An (sic) with the breach of Dr Salzman's and Deakin University Members of section 104(1)(g) part 6 [Division 2][98][99] This conducive behaviour to an outcome which relied on the Members acting to remove the Applicant by continuing to pursue their aggressive acquisition strategy to remove the Applicant by being seen to allow Ms A'Vard to continue her studies under restrictions upon her, yet weakening her ability to successfully fulfil this outcome due to the guidance of the University and Dr Salzman's and Members conduct towards me. Yet even Dr Salzman drew attention to the Applicant was struggling with her work.[11]

1. After this second paragraph there is a graph which is said to chart Ms A'Vard's marks over time and which is said to show that, even despite the issues with Mr Gatum and the sexual harassment complaint, she achieved a credit in a subject.
2. At the 24 July 2015 hearing, Ms A'Vard gave three examples of the type of treatment she was concerned about:
   • Dr Salzman appeared to be very friendly with her but she was then told that she must cease non academic contact with him but he continued to deal with her in a friendly manner. She said Dr Salzman was friendly with her and then she was slapped over the wrist by him or Deakin and then he was friendly again;
   • She received notice that Deakin alleged she had engaged in misconduct in respect of Dr Salzman but decided she had not. Then later Deakin decided she had engaged in misconduct in respect of Dr Salzman and she was excluded from the campus other than for the purpose of sitting exams; and
   • She felt people were being difficult and that, after she made the two complaints, that seemed to 'tip her' into an area where she was less able to complete her studies. She gave an example where in orientation week in 2006 she was near the staff room and wanted to fill up a water bottle. A lecturer said she could go into the staff room and do so. While in the staff room Professor R Carr came in and asked why she was there. She said he was aggressive. She explained why she was there but was not supported by the lecturer who encouraged her to go in to fill up the water bottle, even though he was standing in the room. The lecturer was said to have stood in her way so she could not leave the room. When I asked what connection there was to the complaints being raised and whether the lecturer and Professor Carr knew about the complaints, Ms A'Vard could not say. It is clear from DP Coghlan's decision and the material before me that, as at May 2005, Professor Carr was involved in discussions about the situation with Dr Salzman.[12]
3. As I understand it, aside from these three matters, Ms A'Vard says there was an atmosphere around her and her dealings with Deakin which meant that she felt uncomfortable and unable to perform academically. She described all of this conduct as being part of a plan to make her fail her course. During the hearing on 11 February 2015, she referred to these matters evolving rather than being part of a plan.[13]

1. Ms A'Vard called two witnesses who she claimed would support her position.
2. Ms J O'Leary gave evidence that she met Ms A'Vard in orientation week in 2004 and only had classes with her that year. She was one of the younger students Ms A'Vard referred to in her documents. She confirmed that she also had concerns about some of the lecturers and particularly about how one seemed to favour young, female students. She gave evidence that, at the end of the year, she made comments about how the classes were taught and how the lecturers conducted themselves.
3. Ms O'Leary's evidence was that she could not recall if Ms A'Vard took action or made a complaint about these lecturers. She recalled talking with Ms A'Vard about sexual harassment but could not remember who it was she was concerned about and she did not recall giving Ms A'Vard any advice about it. Ms O'Leary had no concerns about her safety on campus, no experience of unwanted attention and no memory of Dr Salzman paying particular attention to Ms A'Vard.
4. Ms J Swanborough gave evidence by telephone. She did not attend Deakin with Ms A'Vard and only met her after the exclusion. She provided a witness statement which made allegations about Mr Gatum which seemed to be entirely based on hearsay. She also referred to other scandalous events about a different former lecturer which apparently occurred more than 20 years ago. Ms Swanborough was not aware of any of the detail of this proceeding or Ms A'Vard's academic performance at Deakin or the events in 2013 associated with her application for an arts course. Ms Swanborough's evidence was of no assistance to me and I give no weight to the allegations made in respect of Mr Gatum.

