The following allegations are struck out pursuant to section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

• H90/2021 Application 1 March 2021 - allegations 2 and 3;

• H137/2021 Application 8 April 2021 - allegations/complaints 2 and 4; and

• Particulars of Claim, 20 June 2021 - allegations paragraphs 6, 7, 12, 21-28 and 30-34.

The strike out application pursuant to section 75 and section 78 in respect of the remaining allegations is dismissed.

The matter is to be listed for a directions hearing.

1. This is an application made by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) for an order summarily dismissing the proceeding which was initiated by Julian Taylor in his two applications to the Tribunal pursuant to the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) (PDP Act), lodged 1 March 2021 and 8 April 2021, claiming a breach of the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs).
2. In summary, Mr Taylor's claims are most clearly set out in three different documents (for details see Appendix at the end of these reasons).
   • H90/2021 Application 1 March 2021;
   • H137/2021 Application 8 April 2021; and
   • Particulars of claim, 20 June 2021.
3. A number of directions hearings were listed for both matters, as is common in this jurisdiction, to allow for particulars of claim and defence to be lodged and exchanged.
4. In this case, directions were provided as follows:
   • 8 June 2021 - directions regarding particulars of claim and defence;
   • 28 September 2021 - adjournment at request of VIT;
   • 7 December 2021 - where VCAT recorded that Mr Taylor declined to amend his particulars and left the hearing before further directions could be given;
   • 9 February 2022 - directions in response to VIT's application for strike out;
   • 13 May 2022 - adjournment at request of VIT;
   • 25 July 2022 - further adjournment by consent; and
   • 30 September 2022 - adjournment at request of VIT.
5. I list these directions hearings because part of VIT's claim is that Mr Taylor is vexatiously conducting these proceedings and had extended the process for no valid reason.
6. Submissions were prepared and addressed by Ms Isobel of Counsel and Mr Taylor on the day of the hearing. No sworn evidence was taken or affidavit material submitted.
7. After hearing all oral submissions I reserved my decision.
8. The following are my reasons for the decision.

1. Section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act) states:

(1) At any time, the Tribunal may make an order summarily dismissing or striking out all, or any part, of a proceeding that, in its opinion -

(a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

(b) is otherwise an abuse of process.

1. VIT made no further submissions on this section other than is stated in its submission. Ms Isobel stated that for the purpose of oral submissions, she would focus on section 78.
2. VIT's application is made on the basis that Mr Taylor's application is 'frivolous,...misconceived or lacking in substance' as '...it is hopeless and unsustainable in fact or law' because the particulars of claim failed to disclose the legal basis for the claim under the IPPs or the PDP Act.
3. VIT referred to the case of Norman v Australian Red Cross Society (1998)[1] and submitted that that it bears the onus, that to be successful the proceeding must be obviously hopeless and unsustainable in fact or in law, that if a complainant indicates that their whole case has been put before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is entitled to determine the application by considering whether there is a question of real substance before the matter proceeds further.
4. I do not intend to analyse the case law relating to the summary dismissal provision (section 75 of the VCAT Act) as it is well established, but I will note the following observations enunciated in case law concerning the application of this section.
5. First, a decision to dismiss an application for strike out is not '...a de facto validation of the substance of that application'.[2] Second, the Tribunal must be careful 'not to shut out a complainant from investigating a connection which may be hard to prove.[3] Third, the Tribunal does not expect an unrepresented litigant to prepare legal documents at the same level as a lawyer, however, documents must articulate a case that is capable of being reasonably understood.[4]

(1) This section applies if the Tribunal believes that a party to a proceeding is conducting the proceeding in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding by conduct such as -

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

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

(c) asking for an adjournment as a result of (a) or (b);

(d) causing an adjournment;

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

(f) vexatiously conducting the proceeding; or

(g) failing to attend mediation or the hearing of the proceeding.

1. It is useful to point out a number of principles relevant to this section.
2. First, the discretion 'should only be exercised when there is no other way to achieve a just outcome'.[5] Second, the application of this section should be 'of last resort not first resort'.[6] Third, a party should not be readily deprived of the right to have their case heard and the Tribunal should approach this section with great caution.[7]

