work at that time and I had asked him to check my old emails.

1. According to the Tribunal's electronic records, on 10 October 2024 telephone advice was received from Ace Panel Worx that 'he can't make the hearing on 31st oct [sic] as he will be away', to which the caller was advised by Tribunal staff to 'send an email asap and show proof that he is away and whether it was booked before or after knowing he has this hearing coming up'.
2. On 14 October 2024 the Tribunal received the following email:

I am writing to apply for my teleconference call that is booked for the 31st of October to be adjourned regarding the matters of C7180/2022 & C2189/2024. I will be away on our annual family holiday that starts on the 29th of October. We will be home in the 8th of November. Anytime after we return will suit. I do apologise for such late notice however I only returned back to work last week to check emails after having some time off with our newborn son.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept Ace Panel Worx's claims:

(a) that after 12 July 2024 it believed the Youngs' application was at an end[1] or had been struck out as contemplated by the Tribunal's order made on 29 May 2024 would eventuate if the Youngs had not confirmed they wished to proceed against Ace Panel Worx by 12 July 2024;

(b) that at sometime in early September 2024 '[t]he email address on file with VCAT was mistakenly not being looked at'[2] due to 'a new manager in [the] business who was solely working from a new email address';[3]

(c) it did not receive the Tribunal's order made on 11 September 2024 which directed the principal registrar to list 'the proceeding for hearing at 9:30am on 31 October 2024 with estimated duration of three hours', or;

(d) that after the conference on 29 May 2024, having 'had a new baby & medical appointment from a work explosion. [The] matter slipped my mind.'[4]

1. Whilst becoming a new parent is a significant life event, and experiencing a workplace explosion necessitating a medical appointment (for which no supporting evidence has been provided) may lead to a busy and possibly disrupted (in the short term) day to day life, the Tribunal does not accept it is plausible that in circumstances where a company director is responsible for responding to a monetary claim for $52,872.00, the matter would simply 'slip' his, her or their mind.
2. The email from Ace Panel Worx to the Tribunal on 14 October 2024 (set out in preceding paragraph 19) cannot be reconciled with Ace Panel Worx's Director's claim that in not hearing anything further after the 29 May 2024 hearing, he assumed the Youngs' application had been thrown out. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the claim by Ace Panel Worx that it assumed the Youngs' application had been thrown out.
3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that Ace Panel Worx does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the Tribunal's orders made on:

(a) 13 December 2023 requiring it to send to the Tribunal and the Youngs its Points of Defence;

(b) 29 May 2024 requiring it to advise the principal registrar in writing of its recommendation for its further conduct of the proceeding, and;

(c) 11 September 2024 requiring it to file and serve upon the Youngs its Points of Defence by 4 October 2024.

Does Ace Panel Worx have a reasonable case to argue in relation to the subject matter of the order?

1. Only if the applicant for review is found to have had a reasonable excuse for not attending or being represented at the relevant hearing does the question of whether that applicant has a reasonable case to argue in relation to the subject matter of the relevant order arise (s120(4)(a)(i) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic)). Nevertheless, I consider that question below. For these purposes the relevant hearing is the making of the order made on 15 October 2024, namely that the applicant for review, Ace Panel Worx, must pay the Youngs the sum of $53,315.00 being:
   • - $52,812.00 (for its supply of goods which were not of acceptable quality and for service not supplied within a reasonable time), and;
   • - $503.00 (being the VCAT application fee).
2. In its written application for a reopening of the Tribunal's decision[5] Ace Panel Worx stated the following:

I have a valid defence and counterclaim. The Young's purchased the truck in the condition as seen for $10,000.00. This is also the price I purchased it for back when I originally intending in restoring the truck for myself. The Young's then engaged my business to perform restoration works.

1. Subsequently, Ace Panel Worx provided the Tribunal with its Points of Defence dated 5 June 2025 to which no exhibits were attached, and in which it denies the Youngs have any entitlement to claims brought by them for reasons that can be summarised as:
   • - The truck and spare parts purchases were not purchases from Ace Panel Worx but from its Director Luke Preston in his personal capacity;
   • - The Youngs' payments for services provided by third parties did not constitute part of the agreement between the parties to this proceeding;
   • - No agreement was made between the parties to complete the truck project within a prescribed timeframe or for a set cost;
   • - Ace Panel Worx did not make any representations in trade or commerce as required under the Australian Consumer Law;
   • - A sum of $4,466.00 (58 hours of labour at $70.00 per hour) remains outstanding to Ace Panel Worx, and;
   • - The Youngs owe Mr Preston the sum of $10,866.00.
2. The Points of Defence otherwise admit the claims by the Youngs.
3. At the hearing of this application to re-open the order made on 15 October 2024, Ace Panel Worx explained that it did not submit to the Tribunal any documentary evidence supporting its Points of Defence as it did not think 'that was evidence you'd [the Tribunal would] be interested in at this date.'
4. Ace Panel Worx also stated at the review hearing that what hasn't been provided to the Tribunal but which it does have [in terms of documentary evidence supporting its Points of Defence and / or its claim that it has a reasonable case to argue] consists of a lot of text messages the Youngs have made.
5. In contrast, the Youngs have provided 19 pages of evidence comprising invoices, receipts of payment, and communications with Ace Panel Worx and third parties.
6. On balance, if the question of whether Ace Panel Worx had a reasonable case to argue was before the Tribunal - which, as I said above, it is not - the Tribunal would not be satisfied Ace Panel Worx has demonstrated it has a reasonable case to argue in relation to the Youngs' claim that Ace Panel Worx's failed to supply goods of acceptable quality and service within a reasonable time, such that they are owed $52,812.00 in restitution of monies spent over four and a half years for an incomplete, unsellable and unroadworthy 1959 Ford F 100 truck.

