Australia, Nov. 30 -- Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal issued text of the following judgement on Nov. 27:

1. There is limited information regarding the background of the complaint, the application not being particularised. From the information before me, taken from the application and the respondent's submission to summarily dismiss the application, the following can be stated.

2. In 2021, Trevor Dance was a Councillor on Hume Council. He lodged a complaint about a fellow Councillor's conduct that he said was a breach of the Council standards and behaviour. Mr Dance made a request to the Principal Councillor Conduct Register (PCCR) for an internal arbitrator to be appointed. To resolve the complaint, an arbiter was appointed. Helen Buckingham was the arbiter appointed by the PCCR on 15 April 2021.

3. Ms Buckingham issued directions as to the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, including that the proceedings would be held in-person. A request by Mr Dance that he be entitled to attend remotely was refused. A directions hearing was held on 17 June 2021 and the final hearing was held on 24 June 2021. Mr Dance did not attend the hearings. On 1 July 2021, Ms Buckingham determined that there was no breach of the standards of conduct by the fellow Councillor.

4. Mr Dance lodged his application at VCAT on 24 December 2021. He claims that Ms Buckingham discriminated against him in the course of her role as an arbiter by requiring him to attend the arbitration in person. He claims he was discriminated on the basis of his disability in the area of local government. He states that Ms Buckingham was providing him with goods and services.

5. His application states that he wants Ms Buckingham to acknowledge that she breached the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the EO Act) and had not taken into account the requirements of the EO Act. He believes her findings have publicly ridiculed him and caused other detriments. He stated he has a disability, a medical condition and reasonable adjustments to allow him to participate remotely were not provided.

6. In April 2023, an application was made by Ms Buckingham for an interlocutory order with a view to have the matter struck out pursuant to s75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (the VCAT Act). The application requested a determination on a preliminary legal issue, arguing that the respondent was not providing a 'service' to the applicant. Accordingly, it follows that Ms Buckingham argues that the application is misconceived.

7. The Tribunal invited and received submissions by Mr Dance and Ms Buckingham as to whether a service was being provided by the arbiter of Mr Dance's complaint.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2024/1123.html)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.