1. As discussed in DP Coghlan's decision, Ms A'Vard's sexual harassment complaint was put in writing on 7 August 2005. That was prompted by two letters from Deakin which invited her to formalise the matters she had raised verbally at meetings with staff.
2. Deakin wrote to Ms A'Vard about the process for dealing with the complaint on 10 August 2005. A meeting was held about the complaint on 18 August 2005. On 19 September 2005, Deakin wrote to Ms A'Vard advising that the lecturer had been interviewed and had denied the allegations. The letter informed Ms A'Vard that no further action would be taken. The letter offered a right to appeal that decision. Ms A'Vard did not avail herself of that opportunity.
3. As mentioned earlier, this matter became the subject of proceedings in the tribunal which were dismissed as unproven.

1. It is necessary to set out in some detail the dealings between Ms A'Vard, Dr Salzman and Deakin.
2. Dr Salzman taught Ms A'Vard the subject Fundamentals of Finance in the second semester of 2004. In around early September 2004, Ms A'Vard commenced emailing Dr Salzman describing her social activities and mentioning matters such as her purchase of lingerie. In one sent on 11 September 2004, she makes reference to a score in an exam (apparently one which was marked by a computer and for which she was graded 1.5 out of 30) and asks if Dr Salzman has any suggestions. She refers to asking for and receiving assistance from the lecturer she later alleges sexually harassed her and about whom she made the complaint on 21 September 2004.
3. In the earlier proceeding before DP Coghlan, Dr Salzman made a witness statement in which he referred to an event on 6 January 2005. He says that Ms A'Vard came to his office and closed the door. He asked for it to be opened but Ms A'Vard said the matter was private and did not open it. She was said to have sat on his desk, leant towards him and asked if she was receiving 'mixed messages' from him. Dr Salzman apparently said that he had tried to offer her academic support and that she seemed to have misinterpreted his intention which was simply to assist a struggling student. Ms A'Vard left. Dr Salzman completed an incident report about the event.
4. At the hearing before me, Ms A'Vard claimed that she could not have attended Dr Salzman's office on that date as she was in hospital. She produced medical records which showed that, while she had been in hospital around that time, the dates did not include 6 January 2005. Ms A'Vard conceded she could have gone to Dr Salzman's office that day.
5. On 11 January 2005, Dr Salzman sent Ms A'Vard an email in which he said 'Given that the issues that seem to be troubling you are very personal in nature I recommend that you seek more appropriate and qualified advice and help from one of the counsellors in the Division of Student Life' and provided contact numbers. He encouraged Ms A'Vard to seek assistance and offered to make an appointment for her if she wished.
6. At the hearing Ms A'Vard denied receiving the 11 January 2005 email. Further emails were sent by Ms A'Vard to Dr Salzman over January and February 2005.
7. On 10 March 2005, Dr Salzman wrote to Ms A'Vard referring to his 11 January 2005 email suggesting she seek professional assistance. He said: 'You will understand that you must cease such personal communications with me.' He drew her attention to the VEOHRC guidelines on sexual harassment. He ended saying 'It is important that when you seek 'academic' assistance in a professional sense, you consult either Mr Bardo Fraunholz or myself.'
8. On 15 March 2005, Ms A'Vard sent a hand written letter to Dr Salzman which contained a series of sentences which commenced 'I miss' and referred to matters such as missing looking at Dr Salzman, getting lost in his eyes, his touch, and the way he talked and walked. The letter concludes 'And I especially love the way I love being a woman, when your (sic) near and feel your presence surrounds me.'
9. Sometime after 10 March 2005, Ms A'Vard again wrote to Dr Salzman, this time apologising for her emails. The letter said in part:

I know I did take a legal risk and I am well aware of the sexual guidelines but, I felt the risk was low compared to what in the future may eventuate for you. I would like to think that perhaps I may have protected you from any future harm arising to you.

