Borzatti v Homes Victoria [2026] VCAT 149

I asked Mr de Borzatti to provide me with more detail as to the background to this application.
Mr de Borzatti said that this application is the third time he has now applied for an order under section 91S of the RT Act.[1] He said that the previous two applications were dismissed by the Tribunal.
I then looked up the orders made on each of the previous two applications during this hearing. In relation to Proceeding R2025/16596, that proceeding was dismissed by order made on 3 September 2025. In relation to Proceeding R2025/22649, that proceeding was dismissed by an order made on 14 November 2025. In each matter the Tribunal found that the grounds relied upon for the application had not been proved, and an order was made that the proceeding was dismissed.
When I raised these orders with Mr de Borzatti, he stated that he was entitled to make this third application as he believed that the earlier orders were legally wrong and or that he was denied a fair hearing. This statement by Mr de Borzatti is consistent with the details set out in paragraph 5 above taken from the application dated 7 January 2026. He said that he was advised by Victoria Legal Aid to lodge the application in this proceeding.
In response to a question from me, Mr de Borzatti confirmed that this application was the same application he had made on the previous two occasions.
The orders made in the two earlier proceedings indicate that each matter was determined on its merits. As such, a res judicata[2] arises in relation to that cause of action.
In my opinion, on the basis that this application is the same as the previous two applications to the Tribunal, Mr de Borzatti is not legally entitled to make this application.
In response, Mr de Borzatti said that he did not accept that. As he had been allowed to run the hearing of the second application on 14 November 2025 that must mean that he is legally entitled to run the hearing before me.
I was not the presiding member at the hearing of either of the two earlier proceedings. In particular, I do not know what transpired at the hearing on 14 November 2025. Mr de Borzatti was not able to tell me whether the presiding member on 14 November 2025 was aware of the earlier proceeding heard and determined on 3 September 2025. One possible explanation for the hearing being conducted on 14 November 2025 was that the presiding member at that hearing was not aware of the order made on 3 September 2025. Whatever the reason, it is pure speculation in relation to this application.
I advised Mr de Borzatti that if he believed the orders made on 3 September 2025 and or 14 November 2025 were legally wrong and or that he was denied a fair hearing then his redress is to lodge an appeal against one or both orders in the Supreme Court of Victoria. He is not entitled to simply make the same application again with the intention of seeking a different outcome and or a different presiding member.
I advised Mr de Borzatti that I would strike out the application in this proceeding on the grounds that it is misconceived and or is an abuse of process.
Mr de Borzatti confirmed at the conclusion of the hearing that he still required written reasons for my order.

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

[1]

The applicant Mr de Borzatti commenced this proceeding against the respondent Homes Victoria by way of an application dated 7 January 2026.
The proceeding came on for hearing by telephone before me on 13 February 2026.
At the commencement of the hearing Mr de Borzatti stated that he requested written reasons for the Tribunal's decision in this matter.
The application was under section 91S of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('the RT Act') seeking an order that that Homes Victoria enter into a residential tenancy agreement with him.
It is appropriate to set out in full what Mr de Borzatti wrote in his application dated 7 January 2026, under the heading "Provide more details about your claim". He wrote:

[2]

I ask for a 91 S hearing because I have always been legally entitled to have my transfer of tenancy application approved. Homes Victoria took an incredible 4 months to reject my application then I spent 4 months emailing them for reasons my application was rejected, they never responded, then brought me to VCAT calling me squatter. Homes Victoria lied to VCAT to obtain their 344 hearing, saying I did not prove continuous links to the property. This lie has been proven to VCAT by my Centrelink proof of residence/tenancy letter. Homes Victoria continued with this lie, under oath, at all VCAT hearings. When VCAT dismissed my 91 S hearing they did not take these important facts into account. During the adjourned hearing the member did not comment on what my lawyer had mentioned about my hardship versus Homes Victoria hardship, instead he just adjourned the hearing. In the adjourned hearing what the lawyer brought to the members attention with page references, needed to be commented on by the member before adjourning the hearing. Perhaps my lawyer did not re mention it, at the newly created hearing, believing the member would take what was said at that adjourned hearing into account before making his decision. These actions by the member do not not (sic) constitute a legally run hearing.

I asked Mr de Borzatti to provide me with more detail as to the background to this application.
Mr de Borzatti said that this application is the third time he has now applied for an order under section 91S of the RT Act.[1] He said that the previous two applications were dismissed by the Tribunal.
I then looked up the orders made on each of the previous two applications during this hearing. In relation to Proceeding R2025/16596, that proceeding was dismissed by order made on 3 September 2025. In relation to Proceeding R2025/22649, that proceeding was dismissed by an order made on 14 November 2025. In each matter the Tribunal found that the grounds relied upon for the application had not been proved, and an order was made that the proceeding was dismissed.
When I raised these orders with Mr de Borzatti, he stated that he was entitled to make this third application as he believed that the earlier orders were legally wrong and or that he was denied a fair hearing. This statement by Mr de Borzatti is consistent with the details set out in paragraph 5 above taken from the application dated 7 January 2026. He said that he was advised by Victoria Legal Aid to lodge the application in this proceeding.
In response to a question from me, Mr de Borzatti confirmed that this application was the same application he had made on the previous two occasions.
The orders made in the two earlier proceedings indicate that each matter was determined on its merits. As such, a res judicata[2] arises in relation to that cause of action.
In my opinion, on the basis that this application is the same as the previous two applications to the Tribunal, Mr de Borzatti is not legally entitled to make this application.
In response, Mr de Borzatti said that he did not accept that. As he had been allowed to run the hearing of the second application on 14 November 2025 that must mean that he is legally entitled to run the hearing before me.
I was not the presiding member at the hearing of either of the two earlier proceedings. In particular, I do not know what transpired at the hearing on 14 November 2025. Mr de Borzatti was not able to tell me whether the presiding member on 14 November 2025 was aware of the earlier proceeding heard and determined on 3 September 2025. One possible explanation for the hearing being conducted on 14 November 2025 was that the presiding member at that hearing was not aware of the order made on 3 September 2025. Whatever the reason, it is pure speculation in relation to this application.
I advised Mr de Borzatti that if he believed the orders made on 3 September 2025 and or 14 November 2025 were legally wrong and or that he was denied a fair hearing then his redress is to lodge an appeal against one or both orders in the Supreme Court of Victoria. He is not entitled to simply make the same application again with the intention of seeking a different outcome and or a different presiding member.
I advised Mr de Borzatti that I would strike out the application in this proceeding on the grounds that it is misconceived and or is an abuse of process.
Mr de Borzatti confirmed at the conclusion of the hearing that he still required written reasons for my order.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)

Borzatti v Homes Victoria [2026] VCAT 149 (2 March 2026)