Case: Dix v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1993] 1 VR 297
Outcome: referred to
In exercising my discretion I accept that it is appropriate to have regard to the considerations which underpin the "last resort" approach which has been adopted by the Victorian Supreme Court. However, that approach guides the exercise of different statutory discretions. Even then, it does not fetter the exercise of those discretions in any particular case. Indeed it would be improper for it to do so: see Dix v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1993] 1 VR 297 at 302. The considerations which informed the excercises of discretion in the cases relied on by the Registrar do not apply in the present circumstances. It is also necessary to bear in mind that different and additional matters arise for consideration when the Court's discretion under s 33ZF is exercised. In particular the power can be exercised to facilitate settlement of class actions which can and do involve complicated issues which impinge on the parties who may be interested in pursuing settlement negotiations. It is relevant in the present proceeding that, if the proposed order is not made, there is a possibility that the settlement agreement will collapse. Moreover I can see no justification in imposing unnecessary costs on the parties who have already suffered greatly both financially and emotionally as a result of being induced to give up title to their homes. The process by which this occurred, in each case, involved a contravention of the Trade Practices Act such as to render the transactions null and void. Unlike the plaintiffs in the Victorian cases the class members are not disadvantaged by reason of the failure of a vendor to deliver up duplicate certificates of title or otherwise failing to facilitate a transfer of title. They are seeking an order which will restore the entry of their names in the Register. 18 The various considerations relied on by the parties who support the making of order 2 strongly justify a departure from the "normal" processes for rectification of the Register. The order should be made. 19 At the hearing I reserved consideration of the costs of the notice of motion until the publication of these reasons. I will now hear the parties as to costs. I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice TRACEY. Associate: Dated: 21 December 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Marzella Solicitor for the Applicant: Russell Kennedy Counsel for the First and Second Respondent: Mr I Waller SC Solicitor for the First and Second Respondent: Arnold Bloch Leibler Counsel for the Thirteenth Respondent: Ms S Burchell Solicitor for the Thirteenth Respondent: Monahan &amp; Rowell Counsel for the Fourteenth Respondent: Mr W Rimmer Solicitor for the Fourteenth Respondent: Victorian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Fifteenth Respondent: Mr M Sifris SC &amp; Mr S Maiden Solicitor for the Fifteenth Respondent: Gadens Lawyers Date of Hearing: 5 December 2007 Date of Judgment: 21 December 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1981.html