1. In a further letter sent around 7 April 2005, Ms A'Vard explained that what had happened over the preceding six to seven months was connected to her separation from her ex partner and she suggests that her discussions with Dr Salzman about that matter may have been overheard and misunderstood by other lecturers or staff which had then led to sexual advances towards her by others. The letter refers to another student and suggests that her emails were a way Ms A'Vard tried to protect Dr Salzman. The letter also says that she will be leaving university at the end of the year.
2. Another letter was sent in April 2005 referring to tutorials and apologising for touching Dr Salzman in passing and referring to love emanating from him.
3. On 15 April 2005, Deakin's Mr CF Kelly, Deputy Dean wrote to Ms A'Vard. It referred to correspondence sent to Dr Salzman unrelated to her academic endeavours and containing personal information about herself. It also referred to her approaching Dr Salzman on campus. The letter says:

The behaviour is not welcomed by Dr Salzman. He has on two separate occasions, by email on 11 January 2005 and again on 10 March 2005, requested that you cease corresponding to him about any personal matters you may be concerned about.

1. Reference was made to Deakin's obligation to provide a safe workspace for its students and staff and to its equal opportunity policy. The letter then said:

Accordingly, as Deputy Dean of the Faculty, I direct you to immediately cease and desist from any an (sic) all correspondence and contact with Mr Salzman that is not directly related to your academic studies in units taught by Mr Salzman.

1. The letter next referred to Deakin's student discipline regulations and warned that, if Ms A'Vard did not comply with the direction, disciplinary action for general misconduct would be taken against her. Once again, information about support services was provided.
2. On 18 April 2005, Ms A'Vard wrote a response which included an apology to Dr Salzman. The letter raised a number of matters of concern she had including about office design issues, social security abuse which had been discussed on a television program and raised in writing with Deakin, comments about Mr Gatum, the need for security cameras and the need for a cover over a walk way from the library to a café.
3. On 24 April 2005, Ms A'Vard sent an email to Dr Salzman offering an apology for her behaviour and asking for assistance with an academic matter. A further email was sent on 25 April 2005.
4. On 16 May 2005, a meeting was held between Ms A'Vard and Ms Piesse. On the following day, a letter was sent to Ms A'Vard following up on the meeting. It referred to the letter dated 15 April 2005 and noted that, despite the direction and warning contained in that letter, she had again emailed Dr Salzman about matters which were of a personal and not an academic nature. The letter found that the content of the emails was mostly of an academic nature and that, even though Dr Salzman was not her teacher, it was not unreasonable for Ms A'Vard to seek assistance from him. Accordingly, it concluded that Ms A'Vard had not committed a breach of the regulations. She was again warned that the direction not to contact Dr Salzman still stood and that if there was contact outside academic matters, disciplinary action would be taken.
