on the comments made by yourself in reference to a meeting held with F Bellino and R Lancashire on Saturday 4/2/2023 in response of Frank Bellino he infaticly (sic) denies ever making these statements. In this regard, Mr Frank Bellino has requested a written apology within the next ten (10) calendar days and instructed in light of these comments no further correspondence will be entered into until this letter is received -...face to face mediation on the grievance in pennant selection will be on offer once above letter is received

1. Ms Badenoch says she did not provide any apology. However, she was invited to a meeting on 8 March 2023 said to be a mediation. Ms Badenoch produced a copy of the Minutes of that meeting.[8] Neither Frank Bellino nor Russell Lancashire was present and there appears to have been little discussion of the selection decision. The meeting appears from the Minutes to have lasted about 15 minutes and no outcome was recorded.
2. Ms Badenoch's statement[9] mentioned by way of contrast to this treatment of her complaint an instance in the 2021/22 pennant season, when she had complained of sexual harassment by a male club member. Her complaint was formally investigated, and the member acknowledged his behaviour was inappropriate, apologised and was given a written warning.
3. Ms Badenoch adds that she considers she was victimised for complaining: 'the flow on effect at the club has now kept me away, with members gossiping, ignoring and victimising me because I had made an application to VCAT'. She adds that over the past two seasons the MPBC has lost a minimum of 15 players including herself.

1. Jenni Bailey also gave evidence for the applicant. Ms Bailey is the sister of Ms Badenoch. Her evidence in her written statement of 6 December 2023[10] was as follows:
   1. Ms Badenoch talked to her a lot about bowls and was very happy when she started playing again after her cancer treatment.
   2. Ms Badenoch 'dropped herself' down to play bowls in in division 5.
   3. 'On Saturday' (no date given) her sister called her crying hysterically saying Frank told her she had been dropped so she could play finals in the bottom side but then told her that her illness made her unreliable.
   4. Ms Bailey was present on 11 February at the club when Ms Badenoch asked Russell Lancashire why Frank would say her illness made her unreliable and Mr Lancashire replied that Frank was worried or concerned about her health.
   5. Ms Bailey was also present when her sister spoke to Mr Lancashire and said she was applying to VCAT.
   6. Ms Bailey was with her sister when they saw some players from MPBC at another bowls club where Ms Badenoch's son was playing. The MPBC players would not discuss bowling with Ms Badenoch.
2. When asked at the hearing why she said it was a lie that Frank Bellino had not referred to Ms Badenoch's cancer at the meeting on 4 February, Ms Bailey agreed she had not been present at that meeting, but reiterated her sister had told her about it. Ms Bailey added she had been present at a mediation with her sister and that no reason had ever been given about why her sister was dropped from division 5.
3. Ms Bailey said she went to the club with her sister in the period after the meeting on 4 February 2023 because her sister needed support and was afraid to be alone as no one would speak to her.

1. Jack Wardrope, son of the applicant attended the hearing and gave evidence at her request. Some of the evidence and questions were not relevant to the issues before me, given that the applicant no longer relied on her evidence about the individual Tony Davis.
2. Mr Wardrope attended the whole of the hearing and said he was there to support his mother. He gave evidence about how important bowling is to her and how deeply she was affected by the events under consideration in this proceeding. When cross examined, he agreed he had rung a club member about these events and said it was because he wanted to let that person know how his mother was affected by what happened.