1. VIT's written and oral submissions can be summarised as follows.
2. The documents filed by Mr Taylor do not provide sufficient factual information, nor reference to the relevant IPPs such that VIT understands the case it must answer.
3. A number of documents have been lodged by Mr Taylor. However, they deal with grievances associated to an investigation that was carried out by VIT in relation to his deregistration as a teacher. None of these grievances have any bearing on whether or not there is a breach of the IPPs or the PDP Act.
4. Mr Taylor alleges various breaches of the rules of natural justice and the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) (the ETR Act), Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). None of these are relevant to a claim for breach of privacy.
5. The particulars of claim, read together with the two applications are 'on the whole, incomprehensible' and there is no 'question of real substance that could go to a full hearing'.
6. Ms Isobel submitted that as well as the lack of particulars, the Tribunal should consider the conduct of Mr Taylor in these proceedings.
7. She said that Mr Taylor has conducted this proceeding in a vexatious manner which unnecessarily disadvantages VIT.
8. Specifically, Mr Taylor has failed to annunciate his application in a manner that VIT can understand what is alleged and how it can address these allegations. Also, if the matter were to proceed, it would be a lengthy hearing due to Mr Taylor's breadth of grievances. Despite the Tribunal's case management process by way of directions hearings, Mr Taylor has refused to provide sufficient particulars of his claim, despite the persistence of the Tribunal in trying to facilitate this. In addition, VIT has incurred significant legal fees to respond to an application which still remains vague and uncertain.
9. An application for costs is also made given Mr Taylor's conduct of these proceedings. Ms Isobel relied on subsection 109(2) and (3)(c) of the VCAT Act, noting that Mr Taylor's conduct had resulted in multiple directions hearings, that he had no tenable case and, despite the efforts of the Tribunal, had refused to provide particulars. In her submission, his conduct requires VIT to apply for costs. The costs to date, being counsel fees, are $5,200.

1. Mr Taylor submitted a document in response to the strike out application by VIT. The majority of this document refers to grievances in relation to the VIT panel hearing which occurred in 2015, alleging a breach of natural justice and a decision based on bias and prejudice. The document also refers to an allegation of numerous breaches of the ETR Act.
2. At paragraph 21 of Mr Taylor's submission, he refers to an alleged breach of the IPPs in respect of an allegation that VIT obtained a copy of the title and street plan of his residential property in South Australia as well as mortgage payments from the lender. It is alleged that these documents were irrelevant to VIT's investigation.
3. At paragraph 22, Mr Taylor alleges a further breach of the IPPs in relation to VIT's contact with a previous employer (Traralgon College) in relation to information about his car registration details.
4. There is no further reference in this submission to alleged breaches of the IPPs.
5. Before Mr Taylor made his oral submissions I pointed out that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to any breaches of the ETR Act. Mr Taylor said that he was not asking the Tribunal to make a judgement about this, however this information was relevant by way of background.
6. Mr Taylor then focused for some time on his concerns in relation to the VIT panel and the decision made to cancel his registration, his main point being that the panel hearing proceeded before there was any conviction and that the panel could not make a ruling on registration until after a conviction.
7. Mr Taylor then referred to the investigation process carried out by VIT.
8. He said that VIT contacted a number of schools, St Paul's in South Australia, the school that he worked with in China, Hamilton College, and Traralgon College. On each occasion he submitted that VIT sought personal information, including information about his former wife, which was not relevant to the investigation and was not needed.
9. He said that a VIT employee contacted his former wife on 23 October 2015 and disclosed personal information. Evidence of this disclosure is contained in his former wife's affidavit dated 5 November 2015 in relation to family law proceedings.
10. He alleged a breach of Privacy Principles 1.1 and 1.2 in relation to the collection of information by VIT. He referred to information that was collected in relation to his property in South Australia and alleged that VIT had no right to collect this information. He said he discovered this by way of a Freedom of Information request. He also alleged that there had been a breach of Privacy Principle 1.3 as VIT did not tell him that it was collecting information about him. He said this also constituted a breach of Privacy Principle 10 as VIT was collecting sensitive information.
11. He alleged that there had been a breach of Privacy Principle 2.1 in that VIT had disclosed personal information about him for a purpose other than the primary purpose. He referred to information about his children and his property in South Australia. He claimed there had been a breach of Privacy Principle 2.2 which required an organisation to make a note of disclosure. He said he conducted a Freedom of Information request and there was no note of disclosure.

1. Ms Isobel responded, stating that the vast amount of Mr Taylor's oral submissions related to grievances with VIT and the cancellation of his teacher registration.
2. She said that VIT collected information during the investigation because of notification of concerns about Mr Taylor having multiple identities. This required investigation across a range of places and organisations, including former places of employment. Mr Taylor claimed that VIT had no power in relation to investigation, but the legislation gives detailed powers to VIT in this respect.
3. She said that Mr Taylor had presented a 'moving feast of allegations...but nowhere has he clarified his claim'. She noted that there were some parts of the oral submission and his documents that could potentially constitute a claim under the PDP Act but submitted that it was not the role of the Tribunal or VIT to sort through the vast material to establish Mr Taylor's case.

