Access to Court Fundamental to Right to Fair Hearing
Materials Fabrication Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 405 (8 September 2009)
On 8 September 2009, Vickery J of the Victorian Supreme Court handed down a decision which considered the right to commence a civil proceeding. In the decision, Vickery J noted that the common law enshrines a right to commence legal proceedings and that this right is re-inforced by of s 24(1) of the Victorian Charter. A dispute resolution clause in a commercial contract which aimed to limit parties’ access to the court was held inconsistent with this right and therefore invalid.
Facts
In December 2008, Materials Fabrication Pty Ltd (‘MF’) commenced proceedings against Baulderstone Pty Ltd, claiming that Baulderstone had wrongfully terminated its building subcontracts. By consent, proceedings were stayed in February 2009. MF sought leave of the Court to lift the stay order to enable it to prosecute its claims against Baulderstone.
The building contracts in question specified a dispute resolution procedure. Relevantly, it provided that certain preconditions must be met before the commencement of litigation, including the provision of security for costs to the builder’s solicitor (ten per cent of the amount being claimed) (cl 20.3).
Decision
In deciding to lift the stay granted in February 2009, Vickery J considered whether the dispute resolution clauses were legally valid, and if so, whether they had been complied with.
Justice Vickery was particularly concerned with the validity of clause 20.3 – the requirement for MF to provide security to Baulderstone to the value of ten per cent of MF’s claim before commencing litigation. His Honour stated that the common law enshrines the right to commence civil proceedings and that this right is re-inforced by s 24 of the Charter, which enshrines the right to a fair hearing.
It is well established in international and comparative law that the right to a fair hearing subsumes a positive right to access the courts (see, eg, Kijewska v Poland [2007] ECHR 73002/01 (6 September 2007)). Justice Vickery expressed concern that clause 20.3 may ‘severely inhibit, if not preclude, the exercise of a legitimate right for a party to a dispute to conduct a trial of its cause before a court’ (para 43). The Court acknowledged that a prospective litigant will most likely have already expended legal fees on commencing its action, thus the contractual requirement to pay ten per cent of its claim prior to commencing litigation may act as a deterrent or a disincentive to pursuing the full quantum to which the party may be entitled. On this basis, the Supreme Court of Victoria held clause 20.3 to be void, on the grounds that it offended public policy.
The decision is available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VICSC/2009/405.html.
Melissa Gundrill is on secondment to the Human Rights Law Resource Centre from Clayton Utz
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more
Young campaigners landmark victory for children’s rights as new coal-fired power generation deemed unconstitutional in South Africa
The High Court of South Africa ruled that the government’s plans to add 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power stations were “unlawful and invalid”. In a youth-driven petition brought by three civil society organisations, the Court found that the plans failed to adequately consider the impacts of coal-fired power on children’s rights, particularly their constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Tribunal found Southern Restaurants imposed unreasonable conditions on a young breast-feeding mother leading to a finding of discrimination
A young breastfeeding mother was found to have been discriminated against by her employer and awarded $90,000 in compensation.
Read more
Acknowledgement of Country
The Human Rights Law Centre acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands across Australia, including the lands of the Wurundjeri, Boon Wurrung, Gadigal, Ngunnawal, Cammeraygal, Darug, Wadawurrung, Turrbal and Jagera people where we work from.
We pay our respect to Elders past and present. This land always was, and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. Sovereignty has never been ceded.
WARNING: This site contains images or names of people who have passed away.