1. Frank Bellino who was director of bowls in the 2022/23 season, gave evidence for the respondent.[11] He said the following about selection of players for teams:
   • Moonee Ponds Bowls Club plays four sides each week.
   • Each side consists of 16 players, a total of 64 each week.
   • Which side a person plays in is determined by the selectors.
   • There is a strategy in team selection, and it is hard to get the right mix of players.
   • No player is exempt from demotion.
   • He was not aware or any provision in the club's constitution which prevented demotion.
   • Up to round 12 of the 14-round season in 22/23, Ms Badenoch had played five games in division 5.
   • Ms Badenoch had also been selected to play three times in division 7. These nominations occurred even though the selectors were aware she was not available because Bowls Victoria requires that a team of 16 players be nominated even when their side has a bye.
   • For round 13 Ms Badenoch was again selected to play in division 7 which had another bye that week.
2. Then, Mr Bellino added, before round 14, Ms Badenoch requested a meeting with him and Mr Lancashire, the players representative. The meeting was on 4 February 2023. Ms Badenoch asked why she had been selected for division 7.
3. Mr Bellino said he tried to explain that the club was coming up to finals, with four sides in the top 4 and that a player has to have played a minimum of four or more games in a division before they are eligible to play finals in that division. He said he also told Ms Badenoch that other players at the club had been moved around in previous weeks as the selectors had to make sure that they had enough players eligible to play in each division.
4. Ultimately, although a place was offered her, Ms Badenoch asked not to be selected to play in division 7 for round 14.
5. When cross examined as to why Ms Badenoch had not been selected to play in division 5, Mr Bellino said it was for qualification. When re-examined he added that if the strategy had gone ahead, Ms Badenoch would have been eligible to be selected in all divisions for the finals. He also said that no player is immune from demotion.
6. At this point I include a quote from the Bowls Victora Qualifications Guidelines for season 22/23 which appeared as an attachment to Mr Bellino's written statement. He did not refer specifically to this guideline, but it gives some indication of what is meant by qualification:

12.2.3 For weekend Pennant Divisions 2 to 9 finals, a player must have played a minimum of four (4) games in that side, or a lower graded side.

1. Ms Badenoch asked in cross examination why she had not been demoted in the 2021/22 season and Mr Bellino said that the club did not have all four sides in finals that year. He agreed when asked that Ms Badenoch is a good player and added: 'Bowls is subjective... everyone thinks they are good'.
2. Mr Bellino denied he ever said that Ms Badenoch's illness made her 'unreliable'. When cross examined, he said that he recalled the conversation and was sure he had not referred to her cancer. When further questioned he said that after Ms Badenoch made her allegation, he was polite and treated her the same way as he had before. He said he refuted the words alleged and he was compassionate. He mentioned that he had experienced cancer in his own family.
3. Mr Bellino added that the meeting on 4 February 2023 continued with the applicant asking if she would be playing in division 5 the following week, to which he replied that he was not a selector but assured her she would play in a side the next week. He agreed when cross examined that he was not a selector, but he could see she was upset and told her he would speak to the selectors. He said Ms Badenoch then requested a meeting with the selectors the following Tuesday.
4. When Mr Bellino was asked at the hearing why Ms Badenoch's discrimination complaint had been ignored, he said his role was to look at the selection issue.
5. Ms Badenoch then asked him about the email of 23 February 2023 which she received from the secretary demanding that she apologise to Mr Bellino. Ms Badenoch asked why that request was made yet nothing was done about her discrimination complaint. Mr Bellino replied that he would never say such things and he wanted it made clear that he had not said them. He also said at the hearing that the threat in the letter - that there would be no further communication until she apologised - was not carried out, because there was a further meeting on 8 March 2023.
6. When Ms Badenoch asked at the hearing what had happened about her discrimination claim within the club Mr Bellino said he did not know.
7. When pressed further he said it had been discussed at the meeting on 11 February 2023 and referred to the bowls committee. Mr Bellino agreed that he was the chair of the bowls committee. He said the bowls committee had discussed the selection and did not believe there had been any discrimination. He had chaired that meeting. The Minutes of that meeting, held on 14 February 2023, were produced by the secretary of the club,[12] Peter Witte. They showed that Mr Bellino was indeed the chair of the meeting and that he repeated his advice that the selection of Ms Badenoch to division 7 was for qualification purposes: 'the selection was done as not selected for division 5 and to allow qualification'.
8. When asked whether the committee had challenged Mr Bellino's account of what happened on 4 February 2023, he said that the committee asked if he had said the words about Ms Badenoch's cancer, that he had denied it and that this was validated by Russell Lancashire.

