The respondent's application for compensation under s 75(2) of the VCAT Act was refused, with each party to bear their own costs. Despite the applicant's discrimination claim having been summarily dismissed as misconceived and without reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal declined to award compensation because the applicant held a genuine (albeit mistaken) belief in his claim, his conduct was not found to be vexatious or an abuse of process, and the Tribunal could not conclude he should have known his application was bound to fail. The decision confirms that summary dismissal under s 75(1) does not create a presumption that compensation under s 75(2) will follow, and that access to justice principles may weigh against costs orders even where claims are misconceived, particularly in equal opportunity matters where costs orders risk deterring legitimate complainants.
The full text is available to signed-in members.