1. It appears to me that there are three primary aspects to VIT's application.
2. First, is that the information and documents provided by Mr Taylor include a significant amount of allegations that are either not relevant or are beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The second is that Mr Taylor has failed to provide sufficient detail in his allegations such that VIT can provide a meaningful response and defence. Third, is that Mr Taylor has conducted himself in these proceedings in a matter that is vexatious and that unnecessarily disadvantages VIT.
3. As previously stated, the allegations that are the subject of this application are set out in the three documents provided by Mr Taylor. There is no doubt to me that many of the allegations made by Mr Taylor relate to the panel hearing process and decision. However, and this point was conceded by Ms Isobel, some allegations raise issues that could potentially give rise to a claim.
4. I will address the specific allegations in the three documents previously referred to indicating which, if any, I believe should be struck out pursuant to section 75, taking into account the principles outlined for the application of this section. I will approach this on the basis of considering whether there is an allegation referring to a breach of privacy legislation such that I am satisfied that there is a sufficient nexus to the IPPs and that there is an issue for the Tribunal to consider.
5. For those matters that are not struck out under section 75, I will consider whether there are grounds for strike out under section 78.

1. Allegation One refers to the issue of VIT collecting information and later disclosing that information.
2. There is no dispute that VIT collected information about Mr Taylor pursuant to its investigation. Privacy Principle 1 deals with collection of information. The question of whether information collected from Mr Taylor's ex-partner was in accordance with the law can only be determined at a full hearing. At this hearing Mr Taylor referred to an affidavit that could be used as evidence to substantiate his claim in relation to disclosure. Again, whether or not there has been a breach is a matter for a hearing.
3. Allegation Two refers to the use of inaccurate information to deregister Mr Taylor as a teacher. This goes to the question of the VIT panel decision, and I am not satisfied on the information before me that it raises an allegation of a breach of the IPPs. This allegation will be struck out.
4. Allegation Three alleges the disclosure of information to Victoria Police. At the hearing Mr Taylor expanded on his concerns stating that in his view VIT could only contact the police for criminal checks and that there had been no delegation to Mr Williams (a VIT employee) in respect of this. I am not satisfied on the information before me that it raises an allegation of a breach of the IPPs. This allegation will be struck out.
5. Allegation Four relates to the collection and disclosure of personal information with respect to a number of schools where Mr Taylor had previously worked. He alleges this occurred ten weeks after his VIT panel hearing. Mr Taylor is disputing whether the material collected from the schools complies with Privacy Principle 1 and that personal information was disclosed to the schools in breach of Privacy Principle 2 These issues can only be resolved at a hearing.

1. Complaint One asserts that VIT disclosed personal information to the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia in breach of Privacy Principle 2. Determination of whether or not there has been a breach can only be dealt with at a full hearing.
2. Complaint Two outlines a number of actions allegedly taken by a VIT employee. Mr Taylor's concerns in points two, four, five, six and seven relate to the collection of information by this employee. Whether this collection is in accordance with the IPPs is a matter that should be dealt with at a full hearing. However, the allegation in points one and three of this complaint have no bearing on the IPPs and should be struck out.
3. Complaint Three relates to the collection of information about Mr Taylor's residence in South Australia and his mortgage. As with Complaint Two, Mr Taylor is disputing the need for collection of this material and alleging a breach of Privacy Principle 1. Determination of whether or not there has been a breach can only be dealt with at a full hearing.
4. Complaint Four primarily sets out Mr Taylor's concerns about the panel process that was undertaken. As previously stated, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the decision of the panel or the process undertaken. I could not identify from the information provided any possible breach of the IPPs. This complaint is struck out.
5. Complaint Five is an allegation about the collection of information from various state and federal departments as well as schools. As with the other allegations in relation to collection of information, this matter needs to be determined at a full hearing.

