VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
human rights DIVISION
HUMan rights LIST	
vcat reference No. H57/2021	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 – application rejected by principal registrar – principal registrar ordered to accept the application – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 section 71	

APPLICANT	Scott Howison	
RESPONDENT 	Mancala Mining Pty Ltd	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne via teleconference 	
BEFORE	Deputy President G. Nihill 	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	3 June 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	3 June 2021	
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS	21 June 2021	
CITATION	Howison v Mancala Mining Pty Ltd (Human Rights) [2021] VCAT 660	

Order
The principal registrar is directed to accept the application, and to list a directions hearing.

G. Nihill 
Deputy President			

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	Mr M. Dhami, solicitor	
For Respondent	No appearance required	

Reasons
The application
1	On 3 February 2021, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for an order under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act), alleging that the Respondent had contravened the EO Act by subjecting the Applicant to unlawful discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of a disability. 
2	On 2 March 2021, the application was rejected by a delegate of the principal registrar, on the grounds that it was not made by a person entitled to make it as, according to the letter of rejection, the application did not demonstrate that there had been discrimination such as is prohibited by the EO Act. 
3	On 6 May 2021, the Applicant applied for a review of this decision to reject the application. This was listed for hearing on 3 June 2021. I made the order set out above. On 8 June 2021, the Applicant requested written reasons for the decision. 
The Law
4	Section 71 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (VCAT Act) deals with the rejection of applications by the principal registrar. It says:
(1)	Unless otherwise provided for in the rules, the principal registrar may reject an application that—
(a)	is made by a person not entitled to make it; or
(b)	is lodged after the expiry of the period specified in the enabling enactment; or
(c)	does not otherwise comply with this Act, the regulations or the rules.
(2)	If the principal registrar rejects an application, the applicant may require the principal registrar to refer the application to the Tribunal for review of the rejection.
(3)	If the principal registrar rejects an application, he or she must inform the applicant of the right of referral under sub-section (2).
(4)	No fee is payable for a referral under subsection (2).
(5)	On a referral under sub-section (2), the Tribunal must review the rejection and may—
(a)	confirm the rejection; or
(b)	order the principal registrar to accept the application.
(6)	Instead of rejecting an application under subsection (1), the principal registrar may refer it to the Tribunal.
(7)	On a referral under sub-section (6), the Tribunal may order that the application be rejected if it is an application referred to in sub-section (1)(a), (b) or (c).
(8)	Nothing in Division 3 of Part 3 applies to a review under sub-section (2).
submissions
5	This application for review of rejection was made under section 71(2) of the VCAT Act. 
6	The Applicant’s claim, in his original application, was that he was subject to unfavourable treatment in his employment because he had contracted, or was a carrier of, or may contract in the future, COVID-19, because he was from Melbourne. The definition of disability in section 3 of the EO Act includes “the presence in the body of organisms that may cause disease”.
7	In his claim, the Applicant articulated what he said was the unfavourable treatment he was subjected to in his employment.
8	The Applicant submitted that he therefore was a person entitled to make the application. He submitted that matters relating to the cogency or merit of the application, namely whether the alleged conduct does in fact constitute unlawful discrimination, does not affect the Applicant’s standing to bring the application. 
conclusion
9	Without making any findings as to the merits of the claim, I was satisfied that the Applicant is a person who was entitled to make the claim under the EO Act. I therefore directed the principal registrar to accept the claim and to list a directions hearing at which further directions will be made as to the future conduct of the proceeding. 

G. Nihill 
Deputy President