sac Flashcards
(18 cards)
VCAT positive access
more affordable than the courts
e.g. cost for goods and services application $72 at VCAT vs cost to file a writ in Supreme Court $742
VCAT negative access
CAV is free
e.g. goods and services dispute days 1-4 $400 for an individual compared to $0 is significant
VCAT positive fairness
divided into specialised lists, meaning expertise and understanding of how to deal with the case boosts impartiality
e.g. human rights, residential tenancies; 9 areas overall
VCAT negative fairness
Doesn’t have jurisdiction over all cases like class actions and federal law disputes, limiting participation if they choose VCAT. Also cannot hear appeals, restricted to only questions of law.
VCAT positive equality
Tier system for fees, reduces disparity between companies and individuals.
e.g. individuals fees $400, company fees $570 for goods and services dispute hearings days 1-4
VCAT negative equality
Risk of vulnerable individuals being overpowered and manipulated due to being able to present cases in your own way in a more informal setting. Stricter measures in place in the courts.
e.g. power dynamic between uni student and rich landlord.
Conclusion
Overall while VCAT can be an appropriate institution for resolving certain civil disputes due to its affordability, accessibility and specialised expertise, it is not always the most suitable option. The courts and CAV may better uphold the principles of justice in cases where VCAT is limited, such as in jurisdiction, cost and informality.
Legal representation appropriate
+ expertise
+ not emotionally invested in case
+ lawyer won’t be as intimidated in courtroom as a self-represented individual
+ increases efficiency by following correct court procedures
Legal representation not appropriate
_ high cost
_ if minor case may be no need for legal representation
_ more direct involvement and engagement in the justice system if self-representing
Class actions appropriate
- Increased access to justice through affordability
- Efficient use of the courts time (multiple cases at once)
- existence of litigation funders makes it easier for lead plaintiff to take risk
Class actions inappropriate
- Can significantly reduce payout for those involved if the case wins if using litigation funders
- Large cost burden on lead plaintiff
- Other group members (not lead plaintiff) may have limited say in settlement terms, reducing equality
- Low individual compensation if split between large amount of group members
Specific damages + what it achieves
For quantifiable losses(precise monetary value), such as loss of wages or medical expenses
- restoration (more)
- compensation
General damages + what it achieves
For losses not easily quantifiable(e.g. pain and suffering)
- restoration
- compensation (more)
Aggravated damages + what it achieves
For humiliation, insult or embarrassment suffered because of the defendants conduct
- compensation
Nominal damages + what it achieves
Small amount paid when the plaintiff has been wronged but no injury, loss or suffering occurred, or they do not require money, only a moral victory.
- recognition
- restoration
Exemplary damages + what it achieves
Seeks to punish the defendant for an extreme infringement of rights
- punishment
Contemptuous damages + what it achieves
When the plaintiff has a legal but not moral right damages. can be as little as 5c
- recognition
- punishment
Judges case management powers
-Order mediation
-Give directions
-Limit evidence/cross examination
-Limit time for the hearing
-Rule on admissibility of evidence