1. Paragraphs 1 to 5 refer to background information only.
2. Paragraph 6 refers to a VIT employee contacting Victoria Police. No information has been provided either prior to or at the hearing about this incident and how it constitutes a breach of the IPPs. This paragraph is struck out.
3. Paragraph 7 refers to another VIT employee contacting Victoria Police and alleges the collection of information without consent. Mr Taylor has not identified the Privacy Principle he is relying on in relation to this claim in either his documents or at the hearing. Accordingly this paragraph is struck out.
4. Paragraphs 8 to 11 refer to the collection of information. Each paragraph refers to a different agency. These allegations refer to whether or not there has been breach of Privacy Principle 1. This issue can only be resolved at a full hearing.
5. Paragraph 12 refers to the panel process. There is no allegation of breach of privacy. This paragraph is struck out.
6. Paragraphs 13 to 20 refer to collection of information, in this case from a number of schools and the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory. This issue can only be resolved at a full hearing.
7. Paragraphs 21 and 22 relate to the panel process, there is no allegation of breach of privacy. These paragraphs are struck out.
8. Paragraphs 23 and 24 relate to an allegation under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. An application for discrimination is not part of this proceeding and should therefore be struck out.
9. Paragraphs 25 to 28 relate to the panel process. There is no allegation of breach of privacy. These paragraphs are struck out.
10. Paragraph 29 refers to an allegation of disclosure of information on 23 October 2015. Mr Taylor referred to and expanded on this allegation at the hearing. This matter should proceed to a full hearing.
11. Paragraph 30 to 34 relate to a criminal trial involving Mr Taylor. There is no allegation of breach of privacy, these paragraphs are struck out.
12. In relation to those matters not struck out, I must also consider whether there are grounds for strike out pursuant to section 78. This requires consideration of Mr Taylor's conduct in these proceedings and what is submitted as a lack of particulars.
13. It is true that although Mr Taylor has provided Tribunal and VIT with a number of documents, a significant amount of the content is not particularised to his claims in relation to an alleged breach of privacy.
14. However, as set out in the reasoning above, he has identified a number of situations where he claims that VIT breached the IPPs. The majority of the claims seem to be in respect of the collection of information and therefore whether VIT complied with Privacy Principle One when collecting information from various agencies in connection with its investigation. Mr Taylor has specified the agencies that he says VIT requested information from. While he may not have specified dates, VIT should have its own records about the information that was requested from these organisations and be able to explain the justification for this collection. This should form a sufficient basis to enable it to respond to Mr Taylor's allegations.
15. In relation to the part of the claim that relates to disclosure, Mr Taylor has expanded on some allegations during the hearing as they relate to disclosure to his former wife. To succeed in this claim he will need to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. It will be in his interest to provide similar details to any other claims in relation to disclosure.
16. The fact that this information has not been provided to date for all claims does not in my view constitute a grounds for strike out on the basis that he is vexatiously conducting the proceedings.
17. Ms Isobel claims that should the matter proceed to hearing, it will be a lengthy one. I'm not convinced of this. Given my consideration to VIT's application and the orders that I am making, it seems to me that the issues in contention, and hence before the Tribunal, have been narrowed and given a focus. The likelihood of a lengthy hearing in this matter is not sufficient grounds for me to strike out the application.
18. Ms Isobel also referred to the Tribunal's attempts to case manage this application. As outlined at the start of these reasons, there have been a number of directions hearings. However, putting aside the adjournments, which were not at the request of Mr Taylor, it is not uncommon in this list, where parties are often unrepresented, for the Tribunal to conduct a number of directions hearings in an attempt to ensure a fair hearing. While it is recorded that Mr Taylor left one directions hearing before completion, I'm not satisfied that his conduct as a whole is a ground for striking out his application under section 78.
19. Ms Isobel also alleged that Mr Taylor's conduct is unfairly burdensome on the Institute in that it has been forced to pay legal fees to respond to Mr Taylor. It seems to me that the legal costs associated to date would relate to attendance at directions hearings, preparation of particulars of defence and preparation of the current application. These processes are normal in this jurisdiction and the fact that VIT has incurred costs as a result is not grounds for striking out these proceedings.
20. Ms Isobel also claimed costs pursuant to section 109 of the VCAT Act. She has relied on subsection 2 and 3(a)(vi) and 3(c). Firstly, it is unusual in this jurisdiction for the Tribunal to award costs. Secondly, subsection 3(c) relates to situations where a claim has no 'tenable basis in fact or law'. As previously outlined in these reasons, I am satisfied that there are allegations that need to be determined at a full hearing. I am therefore unable to conclude that there is 'no' tenable basis to these claims. I am also not satisfied that Mr Taylor is conducting the proceeding in a vexatious manner.
21. There are insufficient grounds for me to award costs, and the application for costs is therefore dismissed for the reasons given.

1. In conclusion, I am not satisfied that all of Mr Taylor's allegations are so hopeless that they should be struck out without further evidence and submissions as to the law. I am required to consider Mr Taylor's application at its highest, and questions remain in relation to whether there has been any breach of the IPPs. I am also not satisfied that the failure to particularise the allegations and Mr Taylor's conduct generally in relation to these proceedings is such that I could find that this justifies the striking out of the allegations under section 78.
2. Given these conclusions, I will make no order as to costs.
3. I will direct that the matter be listed for a directions hearing.
4. Finally I note that Mr Taylor sent a further document to VCAT on 16 November 2022. As this was after the date that I concluded the hearing I did not consider this material.

Allegation 1- VIT collecting information from the Complainant's ex-partner and disclosing the information to his then-current partner

The Respondent contacted an ex-partner of the Complainant and collected from her information about the Complainant's relationship with her and about a previous criminal matter concerning the Complainant.

The Respondent then contacted Ms Khaleda Barr, the Complainant's partner at the time, and disclosed to her the Complainant's personal and sensitive information that it had collected from the Complainant's ex­ partner including:

details of the previous relationship that the Complainant had several years before he had met Ms Barr; and

details of the previous criminal matter that the Complainant was involved in ten years before he had met Ms Barr.

Allegation 2 - VIT using inaccurate information to make a decision to de-register the Complainant as a teacher

The Respondent contacted Deakin University to confirm the Complainant's qualifications. Deakin University confirmed that his qualifications were legitimate.