1. Russell Lancashire gave evidence for the respondent. He provided a statement (undated). He was present at the meeting between Ms Badenoch and Mr Bellino on 4 February 2023.
2. Mr Lancashire said in his statement: 'At the meeting Frank Bellino patiently and calmly explained to Darlene Badenoch that the selectors were trying to have her qualified for division 7 so that she would be eligible to play in finals in any division. Darlene Badenoch was very upset and was swearing and crying. Frank Bellino calmly repeated the reasons several times... At no stage or in any manner did Frank Bellino say that Darlene's illness made her unreliable.'
3. Mr Lancashire maintained this during cross examination.
4. In Ms Badenoch's statement she said[13] that after 4 February 2023, over the next couple of weeks she had two conversations with Russell Lancashire, and her sister Jenni Bailey was present on both occasions. Ms Badenoch's evidence was that when she asked Mr Lancashire why Mr Bellino would say that her illness made her unreliable, he informed her 'that Frank was concerned for my health'. At the hearing, Mr Lancashire answered that question by saying that he thought he had mentioned Frank Bellino was concerned for her welfare. When further questioned he said he did recall speaking with her but not the exact context or words.
5. Mr Lancashire said in his statement that when Ms Badenoch told him she was taking the club to VCAT, and he would be a witness he said, 'what should I say'. At the hearing, Mr Lancashire said his words had been 'what do you want me to say'. At the hearing, Ms Badenoch put it to him that this statement was different, and he said this could be correct.
6. Ms Badenoch also asked Mr Lancashire at the hearing why he stopped speaking to her, if he believed Frank Bellino had not said her illness made her unreliable. Mr Lancashire answered: 'I thought you were aggressive, and I thought you would go further, and I did not want to inflame the situation'.
7. Mr Lancashire agreed he had avoided Ms Badenoch and not tried to resolve the issue and when asked why, he said: 'You went down the track and it was beyond what I could do'. When questioned further he said: 'I didn't want to make things worse'.
8. Mr Lancashire agreed he had attended the meeting of the Bowls Committee on14 February 2023, chaired by Mr Bellino. He also agreed that when he was asked at that meeting whether Mr Bellino had spoken to Ms Badenoch about her illness on 4 February 2023, he had said that did not happen. Ms Badenoch asked why he had attended a meeting about that issue when she (the player) was not there, and he answered 'it was not up to me. I just answered questions'.

1. Jemal Arif also gave evidence for the respondent. He provided a statement dated 22 December 2023.[14] Mr Arif said he was a selector at the Moonee Ponds Bowls Club for the 21/22 season. Mr Arif said that when the applicant was ill, he agreed with her that he would phone her each week while she was having treatment for her illness, to check how she was before the teams for that week were finalised.
2. Mr Arif also said in his statement that the reason he was not the one to call her in January 2023 to say she had been selected for division 7 was that he had family issues and a family dinner to attend that day.
3. He said being a selector is a very difficult job.
4. By way of explanation for Ms Badenoch being selected in division 7, Mr Arif said 'due to Darlene Badenoch unavailability and only playing 5 games of the season, we tried to qualify her to be available and eligible to play a final as all 4 teams were going to make the finals'.[15]
5. When re-examined he added that there was no time he was aware of when Ms Badenoch was left out of selection for a team or to play because of a dispute. He reiterated that near the end of a season the selectors look at how many players have played, and they ask some players to go to lower grades so they can qualify for the finals.
6. When Ms Badenoch asked Mr Arif why he stopped speaking to her, he said: 'after you made those accusations, I thought it was better not to get involved'. Ms Badenoch asked why he continued to speak to Mr Bellino and Mr Lancashire, and he replied that he was a selector and Mr Bellino was bowls director. He added 'not speaking to you was my choice. It's a bowling club'. When Ms Badenoch asked, he agreed they had been friendly and that he had been concerned for Ms Badenoch while she was ill and called her each week. He said however that it was 'just a club friendship', like he has with many people.

