Profile

Jason won the Melbourne University Supreme Court Prize in 1992 and, from May 1994 until April 1995, worked as an associate to Sir Anthony Mason, the then Chief Justice of the High Court.  Jason completed his articles at Mallesons Stephen Jaques in early 1996 and worked in the Commercial Litigation group of that firm until July 1999.  He has been a barrister at the Victorian Bar since November of that year.

Jason is also the author of Pizer's Annotated VCAT Act (the third edition of which was published by his family company in July 2007-see www.pizervcat.com) and the editor of the looseleaf service entitled Pizer, Victorian Administrative Law .  He has also written numerous articles, including "Appeals from the VCAT" (2007) 29 Australian Bar Review 252.

Jason practises in the areas of administrative law and commercial law.  Some cases in which he has been involved include:

• Director of Consumer & Business Affairs v Rendina Real Estate Ltd [2002] VCAT 1299 (which involved an inquiry into a real estate agent for "underquoting");
• Mornington Peninsula SC v Fox [2003] VCAT 772 (which concerned the lawfulness of helicopters landing on, and taking off from, the respondent's residential property in Portsea);
• Murray v Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal (2003) 132 FCR 402 (where the Full Federal Court considered the construction of a particular provision of the Native Title Act 1993);
• Re Dunn and Department of Defence (2004) 39 AAR 322 (in which the Applicant successfully obtained access, under the Commonwealth FOI Act, to a document setting out the estimated casualty estimates for Australian troops in the most recent Iraq war);
• Collection House Limited v Taylor [2004] VSC 49 (which was an appeal from a decision of the VCAT that the Appellant, in seeking to recover a statute-barred debt, had engaged in unconscionable conduct and in misleading or deceptive conduct);
• Municipal Association of Victoria v VCAT (2004) 22 VAR 128 (where the Supreme Court found that the Municipal Association of Victoria is subject to the Victorian FOI Act);
• Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v VCAT (2005) 11 VR 422 (where the Supreme Court held invalid a number of VCAT Rules purporting to regulate access to VCAT proceeding files).
• Ng v Department of Education [2005] VCAT 1054 (which concerned a complaint that a school's use of CCTV footage of what took place in a classroom involved a breach of the Information Privacy Act 2000);
• Applicant VEAL of 2002 v MIMIA (2005) 225 CLR 88 (where the High Court held that the RRT's handling of a confidential "dob-in" letter involved a denial of procedural fairness);
• Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne CC (2005) 14 VR 678 (which involved an appeal from a decision of the VCAT concerning the valuation of the Melbourne GPO);
• Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v VCAT [2006] VSCA 7 (which concerned the scope of the VCAT's power to make a direction closing a VCAT proceeding file);
• Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v VCAT [2006] VSCA 146 (which involved an appeal from an injunction granted by the VCAT restraining the Herald & Weekly Times from publishing confidential terms of settlement that had been placed on the VCAT's file by mistake);
• Dalla-Riva v Department of Treasury and Finance [2007] VCAT 1301 (where the VCAT affirmed the decision, made under the Victorian FOI Act, to refuse access to documents relating to the M1 upgrade); 
• Shah v Transport Accident Commission [2007] VCAT 1724 (which concerned the question whether the VCAT had the jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding under the Transport Accident Act);
• Schuller v Kleinman [2008] VCAT 581 (where the VCAT refused to transfer a commercial dispute to the Magistrates' Court);
• Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2008) 234 CLR 275 (where the High Court considered waiver of legal professional privilege and the role of the Court of Appeal when dealing with an FOI appeal);
• ISPT v Melbourne CC [2008] VSCA 180 (VCAT appeal - land valuation);
• East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning [2008] VSCA 217 (where the Court of Appeal held that a Minister's decision to exempt a planning scheme amendment from the relevant statutory notification process was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, and that the amendment itself was therefore invalid); 
• Victoria Police v Marke [2008] VSCA 218 (where the Court of Appeal considered whether disclosure under the FOI Act is disclosure to the "world at large");
• Macdiggers Pty Ltd v Dickinson [2008] VSC 576 (which concerned the question whether the VCAT had denied procedural fairness to a litigant in person);
• Austwide Institute of Training v Dalman [2009] VSCA 25 (where the Court of Appeal held that the Respondent's decision - to refuse to accept graduates from the taxi driving course provided by the Appellant - was not ultra vires and did not involve a denial of procedural fairness);
• Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2009] FCAFC 73 (where the Full Federal Court confirmed that the respondent was not an agency for the purposes of the Comomonwealth FOI Act).