VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
human rights DIVISION
HUMan rights LIST	
vcat reference No. H1136/2024	
CATCHWORDS	
Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic) ss 32, 56, 73, 97, 121, 124, 143 - 145, 180, 189, 190, 192, 332, 333, 362, 363, 364, 377, 380, 383, 503, 704 & 712 – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) ss 48 & 71 – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 24 & 32 – Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) s 3 – Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17.	
		
applicant	Sophia Wane	
respondent	Mental Health Tribunal 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne via videoconference	
BEFORE	Senior Member C. Powles	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	21 August 2024	
DATE OF ORDER	23 October 2024	
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS	23 October 2024	
CITATION	Wane v Mental Health Tribunal (Human Rights) [2024] VCAT 1021	

Order
1	The rejection of the application under s 71 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) is confirmed.

C. Powles
Senior Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For Sophia Wane	In person	
For the Mental Health Tribunal 	No appearance	

Reasons
Background
1	A neighbour of Sophia Wane (the applicant) was the subject of a temporary treatment order under s 180 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (the Act). The Mental Health Tribunal (the MHT) was required under s 189 to decide whether to make a treatment order for the applicant’s neighbour before the temporary treatment order expired (the MHT proceedings).
2	On 2 July 2024, the applicant sought to be joined as a party to the MHT proceedings (the joinder application) and provided written submissions to the MHT both in relation to her joinder application and the MHT proceedings.
3	On 5 July 2024, the President of the MHT refused the joinder application (the President’s decision) and provided written reasons for that decision.
4	The applicant again sought to be joined as a party to the MHT proceedings and was advised by email from the Registrar of the MHT that the applicant’s further request would not be considered because the President’s decision was final (the Registrar’s reply).
5	On 22 July 2024, the applicant applied to VCAT for review of the President’s decision (the VCAT application) and provided written submissions in support of her application for review.
6	On 25 July 2024, the MHT decided in the MHT proceedings to place the applicant’s neighbour on a community treatment order.
7	On 30 July 2024, the VCAT principal registrar (through a delegate) rejected the VCAT application under s 71(1)(a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (the VCAT Act) on the basis that:
a.	under s 383, only a person who is party to a proceeding before the MHT may apply to VCAT for review of any determination made by the MHT in that proceeding; 
b.	the applicant was not a party to the MHT proceedings; and
c.	accordingly, the applicant was not a person entitled to apply to VCAT in relation to the MHT proceedings (the rejection). 
8	On 31 July 2024, the applicant, under s 71(2) of the VCAT Act, required the VCAT principal registrar to refer the VCAT application to a VCAT member for review of the rejection (the rejection review).
9	On 21 August 2024, the applicant attended a hearing before me in relation to the rejection review at which she made submissions.
10	The applicant also provided written submissions in support of the rejection review both before and after the hearing, in accordance with orders I made.
11	Having considered the applicant’s submissions made in writing and at hearing, I am satisfied that the VCAT application must be rejected under s 71(1)(a) for the reasons set out below.
Relevant law
Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 (Vic)
12	The functions of the MHT are listed in the Act. They include the hearing and determination of ‘a matter in relation to whether a treatment order should be made’.
13	In performing a function or duty, or the exercise of a power under the Act, the MHT must: 
a.	give proper consideration to the mental health and wellbeing principles;
b.	ensure that decision-making processes are transparent; and
c.	consider ways to promote good mental health and wellbeing.
14	The mental health and wellbeing principles include a dignity and autonomy principle, which states that:
The rights, dignity and autonomy of a person living with mental illness or psychological distress is to be promoted and protected and the person is to be supported to exercise those rights.
15	The MHT: 
a.	is not bound by the rules of evidence;
b.	is bound by the rules of procedural fairness;
c.	may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit;
d.	must conduct each proceeding as expeditiously and with as little formality and technicality as the requirements of the Act and a proper consideration of the matters before it permit; and
e.	subject to the Act, may regulate its own procedures.
16	The Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic) (the PA Act) does not apply to members of the MHT, including the President.
17	The parties to a proceeding of the MHT are:
a.	the person who is the subject of the proceeding;
b.	the psychiatrist treating that person;
c.	any person whose application to be a party to the proceeding has been approved by the MHT; and
d.	any other person or body joined as a party to the proceeding under s 364.