1. Evidence was also given for the respondent by Peter Witte, club secretary. Mr Witte had not provided a witness statement but was present and I permitted the respondent to call him to give evidence about matters which had arisen during the hearing.
2. Mr Witte was shown the Minutes of the meeting of 8 March 2023,[16] said to be a mediation, at which he was present. The only other attendees were the treasurer of MPBC committee of management Gunter Mair, and Ms Bailey and Ms Badenoch.
3. Mr Witte said the purpose of the mediation was to give Ms Badenoch an opportunity to speak face to face with two independent people, to address the issues in Ms Badenoch's formal complaint, but Ms Badenoch had terminated the meeting.
4. I asked Mr Witte about the unsigned email letter of 23 February 2023 to the applicant[17] and he said he had indeed sent it.
5. The letter of 23 February was hard to understand without some context. It began:

Darlene, the matter was raised at a scheduled committee of management meeting and due to its content in reference to pennant selection was referred to the bowls committee. In turn a special convened bowls committee meeting was held and the following are points raised...

1. Mr Witte agreed that the email referred to her complaint of 9 February 2023, the committee of management meeting on 11 February 2023 and the bowls committee meeting on 14 February 2023.
2. The email goes on to outline the history of Ms Badenoch's games in the 2022/23 season and then addresses Ms Badenoch's allegations about the meeting of 4 February 2023, as I have outlined earlier.
3. Ms Badenoch asked Mr Witte how he could possibly have been impartial at a later mediation when he had only heard one side of the account of events. He said the point of the mediation was to allow Ms Badenoch to speak about matters in a friendly way.
4. Ms Badenoch did not dispute the material in the letter which concerned the history of her games in the 2022/23 season. The letter said:
   • Before the Christmas break, Ms Badenoch played four games in division 5.
   • After the Christmas break (round 10) on 14 January 2023 the selection panel selected Ms Badenoch to play in division 5, which she played.
   • In round 11 on 21 January 2023 Ms Badenoch was selected to play in division 5 and later withdrew from playing.
   • In round 12 on 28 January 2023 Ms Badenoch was selected to play in division 5 and later withdrew from playing.
   • On 31 January 2023 Ms Badenoch was informed that the selectors had not selected her for division 5 for round 13 but she was named in the division 7 side, which had a bye that week.
   • On Tuesday 7 February 2023 the selection panel had selected sides for round 14 and at a meeting with Ms Badenoch explained the reasons she had been selected for division 7 for that round and on 11 February 2023 Ms Badenoch confirmed she did not want to be selected in that division.
5. This history is supported by the unchallenged evidence of Frank Bellino in his statement - indicating that the last round of the season was round 14, that Ms Badenoch was offered selection for division 7 in that round and confirmed she did not want to be selected in that side.[18]