5. On 30 July 2005, Professor Carr of Deakin wrote to Ms A'Vard about an event which occurred on 28 July 2005. The letter alleged that Ms A'Vard had approached Dr Salzman after a lecture and attempted to engage him in conversation of a non-academic nature. It was said that she remained in the lecture theatre after all other students had left while he was packing up and asked questions about Dr Salzman's health. The letter referred to the history of the matter including the earlier emails and letters, Deakin's policies, the direction not to contact Dr Salzman about non-academic matters and the warnings given previously. The letter informed Ms A'Vard that Deakin believed that she had carried out acts of academic misconduct. The letter explained that a decision had to be made as to whether Ms A'Vard's acts amounted to misconduct and she was invited to respond to the allegations in writing or to meet in person.
6. On 7 August 2005, Ms A'Vard responded in writing. She sought to explain what happened on 28 July 2005 from her point of view. She referred to Dr Salzman seeming not to have been upset by the event as he had been helpful in tutorials since. She then says that fact 'places a query on his actions of the week before, and I have got to the stage of not knowing who and when I will be rebuked by and for what minor misdemeanour if any.' She indicates that, because of the confusing state of affairs, she was seeking help outside her classes. She also said that Dr Salzman did not know about the allegations of sexual harassment dealt with in the earlier tribunal proceeding. She asks that her sexual harassment complaint be dealt with as promptly as Dr Salzman's complaint about her had been addressed.
7. On 12 August 2005, Professor Carr informed Ms A'Vard that, given that she had agreed that she had approached Dr Salzman about a non-academic matter, she had acted in a manner which constituted an act of general misconduct. She was told that the matter would be referred to the Vice-Chancellor for determination and the imposition of a penalty.
8. As described earlier, on 2 September 2005, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor J Rosenberg, wrote to Ms A'Vard about the finding of general misconduct and the referral for the imposition of a penalty. The letter imposes a penalty in the form of an exclusion from the Warnambool campus from 10 September 2005 until 31 December 2006 other than for the purposes of attendance at exams. The letter set out Ms A'Vard's appeal rights which were not exercised.
9. When Ms A'Vard wrote to Deakin about her possible exclusion on academic grounds in December 2005, she noted that her studies had picked up once she was off campus from late in the previous semester. In that letter, dated 21 December 2005, Ms A'Vard refers to the sexual harassment affecting her studies and also refers to being harassed by a professor, an associate professor and a lecturer and others. She provides no details. As set out above, Deakin did not exclude Ms A'Vard at that point of time but rather allowed her a further opportunity to continue her studies, subject to restrictions, in semester 1 in 2006.
10. In correspondence regarding her academic exclusion in 2006 and her application for re-admission in 2009, Ms A'Vard does not provide any detail about acts of persons which amount to victimisation and which led to her earlier poor academic results.
11. In a letter to the VEOHRC dated 20 September 2010, Ms A'Vard recounts the incident involving Professor Carr when she was filling up her water bottle in the staff room. While she says she felt uncomfortable and blocked in the room and terms the action harassment, she makes no suggestion that it was part of a Deakin plan. Later in the letter, she refers to her efforts to avoid the academic exclusion connecting her marks with the alleged sexual harassment but not the reporting of that allegation. She referred to warnings she had given Deakin about the sexual harassment of female students generally and inappropriate relationships between staff and students.