18	The MHT may join a person as a party to a proceeding if the MHT is satisfied that it is desirable that the person be joined as a party.
19	If a person applies to be a party to a proceeding, the MHT principal registrar may join the person as a party before the hearing commences.
20	The President of the MHT may, at any time, join a person as a party to a proceeding without conducting a hearing of the application.
21	As noted above, once an authorised psychiatrist has made a temporary treatment order, the MHT must conduct a hearing to determine whether to make a treatment order in respect of the temporary treatment patient.
22	In deciding whether to make a treatment order or revoke the temporary treatment order the MHT must, among other things, decide whether it is satisfied that compulsory treatment criteria apply to the person the subject of the temporary treatment order and, if a treatment order is made, whether it is a community treatment order or an inpatient treatment order.
23	The compulsory treatment criteria include that because the person the subject of the treatment order has mental illness, the person needs immediate treatment to prevent serious harm to the person or to another person.
24	Any question arising for determination by the MHT in a proceeding (other than a question of law) is to be decided by the majority of MHT members constituted for that proceeding.
25	A nominated MHT member must give oral reasons for making a determination at the conclusion of the hearing of that proceeding that include an explanation of the determination and any order made by the MHT under the Act. 
26	After the MHT has made a determination, a party to the proceeding may request, and the MHT must then give, a statement of reasons for that determination.
27	A person who was a party to a proceeding before the MHT may apply to VCAT for review of any determination made by the MHT under the Act in that proceeding.
28	An application for review to VCAT under s 383 must be made within 20 business days of the MHT’s determination or the time the person received the statement of reasons, although VCAT can accept applications made after that time in special circumstances.
29	A person or a mental health and wellbeing service provider whose interests are affected by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission’s decision to serve a compliance notice on a mental health and wellbeing service provider under s 502 may apply to VCAT for review of that decision.
30	If the relevant Minister decides to recommend that an administrator be appointed for a declared operator in relation to its provision of youth mental health and well-being services, the declared operator may apply to VCAT for review of the Minister’s decision.
31	The Act does not otherwise:
a.	refer to applications to VCAT for review; or
b.	provide definitions of the word ‘party’, ‘proceeding’ or ‘determination’.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic)
32	VCAT’s review jurisdiction is invoked:
a.	by a person who is entitled to do so by or under an enabling enactment applying to VCAT for review of the decision under that enactment;
b.	by a decision-maker referring a decision to VCAT under an enabling enactment; or
c.	in any other way permitted or provided for by the enabling enactment.
33	The VCAT registry may reject an application that is made by a person not entitled to make it; is lodged after the expiry of the period specified in the enabling enactment or does not otherwise comply with the VCAT Act and its related regulations and rules.
34	If the VCAT registry rejects an application under s 71, the applicant may require the VCAT registry to refer the application to VCAT for review of the rejection. 
35	On a referral under s 71(2), VCAT must review the rejection and may either confirm the rejection or order the VCAT registry accept the application.
Applicant’s submissions
36	The applicant accepts, as a matter of fact, that she was not, either at the time she made the VCAT application or now, a person who meets any of the s 363 criteria in relation to the MHT proceedings (being the proceedings in relation to the decision about whether to make a treatment order for the applicant’s neighbour): she is not the person subject of the MHT proceedings; she is not the psychiatrist treating that person; her application to be a party to the MHT proceedings has not been approved by the MHT and she has not been joined to the MHT proceedings under s 364.
37	Rather, I understand the applicant to submit that s 383 should be read so that:
a.	the phrase ‘party to a proceeding before’ the MHT should be read to include a person applying to be joined as a party to a proceeding before the MHT;
b.	the phrase ‘any determination made by [the MHT] under this Act in that proceeding’ should include a decision to refuse to join a person as a party to the proceeding made under s 364; and
c.	accordingly, the applicant, as a person who applied to be joined as a party to the MHT proceeding, can apply to VCAT under s 383 for review of the President’s decision, being a decision to refuse to join the applicant to the MHT proceedings.
