Facts 1. Pip Pirrip (Pip) is resident at 99 Kent Street, Ashburton, VIC 3147. On 9 June 2023, he was a passenger on a private chartered tour bus when the vehicle crashed into bollards by the roadside. The accident happened along Bendigo Boulevard, Bendigo VIC 3550 in the outskirts of the City of Bendigo. Pip was seriously injured. He incurred about $16,500 in total for medical (including hospitalisation) bills and other expenses that would constitute special damages. Apart from those, the amount of compensation he may be entitled to for his injuries and other possible heads of general damages is estimated at between $85,000and $95,000. 2. Unfortunately, the bus driver, Joe Gargery (Joe) did not survive. Pip is therefore making a claim against the transport company that owned the bus, Dickens Charles Transport Pty Ltd, for the loss and injury he suffered. Pip believes that Joe was either working for or was an agent of the transport company at the material time, and that Joe was negligent in the driving, control and management of the bus. Pip therefore believes that the transport company is vicariously liable, either as Joe's employer or principal. 3. Dickens Charles Transport Pty Ltd (DCT) is based in South Australia. Its ACN is 998807766. Its registered office is at 77 London Avenue, Adelaide 5007. DCT operate Australia-wide, providing buses and other transport vehicles for private hire, with or without drivers. 4. DCT assert that they do not organise travel or tours, and that the private chartered tour was organised by a tourism business operator, Estella Tours (ET). DCT further assert that their only role in the unfortunate accident was to supply ET with a bus and a driver (Joe) who was an independent contractor. It is agreed that there is nothing to suggest any defect in the bus that might have caused or contributed to the accident. 5. DCT deny any vicarious liability as they maintain that Joe was neither their employee nor their agent at the time of the accident, and that they had merely provided the vehicle and organised a driver for ET at ET's request. Alternatively, DCT's position is that Joe was an employee or agent of ET. DCT therefore deny any responsibility for the accident. 6. Pip had signed up for a day tour of Bendigo City and its surrounds promoted by ET. He had paid $195 to ET for the tour. The cost was inclusive of breakfast, lunch and tea, with pick up from and return to Charlie King Market station in Melbourne city. The promotional material stated that the tour would begin at 7 am and end by 7 pm but did not actually state who organised the tour. Pip believed that DCT were the organisers as the promotional material prominently featured DCT's buses. He assumed that ET were merely ticketing and promotion agents. 7. ET is a sole trader business run by Estella Drummle (Estella), who operated under ABN 22330445566. Having made her fortune, Estella retired at the end of 2023 and now lives in Rawa, a tropical South-East Asian nation, enjoying warm weather all year round. 8. Pip and representatives from DCT attended a meeting to try and negotiate a resolution of the dispute. However, no settlement eventuated from the meeting. 9. Negotiations have broken down and Pip intends to pursue his claims in a court of law. After considering matters of proof, costs and enforceability, Pip believes that a claim against DCT on the basis that Joe was their driver and was responsible for the accident, is probably most expedient, most cost-effective, and holds the best prospect of success from a strategic viewpoint. 10. Therefore, in the interests of expediency and minimising costs, Pip decides to commence court proceedings against DCT only at this time. Pip is also aware that depending on his choice of court, he may or may not be able to claim to the full extent for the injuries and losses he has suffered.

Draft the appropriate originating process and pleading for Pip to commence proceedings in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria against DCT, having regard to the following: The civil jurisdiction and the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989; The meaning of "proper venue" in the Magistrates' Court Act 1989; The prescribed form for the originating process under the Magistrates' Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2020; The rules of the Magistrates' Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2020 relating to the drafting of an originating process and pleadings; and Rule 4.01 of the Magistrates' Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2020 in relation to claims made in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

For purposes of this assessment: You are to assume that DCT has not given consent under s.100(1)(c) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. You are to base Pip's claim on a common law tort or/and breach of contract only. You are to exclude possible causes of action that may be based on fraud, misrepresentation or under the Australian Consumer Law.