However, the Respondent decided that the Complainant's qualifications were illegitimate and took action to de-register him as a teacher.

Allegation 3 - VIT disclosing inaccurate information about the Complainant to Victoria Police

The Respondent disclosed the Complainant's personal information to Victoria Police, which included the inaccurate information about the Complainant's qualifications.

Allegation 4 - VIT collecting and disclosing personal information about the Complainant to various schools

Ten weeks after the Complainant's VIT tribunal hearing, the Respondent collected from and disclosed to llm College, St Paul's Anglican Grammar School and the Hamilton and Alexandra College the Complainant's personal information.

IPP 1.1 provides that an organisation must not collect personal information unless the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities.

The Complainant alleges that collecting information about his previous relationship and the criminal matter he was involved in prior to meeting Ms Barr (Allegation 1) and his information from various schools (Allegation 4) was not necessary for any function or activity of the Respondent.

IPP 2.1 provides that an organisation may only use or disclose personal information for the primary purpose for which it collected; for a secondary reasonably related and expected secondary purpose; or in other limited circumstances.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent's disclosures of his personal information about his previous relationship and the previous criminal matter he was involved in prior to meeting Ms Barr to Ms Barr (Allegation 1) contravened IPP 2.1.

The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent's disclosure of his personal information to Victoria Police (Allegation 3) and the various schools (Allegation 4) contravened IPP 2.1.

IPP 3.1 provides that an organisation must take reasonable steps to make sure that the personal information it collects, uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up to date.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent failed to ensure that his personal information was accurate, complete and up to date when it made the decision to de-register him as a teacher (Allegation 2) and when it disclosed it to Victoria Police (Allegation 3).

IPP 10.1 provides that an organisation may only collect sensitive information about an individual where: the individual has consented; the collection is required or authorised under law; the collection is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of any individual; or the collection is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of a legal or equitable claim.

The Complainant asserts that the information about his previous relationship constitutes sensitive information as it is information about his sexual preferences or practices. He alleges that the Respondent collected this sensitive information outside of those authorised circumstances listed in IPP 10.1.

The Complainant asserts that the information about the previous criminal matter he was involved in prior to meeting Ms Barr constitutes sensitive information as it relates to his criminal record. He alleges that the Respondent collected this sensitive information outside of those authorised circumstances listed in IPP 10.1.

In a telephone call to Linda Mildren of the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia, a staff member of the Victorian Institute of Teaching, Mr Stewart Williams, in a complete breach of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 and the Information Privacy Principal 2.1 informed Ms Mildren of my citizenship and deportation status.

It is not clear how Mr Williams come about this information? And why did he pass it on to the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia?

Firstly, it is not the place of Mr Williams to inform Ms Mildren of my immigration status.

Secondly, as exhibited on many previous occasions, Mr Williams has no understanding or competence in legal matters. Almost everything he has stated to Ms Mildren is incorrect. Either the man is a complete and utter incompetent or he is deliberately misleading Ms Mildren with ill informed gossip.

Thirdly, it is a reflection of the man and the VIT that he appears to be gloating in this email. A then twelve year old girl - who in a Family Court hearing states she wants her father in her life - had not seen her father (me) for over two years and Williams writes this email to gloat At this point in time I had spent two years on remand - all because of the extremely poor investigation by Mr Williams and his numerous breaches of the Education and Training Act 2006. A normal person would be asking why a professional is incarcerated in a cage 22 hours a day for two years without being found guilty of any charge. A normal person would be asking why a child is deliberately alienated from her fattier. A normal person would ask these things - yet Mr Williams gloats.

Fourthly, recidivism means continually offending. I was in trouble in 1995 when my father passed, my marriage broke up and I lost my job - it was now 2107 - how is that recidivism?

In a telephone call to the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia, a staff member of the Victorian Institute of Teaching, Mr Stewart Williams, in a complete breach of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (ETRA 2006), the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 (OPP 2014) and the Information Privacy Principal 2.1 (IPP2.1).

Stewart Williams states that T (Taylor) obtained Victorian registration by fraud/dishonesty, may be offences under the Crime Act

As the hearing was over a month away the fact that Williams is already stating I had been found guilty shows extreme bias and prejudice. Williams is lying to Ms Mildren by claiming this has already been found. ·

T has severed two sentences of imprisonment for dishonesty offences.

The CEO· of the VIT has not at this point in time asked the Chief Commissioner of Victoria police for my criminal record nor has Ms Saba notified me she is doing so. So why does Williams have this information? And is it correct (the answer is no)? Only Ms Saba is authorised to obtain this information and, as she had not done so. Williams has breached the ETRA 2006 and OPP 2014 by obtaining this information.

T completed a university degree/Victorian teaching qualification whilst jailed.

Wrong.

T fabricated a Tasmania Birth Certificate - this has been confirmed by Births, Deaths·& Marriages in Tasmania.