1. In order to succeed in her discrimination claim, the applicant must show she was treated unfavourably because of her illness. That is an essential element in the alleged breach of section 65 and the alleged breach of section 71 of the EO Act.
2. The applicant claims that she was demoted to division 7 because of her illness. When asked why she was so sure of that she referred to the meeting on 4 February 2023. Ms Badenoch says that Frank Bellino discriminated against her when he said her cancer made her unreliable to play bowls and he was concerned about her health (the disputed words). Ms Badenoch submits this shows that she was demoted because of her illness.
3. There were three people at the meeting: Ms Badenoch, Mr Bellino and Mr Lancashire. In addition, Ms Bailey the applicant's sister says Ms Badenoch told her of these words on the phone soon after the meeting.
4. Mr Bellino and Mr Lancashire both deny that Mr Bellino said the disputed words, or anything like them.
5. Neither party made any submissions about the legal principles applying to how I should resolve this contradictory evidence about what was said.
6. All four of these persons swore to the truth of their evidence. While the accounts of what was said were different, I did not view any of these witnesses as deliberately telling an untruth. There was insufficient evidence about the details surrounding the disputed words and insufficient evidence of what else was said for me to understand how these quite different memories of the meeting came about.
7. Given that two of the three people present say the disputed words were not said, I consider that the weight of the evidence indicates Mr Bellino did not say the disputed words.
8. I reach this view despite Ms Bailey's evidence. Ms Bailey was not present at the meeting and her repetition ten months later of her sister's impressions of the meeting cannot carry the same weight as the evidence of people who were present.
9. I do not agree with Ms Badenoch's submissions that Mr Lancashire's answers to her on subsequent occasions showed that the disputed words were said. Nor do I agree with her submissions that his behaviour and that of Mr Bellino after 4 February 2023 indicated that the disputed words were said.
10. Even if I were satisfied that Mr Bellino did say the disputed words, it would not necessarily prove that the Club had demoted Ms Badenoch because of her disability. Ms Badenoch's evidence did not go so far as to say that Mr Bellino had said she had been selected in division 7 instead of division 5 because of her disability.
11. When cross examined at the hearing, Ms Badenoch said that paragraph 55 of her statement contained Mr Bellino's exact words, except that she could not recall whether he said 'illness' or 'cancer'. That is as far as the evidence went.
12. In effect Ms Badenoch is asking VCAT to infer that if Mr Bellino said those words, he must have meant that was the reason for her demotion. However, I do not make that inference. It is not consistent with the other evidence about the meeting, namely that Mr Bellino told her he is not a selector and that the demotion to division 7 was done to ensure she was qualified to play in the finals in all divisions. Ms Badenoch did not dispute that he had said those things.
13. Even if my weighing of the evidence is wrong and the disputed words were said, there still would not be sufficient evidence for me to draw the inference that the reference to Ms Badenoch's illness showed she had been demoted because of her illness.
14. Further I am not satisfied that the disputed words (if they were said) would have been discriminatory. Section 65 of that Act prohibits subjecting a person to any detriment because of their protected attribute. VCAT has in the past decided that public verbal abuse about a protected attribute amounts to detriment.[19] However, in this case the conversation was not public and there is no other evidence about what happened in the conversation to suggest it was abusive. In fact, Ms Badenoch acknowledges in her witness statement (discussing what happened later) that Mr Bellino 'understood my circumstances and mental state and was compassionate towards me'.[20]
15. Ms Badenoch's evidence focussed on the illegality, as she saw it, under the Club Constitution of selecting players to qualify them for the finals. Perhaps Ms Badenoch is correct about this (although the Club disputed it). This is not an issue for me to decide. Assuming for the moment that Ms Badenoch was correct, that would not necessarily show she was demoted because of her disability. It would only show that the Club was not good at observing the various relevant rules.
16. However, Ms Badenoch in effect is submitting that there is no explanation for what happened to her other than her inference that she was discriminated against because of her disability. Ms Badenoch says this in her written submissions of 18 April 2024.
17. I do not accept there is no other explanation for the events Ms Badenoch complains about. There were two steps involved in the decision to select Ms Badenoch for division 7 in round 13 of the 22/23 season. The evidence from both sides focussed on the second step - that for week 13 Ms Badenoch was selected for division 7 and not for division 5 where she had been playing.
18. Logically, the earlier step was that Ms Badenoch was not selected for the division 5 team in round 13. When Ms Badenoch asked Mr Bellino at the hearing why he could not give her a game in the division 5 team he said, 'there were 16 others who missed out on selection that week, so it would be unfair for me to prioritise one person'. Later he said 'bowls is subjective. Everyone thinks they're good'.
19. Later Mr Bellino was re-examined and was asked how merit is judged in selecting players. He said: 'It's very subjective to the selectors - performance, compatibility, positions, are all relevant. It's hard to get the right mix'.
20. Apart from the allegations about the disputed words in the meeting of 4 February 2023, there was no evidence that Ms Badenoch's illness was the reason for her not being selected for division 5 in round 13. The fact that she had been selected seven times in the season to play in division 5 tends to indicate there was no unlawful discrimination in the earlier rounds. That in turn makes it less likely that there was unlawful discrimination in round 13.
21. I note that because of her unavailability early in the season and then because Ms Badenoch withdrew in two rounds, she had played only a total of five games in division 5 that season, out of a possible 12 games.
22. All that information indicates that there are any number of possible reasons why Ms Badenoch was not selected for division 5, before the selectors selected her for (or 'demoted' her to) division 7. On the evidence before me, the applicant has not proved that the reasons for her non-selection or demotion were unlawfully discriminatory. That is, she has not shown that those decisions were made because of her illness.
23. Ms Badenoch also suggested the club should not have given Tony Davis the task of phoning her to tell her she was demoted for round 13. Whether or not that is so there was no evidence the club was unlawfully discriminatory in giving that task to Mr Davis.
24. Ms Badenoch complained about the procedures used by MPBC in addressing her complaint and about the way she was treated before and after the complaint.
25. I have already referred to some of the complaints about procedure. VCAT is created by legislation and only has the powers given it by legislation. VCAT has not been given any power to determine whether the procedures of a bowls club are fair. The application was made under the EO Act which is mostly about discrimination and not about procedural fairness.