38	In support of the above reading, the applicant submits:
a.	the classes of people set out in s 363 are the parties to proceedings of the MHT but s 383 allows a person who is a party to a proceeding before the MHT to apply to VCAT;
b.	accordingly, there is a difference between a proceeding of the MHT and a proceeding before the MHT;
c.	an application to be joined as a party to a proceeding of the MHT is itself a proceeding before the MHT; and
d.	in the absence of any clear intention to the contrary, the reference to a ‘determination’ in s 383 should not be limited to certain types of determination by the MHT and, in particular, should not exclude the determination of a joinder application.
39	In relation to the use of the word ‘determination’ in s 383, the applicant submits:
a.	the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a ‘determination’ as:
1	a	law: a judicial decision settling and ending a controversy
		the court’s determination in that case
		documents that will be used for the determination of ownership
		judicial determinations
	b	: the resolving of a question by argument or reasoning
		Inspectors made the determination that the building is unsafe.
…
3	a	: the act of deciding definitely and firmly
		also: the result of such an act of decision
b.	the Merriam-Webster thesaurus includes the following definition of ‘determination’: 
2	as in opinion
a position arrived at after consideration
	a determination by the judge regarding an appropriate sentence
c.	the written reasons for the President’s decision:
i.	are titled ‘Decision of the President or delegate’;
ii.	include the words:
1.	‘This decision is made by the President’; and
2.	‘I have … decided that it should be refused’; and
iii.	the Registrar’s reply referred to the ‘President’s Joinder decision’;
d.	the use of the word ‘any’ before the word ‘determination’ in s 383 means a broad view should be taken of what a determination is under s 383;
e.	where ambiguity in legislation exists, principles of statutory interpretation require a careful examination of the legislation’s language, context and purpose;
f.	section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) requires that when interpreting a provision of an Act a construction that would promote the purpose of the Act is preferable to a construction that would not;
g.	a person seeking to be joined as a party to a proceeding of the MHT is entitled, under ss 333 & 362, to have their joinder application considered in a way that is procedurally fair and transparent, with proper consideration given to the mental health and wellbeing principles in determining the joinder application;
h.	the President’s decision was made in a way that was not procedurally fair or transparent and that did not give a proper consideration of the mental health and wellbeing principles;
i.	the only way for the applicant to challenge the President’s decision because it did not comply with ss 333 & 362 is for the applicant to be able to seek review of the President’s decision by VCAT;
j.	if a decision on a joinder application is not a ‘determination’ under s 383, the requirement that the MHT considered joinder applications in a way that is procedurally fair is effectively meaningless and there is no mechanism to hold the MHT accountable for ensuring that its decision-making processes are transparent; and
k.	while it might be possible to seek judicial review of an MHT decision on a joinder application, any outcome would be limited to assessing whether the decision-making process was lawful rather than a reconsideration of the decision itself.
40	The applicant also made the following submissions about the need for merits review of as a wide a range of MHT decisions as possible:
a.	because the MHT, in considering the compulsory treatment criteria, must consider whether the person the subject of a temporary treatment order needs immediate treatment to prevent serious harm to another person, there must be an effective review mechanism for a joinder application by a person who may suffer serious harm that will only be prevented by the person the subject of a temporary treatment order being given immediate treatment under a treatment order;
b.	in this case, the applicant and her family are people who may suffer serious harm if the applicant’s neighbour does not receive immediate treatment under an inpatient treatment order;
c.	without an effective merits review mechanism for an application for joinder by a person, other than the person the subject of the treatment order, who may suffer serious harm if a treatment order is not made, the protection of people, other than the person the subject of the treatment order, who may be at risk of harm if a treatment order is not made is undermined;
d.	a broad interpretation of s 383 that grants an applicant for joinder a right of review before VCAT will ensure the compulsory treatment criteria are properly considered by the MHT and provide a more robust and effective process for oversight of the MHT, ensuring that people with a mental illness do not cause serious harm to others;
e.	the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) requires that all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, particularly when the language of a relevant provision is not clear and unequivocal;
f.	the rights of the applicant and her family under the Charter, in particular their right to a fair and public hearing under s 24(1) of the Charter, and the rights of her children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child favour a broad interpretation of s 383 that allows a practical and effective merits review of an application for joinder that seeks to have people who may face a risk of serious harm at the hands of the person the subject of a treatment order joined to the application so that they can make submissions and provide evidence which the MHT must consider in determining a proceeding before it;
g.	the words ‘application’, ‘hearing’ and ‘proceeding’ are used interchangeably in the Act and VCAT’s review power is not limited by the terminology used;
h.	the interchangeable use of these terms reflects the broader legislative intent that all requests to the MHT and decisions made by the MHT referred to in the Act fall under the same procedural and review framework;
i.	the objectives and principles set out at Parts 1.3 & 1.5 of the Act apply to individuals living with mental illness, their care givers and families and, the applicant submits, the wider community;
j.	in particular the dignity and autonomy principle requires the promotion and protection of the rights of people living with mental illness and psychological distress;
k.	the applicant is suffering depression and anxiety as a result of the behaviour of her neighbour so an interpretation of the Act that promotes and protects her rights as a person living with psychological distress should be adopted;
l.	the fact the governance and oversight mechanisms provided by the PA Act do not apply to MHT members favours an interpretation of s 383 that allows merits review of all decisions by MHT members; and
m.	the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission declined to consider a complaint made by the applicant about this matter, citing a lack of jurisdiction to review MHT decisions, meaning this alternate oversight mechanism is not available to the applicant.