Again this is over a month BEFORE the tribunal hearing thus showing complete bias and prejudice. It is stated as a fact but it has not been tested in any court or tribunal. Further, why has Williams accessed and obtained this information (breach of ETRA 2006 and OPP 2014).

T believed to be Steven Robert BARR, dab 1611165, from Bridgewater, Somerset, UK- emigrated to Australia, school at Pulteney Grammar College (Sth Aust), then as a civil engineer.

First of all, it is Pulteney Grammar School not College. · · .

Secondly, what is the relevance of where I went to school got to do with this application? Personal information such as this is never given to the VIT so why does Williams know where I went to school? Why does Williams have this information and how has he obtained it without breaching the ETRA 2006 and the OPP 2014?

Also known as Steven Robert Parker, and a surname of Bahntoff.

Again, why, and how, did Williams get this information without breaching the ETRA 2006 and the OPP 2014? and is it true?

Has a British passport in the name of Baff but changed his name to Julian Steven Taylor and returned to Australia.

How, and why does Williams have information about my passport? How did Williams get this information without breaching the ETRA 2006 and OPP 2014 and what relevance is it in this request for information from the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia?

In the VIT secret file C3685 on me (Julian Taylor), received after a FOI request, there are details of , my South Australian residential property as well as Mortgage documents in relation to the same - including a mortgage discharge.

Why does the Victorian Institute of Teaching have details of my South Australian residence and the mortgage from the bank? And how does this relate to my teaching registration in Victoria?

1. In the secret file the VIT have on me, C3685, that was withheld and hidden from the court, there is reference to my five tertiary qualifications on three unrelated documents yet Stewart Williams only contacted Deakin University and then (erroneously) came to the conclusion my qualifications were fake. He then told the teaching panel I was a fake teacher.
2. Williams breached the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 by conspiring - or rather deceiving - Ms Sue Coffey and Mr Paul van Breugel of Traralgon College into similarly breaching the Education and Training Act 2006 and keeping an investigation into a teacher (myself) confidential. The Education and Training Reform Act 2006 states that a teacher is to be notified of any investigation and be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations against him/her. Williams, however, sought to conceal such an investigate from a teacher. Even more disgusting was the direction by Mr Williams to Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to similarly conceal this investigation thereby directing them to also breach the Education and Training Act 2006. Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel were in a vulnerable position and were entitled to believe and trust the judgement and professionalism of Mr Williams to do that which is legal. Sadly Mr Williams abused that trust for his own benefit. Williams sought to have Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to seek and discover my vehicle and registration number. The registration and make of a teacher's vehicle has nothing to do with their registration. Clearly this is beyond the functions and powers of a mere civilian VIT investigator. This is an extreme breach of his position - directing principals to seek vehicle and registration details? Williams is delusional - he is a civilian VIT investigations officer not a secret agent From just a moral, let alone legal stand point, this is totally unacceptable. There are no indictable offences in the Education and Training Act 2006 - everything is summary - and yet Williams is seeking vehicle make and registration. This behaviour is exhibiting signs of an excessive compulsive personality disorder. Imagine if a parent asked a school principal to obtain for them the vehicle make and registration details of a teacher. There is no way that would be done but this is exactly the same. Williams holds civilian powers only. For Williams to direct this action is insanity - for Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to actually do so is an unbelievable breach of privacy. It verges on the criminal act of stalking.
3. Williams has instructed Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel that I had been found to have gained my registration by fraud before a hearing. In fact the subsequent hearing did NOT find I had obtained registration by fraud -and a subsequent criminal trial did NOT find I obtained registration by fraud. The subsequent trial found I had obtained a financial advantage by deception of zero value and zero benefit NOT registration by fraud. Williams acted without authority or discrimination in breaching the Education and Training Act 2006 to mislead Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel into giving personal information on the pretense I had been found guilty of fraud - this was clearly a lie designed to illicit a response from Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to my and their detriment The deceit causing Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to breach the Education and Training Act 2006.
4. Stewart Williams withheld vital information in secret file Julian Taylor C3685 (how many other secret files does the VIT have on teachers - I know they have one on Ms Khaleda Barr) from the informant so as to ensure bail was refused. Mr Williams seems to think he has the power to do whatever he likes. He even seems to think he has greater power that that of the police in the way he has directed Ms Coffey and Mr van Breugel to breach the Education and Training Act 2006, the Data and privacy Protection Act 2014 and Information Privacy Principles. The police have courts of law where their actions can be scrutinized yet the actions of Mr Williams are never held to account and have actually been approved by the Victorian Institute of Teaching. Clearly I will not allow the corruption of Mr Williams to be left unchallenged and I will pursue his corruption through the correct forums. I have not seen my daughter for nearly six years because of the corruption of this man.