The Club's response to the applicant's discrimination complaint

1. Section 103 of the EO Act prohibits victimisation. Section 104(1)(g) provides that a person victimises someone if they subject the person to detriment because they alleged discrimination under the EO Act. There is an exception in paragraph (g) where the 'allegation is false and was not made in good faith'.
2. Ms Badenoch contended in her submissions and statement that when (at the meeting on 11 February 2023) the Club's Committee of Management referred her formal complaint to the bowls committee, they treated it only as a grievance about selection and ignored her discrimination complaint. That appears to be so. Mr Bellino's evidence when asked at the hearing was that the complaint was referred to the bowls committee because it was about selection. The Minutes of 11 February 2023 make no reference to the discrimination complaint.
3. I accept Ms Badenoch's evidence that despite her reminders the Club never responded to her discrimination complaint until after she had applied to VCAT. I note the complaint was made to VCAT on 13 February 2023.
4. Ms Badenoch pointed out that the Club treated her discrimination complaint very differently to the way it treated a complaint from Mr Davis about her conduct. At the meeting of 11 February 2023, Mr Davis's complaint was referred for consideration of disciplinary action.
5. The same Minutes note that the Committee of Management received correspondence from the applicant 'on biased selection practice' and that it was passed to 'FB'. Later the Minutes (said to be in a report from the bowls director) describe the complaint as a 'complaint grievance on pennant selection' and indicate there will be a meeting of the bowls committee on 14 February 2023 'to review the grievance with selection panel members outlined to determine any action taken'.
6. There was no evidence however that the Committee of Management treated the two issues differently because the applicant's complaint was about discrimination. The Minutes show that the Committee (rightly or wrongly) saw Ms Badenoch's complaint as about 'biased selection practice' and that was the reason it was referred to the bowls committee. Ms Badenoch alleges[21] that the Committee of Management 'made a conscious decision to ignore the most serious aspect of my complaint'. The evidence does not support that allegation.
7. At the meeting on 14 February 2023, Mr Bellino and Mr Lancashire both denied that the disputed words had been said. Ms Badenoch was not there, to tell her side of the story. Ms Badenoch had been told of the meeting but there is no evidence she was invited to it. Mr Bellino appears to have tried to finalise a discrimination complaint that was about him, which appears to be an inadequate procedure. However, aAs the club saw it, he was dealing with a dispute about selection which was his role.
8. Ms Badenoch says in her statement that she believes referring her complaint to the bowls committee created a conflict of interest, because her complaint was referred to the very person (Mr Bellino) about whom she was complaining. I agree that appears to be the case.
9. VCAT's jurisdiction under the EO Act does not extend to questions of procedural fairness. The issues for determination under the EO Act are whether the club discriminated unlawfully against the applicant and whether it victimised her.
10. To establish that there was victimisation there must be clear evidence of a causal link between the discrimination complaint and the alleged victimising. Doing the best I can with the evidence, I consider the Club referred Ms Badenoch's letter of 9 February 2023 to the bowls committee because they saw it as a complaint about selection and because they were accustomed to relying on the director of bowls to manage such issues.