41	The applicant also submits:
a.	a ‘merits-review inclusive’ interpretation of s 383 is supported by the Administrative Review Council guide, What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merits Review?, which sets out the principle that ‘an administrative decision that will, or is likely to, affect the interests of a person should be subject to merits review’; and
b.	in Queensland, a comparable jurisdiction, victims of a person with mental illness have a right to provide material to the Queensland equivalent of the MHT and to appeal decisions related to their submissions;
42	The applicant submits that statements made by Victorian members of Parliament on the second readings of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill support an interpretation of s 383 that allows a wide range of merits review of MHT decisions by VCAT. 
43	In particular, the applicant refers to statements made by:
a.	Georgie Crozier MP, who, on 18 August 2022, stated:
The bill also aims to have system-wide oversight of the quality and safety of mental health service delivery, and it will provide for monitoring and reporting on the system-wide quality. These are issues around community visitors and the Mental Health Victoria Board and the Mental Health Tribunal. These various bodies will also be advising government on areas of concern and areas for improvement. The security of patients, forensic patients, and some of these very challenging areas can be very difficult, and there has to be a fine balance between managing some of the very complex patients that do have very significant mental health issues and are a harm not only to themselves but to the wider community. So those issues need to have a very thorough analysis in terms of how those patients are treated, how they are accommodated and who monitors and supervises those people with those complex needs …
b.	Will Fowles, MP, who, on 20 June 2023, stated that it was important that ‘all of the providers within our mental health system … are appropriately authorised to conduct their mental health service and to do so in a way that is safe and effective’;
c.	Enver Erdogan, MP, who, on 18 August 2022, referred to the Act establishing ‘the highest levels of new and existing governance and oversight entities’ and a ‘coordinated system where people do not fall through the cracks but receive the treatment, support and care they need’ which require that the ‘harms that may be caused by compulsory assessment and treatment … be balanced against the harms to be prevented by their use’ and ‘will provide for more frequent oversight by’ the MHT;
d.	Josh Bull, MP, who, on 20 June 2023, who spoke of ‘collective community mental health’ and the need ‘to make sure that we are supporting every single person within our community to be their very best … and to know and understand that collective community mental health is supported’; and
e.	Ingrid Stitt, MP, who, on 4 August 2022, stated the ‘philosophy behind the Bill is to empower and engage with all the people who use it’, ‘to support the agency and autonomy of people who engage with the mental health and wellbeing system’ and to ‘ensure that legislative human rights protections were fully and properly implemented in practice.’
44	In conclusion, the applicant submits that ensuring that VCAT has the authority to review all decisions by the MHT reflects the Victorian parliament’s intended commitment to justice and accountability in mental health and wellbeing proceedings and reinforces principles enshrined in the Act and the Charter.
Findings
45	The VCAT application was rejected by the VCAT principal registrar on the basis that the VCAT application was made by a person, being the applicant, not entitled to make it.
46	In deciding the rejection review, I must decide whether the applicant is a person who is entitled to make the VCAT application.
47	The VCAT application seeks to invoke VCAT’s review jurisdiction of the President’s decision under s 48 of the VCAT Act. VCAT’s review jurisdiction can be invoked in one or more of the three ways set out in s 48.
