Plunkett v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2024] VCAT 205 (5 March 2024)
Background
On 13 April 2023, the respondents made an application pursuant to section 77 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) that this proceeding be struck out and the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
In this instance, the proceeding being struck out would mean that the tribunal exercises its discretion in acknowledging that the subject matter of the proceeding would be more appropriately dealt with by a court.
Facts
In Plunkett v Portier Pty Ltd the applicant (Mr. Antony Plunkett) accused the respondents (Portier Pacific and Uber’s relevant shareholders) of deceptive behaviour regarding the promised radius of service on the Uber Eats app, alleging they invested money based on false representations, seeking damages on the alleged sums totalling $1,365,984 plus damages and interest. The respondents had stated in their application that the claim was complicated, involving multiple parties and unsuited to resolution at the Tribunal.
Justice Woodward, considering Section 77's broad discretion, found it more suitable for the Supreme Court to handle the case due to several factors. These included;
the Tribunal's limited resources
lack of efficient case management
absence of transcripts for hearings
potential duplication in handling cases.
Additionally, Justice Woodward cited the complexity of the claim and referred to the following reasons for being the justification to the matter being heard in the supreme court:
The total costs exceeding 1 million dollars
the intricate corporate structures of some of Uber’s respondents based in the Netherlands
an estimated 10-day duration for the final hearing
the effectiveness and advantage of streamlined case management by a single judicial officer in the Supreme Court, which possesses the necessary jurisdiction and authority to issue any required orders.
The findings of this case may aid in determining the appropriateness of court in future proceedings. Specifically, maybe a case may be more suited to being heard at court and not at the VCAT on the basis of the size of monies, the trial length, the type of dispute being more suited to the courts jurisdiction and the range of legal costs.
How we can assist…
At Bastion Legal, we help everyday Australians navigate complex legal issues with practical, straightforward advice. Our team is dedicated to resolving disputes, protecting rights, and achieving fair outcomes. Whatever challenge you’re facing, we provide clear guidance, strong representation, and practical solutions tailored to your situation.
If you’re facing a situation like the one discussed above, you do not need to face these issues alone. We’re here to protect your interests and work towards the outcome you deserve.
Contact us today for a free consultation and take the next step with confidence.