11. Ms Badenoch produced the club's email to her dated 23 February 2023,[22] which demands that she apologise for accusing Mr Bellino of discrimination and threatens there would be no further communication unless she did so. This email was sent to her after her application was lodged at VCAT. Ms Badenoch did not mention that document in her particulars of claim, her witness statement or her written submissions. This means the club was not alerted to the potential for it to be seen as victimisation. Perhaps it also means Ms Badenoch did not see it as victimising her. At the hearing, neither party spoke of this email as victimising.
12. The email of 23 February 2023 indicates that the club considered the allegation against Mr Bellino was false. It would be a defence to an allegation of victimisation to show that the discrimination complaint was 'false and not made in good faith'. Although Ms Badenoch has not proved the allegation of discrimination, I have not made any finding that her complaint was not made in good faith.
13. Although the email of 23 February 2023 says there will be no further communication, the club in fact then went on to offer a meditation which occurred on 8 March 2023. The season had effectively ended for the applicant when she withdrew her name from selection for round 14 so it is hard to see that the short delay in addressing her complaint at this point was a detriment amounting to victimisation.
14. On the evidence before me the letter of 23 February 2023 did not amount to victimisation. I could not be satisfied that it contained detrimental treatment of Ms Badenoch because she had made an allegation of discrimination.
15. Ms Badenoch also said she was victimised by the way some Club members treated her after she made her discrimination complaint. Her evidence referred to situations where she attended at the Club and other members would not speak with her or limited the range of topics they would discuss with her. I accept the evidence that those things occurred. However, there is little evidence about why those individuals behaved as they did.
16. Mr Arif said when asked that he did not want to get involved in Ms Badenoch's dispute with the Club and Mr Lancashire said he did not want to inflame the situation. These do not amount to saying that the cause of their avoiding her was that she had complained about discrimination.
17. Whatever the reasons for the behaviour of individual members, they are not the respondents. The Club is the respondent. The Club would not necessarily be liable for the victimising behaviour of individual members if any such behaviour was proved. There was no evidence the club had directed or encouraged members to victimise Ms Badenoch.
18. The applicant's claim of victimisation has not been proved.

1. Ms Badenoch has not proved her allegations of unlawful discrimination and victimisation. It follows that I need not refer to Ms Badenoch's evidence about how she was affected by the events about which she complains.
2. The application is dismissed.

[1] Paragraph 55 of the applicant's witness statement of 6 December 2023.

[2] Paragraph 66 of the applicant's witness statement of 6 December 2023.

[3] Paragraph 83 of applicant's witness statement of 6 December 2023.

[5] Attached to Ms Badenoch's submissions. Ms Badenoch said she received a copy 1 March 2023.

[6] Minutes of meeting of bowls committee 14 February 2023, produced by Mr Peter Witte during re-examination at the hearing, respondent's exhibit 6.

[11] Respondent's exhibit 1, witness statement of Frank Bellino dated 18 December 2023.

[13] Paragraph 73 of applicant's witness statement of 6 December 2023.

[15] Paragraph 11 of witness statement of Jamal Arif.

[18] Statement of Frank Bellino dated 18 December 2023, paragraph 2.

[19] See Laverdure v Jayco Caravan (Recreational Industries) Pty Ltd [2001] VCAT 1706.

[20] Paragraph 54 of applicant's witness statement of 6 December 2023.

[21] Applicant's witness statement paragraph 93.