48	The President’s decision is a decision made under the enabling enactment, being the Act. It has not been referred to VCAT by a decisionmaker under the Act so VCAT’s review jurisdiction is not invoked under s 48(b).
49	The remaining two ways VCAT’s review jurisdiction is invoked are either:
a.	by a person who is entitled to do so by or under the Act applying to VCAT for review of the President’s decision; or 
b.	in any other way permitted or provided for by the Act.
50	Section 383 has the heading ‘Review by VCAT’. Section 503 has the heading ‘Application for review – compliance notice’. Section 712 has the heading ‘Application for review by VCAT’. 
51	I find that the Act is clear on its face in only permitting or providing for applications for review to VCAT under the above three sections of the Act and only by those who are entitled to apply under those sections.
52	The applicant does not claim, and clearly it is obviously not the case, that the President’s decision is a decision to which either s 503 or s 712 applies.
53	The remaining way in which the applicant can invoke VCAT’s review jurisdiction is therefore if she is a person who is entitled to apply to VCAT for review of the President’s decision under s 383.
54	I consider the key questions for me to decide to determine whether the applicant can apply to VCAT for review of the President’s decision are:
a.	Is the President’s decision a determination referred to in s 383?
b.	If the answer to the above is yes, is the applicant a party to ‘that proceeding’ in which the President’s decision was made? 
55	For the following reasons, I find the answer to the first questions is no. While that means it is not necessary for me to decide the second question, I consider the answer to the second question to also be no.
Is the President’s decision a determination under s 383?
56	As the applicant has submitted, there is no definition of ‘determination’ in the Act. I accept that in applying the relevant principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the meaning of ‘determination’ in s 383, I must also interpret the section giving proper consideration to the mental health and well-being principles and prefer a human rights compatible interpretation as required by the Charter.
57	The words ‘determine’ or ‘determination’ are used throughout the Act in different ways. There are references to:
a.	a designated mental health service having to determine if a patient has an advance statement of preferences or a nominated support person;
b.	an authorised psychiatrist having to determine whether a restriction on an inpatient’s right to communicate needs to be continued;
c.	an authorised psychiatrist having to determine whether the criteria for an order still apply to a patient after a second psychiatric opinion report has been provided and give reasons for that determination;
d.	an authorised psychiatrist having to examine an assessment patient to determine whether compulsory treatment criteria apply and/or whether to make a temporary treatment order; and
e.	a registered medical practitioner or unauthorised mental health practitioner being able to determine whether to make an assessment order in respect of a person and whether it is a community assessment order or an inpatient assessment order.
58	However, s 383 refers to determinations made by the MHT, not by any other person or organisation.
59	As noted above, the MHT is required to ‘determine’ certain matters listed at s 332(a).
60	Throughout the Act, reference is made to what the MHT must have regard to in ‘determining’ the subject matter of the application (rather than merely the ‘application’). For example, s 121(3) lists the matters that the MHT must have regard to in ‘determining whether the neurosurgery for mental illness will benefit the person’, rather than in determining the application overall.
61	However, reference is also made to the MHT being required to ‘determine an application’ within a certain period of time. As noted above, s 377 (1) refers to the determination of ‘[a]ny question arising’ and s 380 (2) (b) refers to ‘the relevant determination’.
62	Taking into account the above, I consider the use of the word ‘determination’ in s 377 to be of most relevance in interpreting the meaning of the word in relation to the MHT in the Act. 
63	Section 377 has the heading ‘Determination of proceeding’ and states that questions arising for determination by the MHT in a proceeding are to be decided by ‘the majority of the [MHT] members constituting the [MHT] in that proceeding’. Section 377(2) states that a nominated MHT member must give oral reasons for making a determination at the conclusion of the hearing for that proceeding that includes an explanation of the determination and an explanation of any order made. As noted above, written reasons for the determination and any orders made can then be requested.
64	Given that hearings are only required for the decision to make or not make a treatment order, an inpatient or community treatment order, electroconvulsive treatment or neurosurgery for mental illness and that the Act requires that reasons be provided by a nominated MHT member made at the conclusion of those hearings, I find that ‘determination’ in the Act refers to the determination of the decision whether or not to make treatment orders, what category of treatment order, electroconvulsive treatment or neurosurgery for mental illness. It is these decisions for which a hearing is required and reasons must be provided.