1. Taking into account the way in which Ms A'Vard makes her claim, she must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that her poor academic performance after September 2004 and her eventual exclusion in January 2006 was caused by detrimental treatment by Deakin because she had made complaints about sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct by lecturers.
2. I consider it significant that Ms A'Vard did not raise this claim in the proceeding heard and determined by the tribunal in 2011. One would have expected her to raise the complaint then if she believed she had been excluded from Deakin as a consequence of victimisation relating to the alleged sexual harassment given that was the subject of that proceeding.
3. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that Ms A'Vard has or can prove the connection between her complaints in September 2004 and her post-September 2004 academic performance.
4. Firstly, Ms A'Vard's results prior to September 2004 were poor. In semester 1 she had failed three subjects and passed one. Even when her subject load was reduced, Ms A'Vard's marks continued to be poor. While in her letter dated 21 December 2005 she suggested that her studies had picked up after her exclusion from the campus from September 2005, her results did not demonstrate any improvement. The fact that Ms A'Vard had failed three of the four subjects she undertook before September 2004, indicates that she was struggling. The fact that her results continued in the same vein thereafter, suggests that the cause was likely to be connected to a lack of aptitude for the course. I note that Deakin gave Ms A'Vard a number of chances to meet its requirements, even when she had already failed to meet the restrictions it had imposed.
5. Second, while Ms A'Vard suggests that Dr Salzman's treatment of her moved from friendly to unfriendly and that sometimes her dealings with him were regarded as acceptable and at other times unacceptable by Deakin, the evidence does not support that conclusion. A plain reading of her correspondence to Dr Salzman, his requests that she cease contacting him about non-academic matters and the letters from Deakin show that her behaviour was consistently inappropriate. Arguably, given Ms A'Vard's demonstrated inability to comply with Dr Salzman's requests to cease contact and Deakin's direction to do so, it might have been better for Dr Salzman and Deakin to refuse to allow Ms A'Vard to continue in his classes and to seek academic assistance from him. It seems to me that, rather than taking that harsh but possibly justified approach, Dr Salzman and Deakin erred on the side of trying to help Ms A'Vard achieve academically.
6. There is no evidence that Dr Salzman or Deakin had a plan to disrupt Ms A'Vard's studies or otherwise subjected her to a detriment because of her complaints made in September 2004. In fact, Dr Salzman and Deakin's patience and willingness to offer assistance to Ms A'Vard points to the contrary conclusion.
7. Ms O'Leary's evidence did not support any of Ms A'Vard's allegations about a general atmosphere of sexual misbehaviour or of gossip and innuendo about her having a relationship with Dr Salzman.
8. It is significant that Ms A'Vard herself says that, as at August 2005, Dr Salzman did not know about her sexual harassment complaint. If that is correct, one might wonder how he could have been involved in a plan to bring about her poor academic results in semester 2 of 2004 and semester 1 of 2005.
9. Third, the description of the interaction with Professor Carr in early 2005 and other suggested incidents of harassment by staff might readily be explained by reference to Ms A'Vard's ongoing behaviour. As is apparent from these reasons, Professor Carr was involved in the misconduct decision made in 2005 which concerned Dr Salzman. There is no evidence that he was aware of the complaints made by Ms A'Vard. Even if he was and even if Ms A'Vard's description of the interaction is accurate, it seems to me far more probable that his reaction to seeing her in the staff room arose because of her then current inappropriate contact with Dr Salzman rather than a reaction to complaints she had made in the September before.
10. Fourth, having regard to the dismissal of the sexual harassment complaint, the rather bizarre correspondence to Dr Salzman, Ms A'Vard's strange way of interpreting clear directions from Deakin and the absence of any factual basis for the claims, I find that it is more probable than not that Ms A'Vard consistently failed her course because she was not academically equipped to undertake the course and that, at the relevant time, she was emotionally unsuited to university life.
11. There is no evidence that shows that the restrictions placed on Ms A'Vard's studies and the decision to exclude her were for reasons other than those clearly set out in the relevant correspondence from Deakin. Ms A'Vard's marks and personal behaviour confirm the basis for those decisions.
12. Ms A'Vard referred me to a decision of Smith J in State of Victoria v McKenna.[14] When discussing a victimisation claim, his Honour said:

In the sort of situation under consideration it is necessary for the Tribunal to examine the behaviour of the persons alleged to have victimised the complainant and to form a view as to the reasons for that behaviour. This will involve on occasions, as here, an attempt to understand the police disciplinary procedures but it also involves an understanding of human nature, human behaviour and standards in the community in weighing up and assessing the conduct and the explanations offered. To treat the disciplinary procedures and cultures of an organisation as a given and as unexaminable in any such dispute would defeat the Act.

1. As indicated by the comments made above, I have examined the steps taken by Deakin and have concluded that the decisions were made for the reasons given. There is nothing before me to show that those actions were somehow manufactured in response to the complaints made in September 2004. There is nothing before me which requires me to engage in any further speculation about any aspects of human nature or human behaviour.
2. It seems to me that it is more probable than not that Ms A'Vard has used her unproven allegation of sexual harassment and her impressions of the behaviour of others as a means to explain her poor marks. Those poor marks explain her exclusion from Deakin and its unwillingness to enrol her again in 2013. Having regard to the evidence before me, Ms A'Vard's beliefs are not sufficient to prove a claim of victimisation under the EO Act.

1. Section 75(1)(a) of the VCAT Act provides that at any time the tribunal may summarily dismiss or strike out a proceeding if it is lacking in substance. The tribunal is required to exercise caution before summarily terminating a proceeding. It should only do so if the proceeding is obviously hopeless or unsustainable in fact or in law, or on no reasonable view can justify relief, or is bound to fail.
2. In this case, Ms A'Vard has been given the opportunity to present all of her evidence. She and her witnesses were cross-examined. She has presented the documents she relies on and has produced several documents setting out her claim and the basis for it.
3. At the February 2015 hearing, Ms A'Vard told me that she had received legal advice before then. In the lead up to the July 2015 hearing, Ms A'Vard had written to the tribunal expressing concern about her preparation for the summary dismissal application. I made an order on 10 July 2015 that any request for additional time to respond would be considered at the hearing.
4. In the course of a discussion about Deakin's application for costs at the 24 July 2015 hearing, Ms A'Vard told me that she had recently received a referral for legal advice but had not received any at that point. I confirmed with her that she understood that I would be deciding the section 75 application having regard to Deakin's application, her response and the submissions they had each made. Ms A'Vard did not seek an adjournment or additional time. She understood that the matter would be decided by me and that I might decide to dismiss her claim based on the material before me.
5. I am satisfied that Ms A'Vard has had adequate opportunity to present all of the evidence she has to prove her claim. For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the claim is entirely lacking in substance and so the proceeding will be dismissed.

1. Section 75(2) of the VCAT Act says that, if the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), it may order the applicant to pay any other party an amount to compensate that party for any costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding.
2. Deakin has applied for an order for all of the costs it has incurred in this proceeding. It relies in part on the fact that DP Coghlan made a costs order against Ms A'Vard in the earlier proceeding which, it says, Ms A'Vard was entitled to bring. It says that, by contrast, Ms A'Vard was not entitled to bring this case, presumably on the basis that it was hopeless from the outset.
3. Mr Price, the solicitor representing Deakin, acknowledged that it was only at the hearing in February 2015 that Deakin was able to have some understanding of the nature of the claim being brought.
4. Mr Price said that he had consistently told Ms A'Vard her case was without prospect of success. He drew attention to the December 2014 application for security for costs which contended that the application was frivolous and bound to fail. Relying on very similar material to that which has been presented here, it was argued that the applicant had failed to interpret properly Deakin's letters and there was no evidence to suggest that Deakin had based its 2013 decision on anything other than poor academic performance in the past.
5. He also informed me that, after the 10 and 11 February 2015 hearing, he made immediate contact with Ms A'Vard to discuss possible settlement. He followed up on that possibility a few times. Ms A'Vard confirmed that there were discussions after the February 2015 hearing but that she considered the proposals being put to be unlikely to be effective to resolve the matter.
6. Ms A'Vard confirmed that, at the mediation held in September 2014, Mr Price had strongly warned her that she would not win. She also agreed that I had strongly recommended that she seek legal advice about her claim both after the security for costs application and after the February 2015 hearing. At the conclusion of the February 2015 hearing, Ms A'Vard told me she already had received legal advice. I suggested that she might wish to revisit that advice and discuss the evidence she had produced so far to the tribunal.[15]
7. Ms A'Vard confirmed that she was aware of the risk of a costs order being made because of her previous experience in this tribunal and her experience in the Supreme Court.
8. In her written response to the section 75 application, Ms A'Vard had noted that no costs had been sought in the application to the Court of Appeal. Mr Price explained that, although he was not involved in that proceeding, given that at the time Ms A'Vard was still bankrupt, no costs order would have been sought.
9. When I asked Ms A'Vard why she continued with the proceeding after she had been told by Mr Price at the mediation that she would not win, she said it was because she felt it was necessary for her and that she needed to 'bring it to notice'.
10. The tribunal is generally reticent about making costs orders in the Human Rights List and particularly in matters under the EO Act. That is because the EO Act has a social rather than a commercial objective. Its objectives include the elimination of discrimination to the greatest extent possible and the resolution of disputes about discrimination, including by accessing the Tribunal. In this context, costs orders against unsuccessful applicants may discourage applicants from making claims and presenting them in person.
11. While section 75 of the VCAT Act does not set out a criteria for costs orders, section 109 is relevant and says:

(1) Subject to this Division, each party is to bear their own costs in the proceeding.

(2) At any time, the Tribunal may order that a party pay all or a specified part of the costs of another party in a proceeding.