Mr Stewart Williams, a civilian with no additional powers, before any conviction or tribunal hearing - thereby deeming me to be innocent of any offence or accusation - did the following,

1. Contact the passport Fraud Section of the DFAT to seek information on my passport. It was claimed by Stewart Williams that the VIT had the right to this information under IPP 6.2{e). This is a lie IPP 6 {e) doesn't exist Not only is there no authority in the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 for the VIT to seek this information - that part of Information Privacy Principles the VIT claims gives it the right to do so was a complete lie. For reference the email trail is connected to passports.verify@dfatgov.au 29 June 2015, wendy.robson@dfatgov.au 1 July 2015. The VIT do not have the right to obtain details of my passport - it has nothing to do with my teaching registration.
2. Contact St Paul's Anglican Grammar School and request extremely personal and sensitive information from Ms Cooper which the VIT has no right to ask for, ie my employment contract and other personal records. In doing so Mr Williams has enticed Ms Cooper to breach the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 as well as Information Privacy Principles and Mr Williams himself has breached not only this legislation but also the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. See CCQQper@s1paulsagsvic,edu.au 21 July 2015. My employment contract is personal - it is not the place of the VIT to demand a copy of my employment contract with a third party. This has nothing to do with my teaching registration.
3. Contact dawn,sims@justice.vic.gov.au 23 July 2015 at the Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages to seek and obtain personal and sensitive Information about myself. This is breach of the Education and Training Act 2006, the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 and Information Privacy Principles. This has nothing to do with the VIT - it is a matter for the Victorian police not a VIT civilian.
4. Contact ShiShi College in China 24 June 2015 to seek and obtain personal and sensitive information about myself. This is breach of the Education and Training Act 2006. This is breach of the Education and Training Act.. 2006, the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 and Information Privacy Principles. My employment contract with an overseas company is personal - it is not the place of the VIT to demand a copy of my employment contract with a third party. This has nothing to do with my teaching registration.
5. Contact Ms Nyree Smidt-Morand 29 June 2015 nyree,smidt-morand@dfatgov.au to seek and obtain personal and sensitive information about myself. This is breach of the Education and Training Ar:J.. 2006. This is breach of the Education and Training Act 2006, the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014 and lnformation Privacy Principles. In addition the details given by Mr Williams contained errors. This has nothing to do with the VIT - it is a matter for the Victorian police not a VIT civilian. The VIT do not have the right to this information before any conviction or tribunal decision. Mr Williams clearly has some mental issue. Why does he think he has the right to seek and obtain this personal and sensitive information - he is only a civilian with no more powers than that of a person in the street The VIT need to explain this behaviour. Mr Williams has deceived all these people into breaking the law.

**_BREACHES OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM ACT 2006, THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DATA PROTECTION ACT,

PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION ACT 2014 AND

INFORMATION PRIVACY PRINCIPLES BY THE VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF TEACHING_**

(5) Mr Stewart Williams, the Investigations Officer of the VIT, breached section 2.6.22 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (ETRA 2006) by contacting the Victoria Police. In this interaction Mr Williams breached Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (PDP 2014).

(6) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 the CEO of the VIT, Ms Saba, made a request to the Chief Commissioner of Police for information concerning a criminal record without my consent and without notification.

(7) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(8) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(9) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Tasmanian Department of Justice, Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(10) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(11) The validity and source of the material sourced from the DFAT, DIBP, Tasmanian BDM and Victorian BDM was hidden from the tribunal hearing and the VIT tribunal panel members were led to believe it had been legitimately acquired. The material so presented was clearly prejudicial and biased with the obvious result being that I did not receive natural justice or procedural fairness during the tribunal hearing. Failure by the VIT to ensure the disciplinary hearing was conducted under the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness is a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006.

(12) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted St Paul's Anglican Grammar School, Warragul, Victoria and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(13) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21Band IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(14) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted the Teacher Registration Board of South Australia and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(15) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted Murray Bridge High School, Murray Bridge, South Australia and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(16) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21Band IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted Chengdu (sic) Shishi Cambridge A Level Centre, China and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(17) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted Traralgon College, Traralgon, Victoria and obtained from them, without legal right, my personal private information.

(18) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and the IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT sought and obtained a copy of the title and street plan of my residential property in South Australia as well as a copy of mortgage payments from the lender (La Trobe Finance) and the mortgage discharge confirmation.

(19) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and the IPPs of the PDP 2014, the VIT contacted Traralgon College, a previous employer, and instructed the school principal to speak with all teachers so as to obtain the make of my car and its registration details.

(20) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.48 (d) the tribunal panel chosen by the VIT were clearly prejudicial and biased as well as being inappropriate choices to hear my disciplinary hearing. The panel members chosen and their conduct show actual and apprehended bias.