65	I am satisfied that this interpretation of the word ‘determination’ is consistent with the mental health and well-being principles and the relevant rights under the Charter for the following reasons.
66	First, it ensures that the decision that may require a person with mental illness to undergo treatment against their wishes is only made after a hearing and that reasons for the decision must be provided.
67	Secondly, allowing decisions made by the MHT about interlocutory matters, such as joinder of parties, to be reviewable by VCAT could lead to delays in the resolution of applications before the MHT because the review by VCAT about the interlocutory matter would need to be decided before the MHT application could proceed further. Limiting the decisions reviewable by VCAT to the final decision about whether a treatment order or other final order is made is consistent with the expectation in the Act of prompt and, in many cases, time-limited decision-making by the MHT so that any decision made requiring a person with mental illness to undergo treatment against their wishes is reviewed as quickly as possible by the MHT. This would appear to be particularly consistent with the dignity and autonomy principle.
68	Further, I am satisfied that if it was intended to allow individuals who are not already parties to a proceeding before the MHT and are seeking to be joined to that proceeding to have a refusal of their joinder request reviewed by VCAT, there would be express provision for such an appeal process in the Act.
69	As the applicant has acknowledged in her submissions, the applicant is able to seek judicial review of the President’s decision, and judicial review could be sought against any interlocutory MHT decision. I am satisfied that if it was intended that persons applying to be added or joined as a party to a proceeding before the MHT could have a merits review rather than judicial review of any refusal, express provision of this right to merits review would have been provided in the Act.
70	In light of the above, I find that the word ‘determination’ in s 383 refers to a final order made in relation to an application about whether a treatment order is made, whether it is an inpatient or community treatment order or an order for electroconvulsive treatment or neurosurgery for mental illness. I find that the word ‘any’ before the word ‘determination’ means any of the different kinds of final orders I have just referred to and not any other kind of decision by the MHT.
71	As a result, the President’s decision, being an MHT decision about an application for joinder and not one of the kinds of final orders referred to above, is not a determination under s 383 and cannot be the subject of an application to VCAT for review.
Was the applicant a party to ‘that proceeding’ in which the President’s decision is made
72	As I have found that the President’s decision is not a determination under s 383, it is not necessary for me to decide whether the applicant was a party to ‘that proceeding’, being ‘a proceeding before’ the MHT referred to in s 383.
73	I accept the applicant’s submission that there is some ambiguity in the wording of s 383 in relation to the proceedings to which it applies because s 383 refers to proceedings before the MHT whereas s 363 refers to proceedings of the MHT.
74	However, for the same reasons that I have found that the word ‘determination’ in s 383 refers to the final orders made in applications for review to the MHT, I am satisfied that the proceedings ‘before’ the MHT under s 383 are the application for those final orders. 
75	I note here that the applicant has referred to a number of statements made by the Victorian Members of Parliament about the Bill and the Amendment Bill. However, as far as I’m aware, the Bill and the Amendment Bill did not change the wording of the equivalent provisions to ss 363 & 383 in the version of the Act in force before 2022. 
76	Accordingly, while I am not satisfied it is necessary to consider extrinsic evidence such as these statements in order to properly interpret the wording of s 383, I am not satisfied these statements are of particular relevance to the question of whether the difference between the use of the word ‘before’ and the use of the word ‘of’ in two related sections of the Act broadens the scope of review by VCAT under s 383 to include review of interlocutory MHT decisions such as a joinder application.
77	As I have found that the use of the word ‘proceeding’ in s 383 refers to the applications for treatment orders of various kinds and not to other kinds of applications to the MHT for interlocutory orders, such as joinder, the applicant, as a party only to an application for joinder and not to an application for a treatment order of any sort, was not a party to the proceeding in which the President’s decision was made.
Conclusion
78	For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant was a party to a proceeding in which a determination was made by the MHT to which s 383 applies.
79	Accordingly, the VCAT application does not enliven VCAT’s jurisdiction under s 48 (b) of the VCAT Act and the applicant is not a person entitled to apply to VCAT for review of the MHT decision.
80	As a result, the principal registrar was correct to reject the VCAT application and the rejection is confirmed.

C. Powles
Senior Member