(3) The Tribunal may make an order under subsection (2) only if satisfied that it is fair to do so, having regard to -

(a) whether a party has conducted the proceeding in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party to the proceeding by conduct such as -

(i) failing to comply with an order or direction of the Tribunal without reasonable excuse;

(ii) failing to comply with this Act, the regulations, the rules or an enabling enactment;

(iii) asking for an adjournment as a result of (i) or (ii);

(v) attempting to deceive another party or the Tribunal;

(b) whether a party has been responsible for prolonging unreasonably the time taken to complete the proceeding;

(c) the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties, including whether a party has made a claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law;

(e) any other matter the Tribunal considers relevant.

1. The uncontroversial usual approach to section 109 may be summarised as follows:

(a) The presumption in section 109 is that costs lie where they fall;

(b) The tribunal has a wide ranging discretionary power to award costs if the tribunal is satisfied that it is fair to do so;

(c) The tribunal may have regard to the specific matters set out in section 109(3)(a) to (d) and, under (e), any other relevant matter; and

(d) An order ought only be made where it is fair to do so.

1. I have taken these broad considerations into account when considering the application for costs under section 75(2).
2. I have concluded that the circumstances of this case warrant the making of a costs order.
3. With her previous experience as background, Ms A'Vard was well aware that costs orders may be made to compensate a respondent where a claim is found wanting.
4. She was warned by Mr Price that she would not win. While that might not be a surprising comment for an opposing lawyer to make, there was nothing about the conduct of Mr Price throughout this proceeding or Ms A'Vard's reaction to being reminded of the comment which would suggest it was made as part of a tactical approach to the case or otherwise unfairly.
5. An application for security for costs was made on the basis that her case was hopeless. While the application was rejected, it was not because I concluded that Ms A'Vard's case had merit. Rather I considered that the application was premature.
6. At all relevant times, the documents filed by Deakin had made it plain that it sought dismissal of the application and an order for its legal costs.
7. As noted above, I strongly recommended to Ms A'Vard that she seek legal advice on the strength of her claim particularly after she had completed giving her evidence in February this year. The fact that Deakin's section 75 application was made four months later meant that she had adequate time to seek advice.
8. On the one hand, I have taken into account the usual position that parties bear their own costs, the nature of this jurisdiction and the fact that Ms A'Vard is self represented. In many of the cases which come before the tribunal, legal representation would be of assistance in respect of the formulation of the claims and preparation and presentation of the evidence. In my experience, most self represented applicants will have varying degrees of difficulty in deciding what evidence is relevant and necessary to prove their claim.
9. On the other hand, I balance the following matters:
   • Ms A'Vard has previously brought unmeritorious proceedings against this respondent;
   • She was aware of the risk of a costs order being made if unsuccessful and was repeatedly warned of the risks of proceeding with this matter;
   • She failed to seek legal advice to guide her decisions about proceeding even after I suggested she do so in February 2015 and failed to take steps to reach a settlement; and
   • By this proceeding she has again raised personal matters about Dr Salzman and others in a public forum with no basis for the claim made.
10. In all the circumstances, I consider it fair that Ms A'Vard be required to pay Deakin's legal costs from 12 February 2015. I have chosen that date as it was at that point in time that Ms A'Vard had fully articulated her claim and presented all the evidence she had to prove it. The orders I made for the conduct of the 10 and 11 February 2015 hearing were designed for that very purpose. For the reasons given above, from 12 February 2015, it was incumbent on Ms A'Vard to seriously consider whether she could prove her case.
11. I will order that those costs be assessed in accordance with Rule 1.07 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2008, that is under the 'County Court costs scale' as defined in Rule 1.13 of Chapter I of the Rules of the County Court.

[2] A'Vard v Deakin University and Anor [2011] VCAT 1365.

[4] The reference to the old Act in section 104 is to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic).

[9] Paragraph 47. Dr Salzman is referred to in some documents before the tribunal as 'Mr'. I understand the correct honorific is 'Dr'.

[10] Response dated 21 July 2015, paragraph 12.

[11] Response dated 21 July 2015, paragraph 34.

[14] [1999] VSC 310.