Is there any prejudice to the Youngs that cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or reimbursements of fees or both?

1. The Youngs made their application to the Tribunal on 28 November 2022 based on claims they purchased the Truck on 4 October 2018 from Ace Panel Worx and entered into agreements for restoration services with Ace Panel Worx (the truck project) up until February 2023, being a period of almost 4 and a half years.
2. Evidence provided by the Youngs is that they sent written notice to Ace Panel Worx on 9 November 2022 seeking reimbursement of all monies spent by them on the truck project and on the following day they spoke in person with Ace Panel Worx requesting return of $54,000.00 (being the total monies expended by them on the truck project) and that the truck be kept by Ace Panel Worx.
3. Evidence provided by the Youngs is also that after their attempts to resolve their dissatisfaction with Ace Panel Worx in relation to the truck project failed, they obtained in late November 2022 preliminary legal advice of their next steps from Kirk Walker of Olympus Lawyers.
4. In July 2024 the Youngs also obtained a report from National Assessing and Engineering.
5. Having regard to the:

(a) period that has elapsed since the parties first embarked upon the truck project in 2018;

(b) attempts by the Youngs to amicably resolve their dispute with Ace Panel Worx prior to making its application to the Tribunal in November 2022;

(c) reasons set out in this decision regarding Ace Panel Worx's failures to comply with Tribunal orders between 13 December 2023, 29 May 2024 and 11 September 2024;

(d) compliance by the Youngs with the Tribunal's orders made in this proceeding;

(e) Tribunal's non-acceptance of Ace Panel Worx's claim that after the 29 May 2024 hearing it assumed the Youngs' application had been thrown out;

(f) Ace Panel Worx's ongoing failure to appraise itself of the status of the Youngs' application until it was forced to by virtue of the letter it received on 10 December 2024 (which was signed for on delivery), which it then delayed opening for 5 days, and then delayed a further 30 days before checking its email inbox;

(g) submission by the Youngs that further delay in bringing an end to the litigation (which would be the outcome if the present application was granted) will cause them further distress and anxiety on top of what they have already experienced due to the long delays in having their application determined and the dispute about the failed truck project conclusively resolved, and;

(h) appointment of Nathan Deppeler on 13 June 2025 as restructuring practitioner under s453B(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Tribunal finds the prejudice to the Youngs of further delay in what has already been a protracted process of having their dispute with Ace Panel Worx resolved and the uncertainty surrounding Ace Panel Worx's ability to pay its creditors by virtue of the appointment of a restructuring practitioner, cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or reimbursements of fees or both.

1. The respondent Ace Panel Worx Pty Ltd 608 950 438 did not provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with Tribunal Orders made on 29 May 2024 and 11 September 2024.
2. Ace Panel Worx's application for review of Orders made on 15 October 2024 was made on 22 January 2025. This was within 14 days of it becoming aware of the Orders made on 15 October 2025 when the applicants, the Youngs, undertook enforcement action for Orders dated 15 October 2024.
3. It is not appropriate to grant the review for rehearing because -

(i) Ace Panel Worx did not have a reasonable excuse for not attending or being represented at the hearing constituted by the making of the order on 15 October 2024;

(ii) Ace Panel Worx does not have a reasonable case to argue in relation to the subject matter, and;

(iii) any prejudice that may be caused to the Youngs cannot be remedied by an appropriate order for costs or reimbursement of fees, or both.

1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The order dated 15 October 2024 is confirmed.

[1] Paragraph 6, written witness statement by Luke Preston dated 5 June 2025.

[2] Application by Ace Panel Worx Pty Ltd for review made on 22 January 2025 pursuant to s120 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) and Paragraph 9, written witness statement by Luke Preston dated 5 June 2025.

[3] Application by Ace Panel Worx Pty Ltd for review made on 22 January 2025 pursuant to s120 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

[4] Application by Ace Panel Worx Pty Ltd for review made on 22 January 2025 pursuant to s120 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).