(21) In a lack of due diligence and a breach of the duty of care an accuser owes the accused Mr Williams erroneously concluded my academic transcript to be a false document. In doing so Mr Williams biased and prejudiced my disciplinary hearing in a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

(22) In August 2015 I was notified that the VIT wished to hold a hearing in regard to my November 2005 registration. I requested a six week adjournment 5 days prior to the hearing. The request was due to my disability and was reasonable in all the circumstances. In a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 the Victorian Institute of Teaching refused this request.

(23) Mr Geoff Coates, Ms Marilyn Mooney, Ms Anne Farrelly and Mr Rowland Richardson are not medically qualified yet they deemed asthma - a recognised disability - was too trivial a reason for an adjournment and the request was refused. This is a breach of their duty of care to me as the accused, is blatant discrimination and is a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

(24) A teacher who is the subject of the hearing is entitled to be present, to make submissions and to be represented and by denying me my right to attend my disciplinary hearing the VIT breached Section 2.6.45(b) of the ETRA 2006.

(25) As I was discriminated against by the VIT so as to be unable to attend my tribunal hearing I was denied natural justice. This is a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006. Due to discrimination I was unable to present to the tribunal panel members the following,

1. My 'Fitness to Teach',
2. My excellent employment record,
3. my academic qualifications (Williams erroneously declared them false),
4. evidence going as to rehabilitation,
5. remorse,
6. participation in the conduct of the investigation and hearing,
7. delay,
8. the respondent's financial and family situation,
9. the respondent's behaviour and candour,
10. any explanation for the respondent's behaviour,
11. the benefits of further training and any conditions that should be imposed.

All of which are to be taken into account by the tribunal panel.

(26) At the end of the tribunal hearing the VIT continued to investigate and collected untested and uncollaborated "evidence" in beach of the ETRA 2006.

(27) The CEO of the VIT, Ms Melanie Saba, wrote a Fraud Report to the police dated 5th October 2015. Even though Ms Saba has a professional responsibility to ensure such a document is truthful and factual the written report was highly misleading and fraudulent.

In addition, Ms Saba presented herself as a representative of the schools where this alleged offending took place, a breach of Section 182, Liability of directors etc. acting without authority, of the Crimes Act 1958, despite none of the schools ever contacting the VIT or ever laying a complaint against me.

(28) On the 23rd October 2015, the Victorian Institute of Teaching's investigations officer, Mr Stewart Williams contacted Ms Khaleda Barr via telephone. This was a breach of the ETRA 2006. During this conversion Mr Williams broke the IPPs of the PDP 2014.

(29) I was arrested before my mandatory three month appeal was complete and remanded in custody.

To ensure bail was denied the VIT withheld statements and documents from the informant. This is a breach of their duty of care, a breach of the Crimes Act 1958 for concealing evidence (Crimes Act 1958, Section 254, Destruction of Evidence) and the Victorian Institute of Teaching's obligation to procedural fairness and natural justice (Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006).

(30) At the time of my arrest the informant contacted the VIT who directed the informant to remand me in custody. This is a breach of my human rights, natural justice and procedural fairness and is therefore a breach of the ETRA 2006 (Section 2.6.48 (d)).

(31) During my trial Ms Khaleda Barr gave false evidence. This is a breach of Section 314, Perjury, of the Crimes Act 1958.

The VIT knew this was false evidence and had actively conspired with Ms Barr to pervert the course of justice by deceiving the court and the jury.

The VIT concealed a secret file on Ms Barr from the informant and the court that detailed this deception and conspiracy.

Concealing evidence from the informant and the court is a breach of_ Section 254, Destruction of Evidence, of the Crimes Act 1958 and perverting the course of justice is a breach of Section 320 of the Crimes Act 1958.

(32) During my trail the Victorian Institute of Teaching gave false evidence, concealed evidence and attempted to pervert the course of justice. This is a breach of the breach of Section 83A, Falsification of Documents, Section 254, Destruction of Evidence, Section 314, Perjury, and Section 320 of the Crimes Act 1958.

(33) When I was sentenced by His Honour Justice Brookes, Ms Lesley Lamb, the current chairperson of the VIT, and Mr Peter Corcoran, the current CEO of the VIT, both perjured themselves and gave false statement to the court to secure a more severe sentence for me. This is a_ beach of Section 85, False Statement by company directors etc, Section 314, Perjury and Section 315, All evidence material with respect to perjury, and Section 320 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[1] Norman v Australian Red Cross Society (1998) 14 VAR 243.

[2] Isaacs v Sosnowski t/as Industrial Chemicals (unreported VCAT, Mc Callum and Carleton MM, 9 December 1998).

[3] Chakraborty v Jeynes (Anti-Discrimination) [2009] VCAT 1863 at [33].

[4] See Fleming v South East Water & Ors (Real Property) [2013] VCAT 349 at [8].

[5] Davies v Diversiti Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2010] VCAT 1126 at [41].

[6] Bell Corp Victoria Pty Ltd v Stephenson (2003) 20 VSC 255 at [51].

[7] Pizer, Annotated VCAT Act 6th Ed at p 371.