1. Mr West's application was very limited in content and context. It consisted of a short handwritten note, a letter from September 2023 written by an administrative and migration lawyer, addressed to the compliance section of the Department of Home Affairs, and a letter from a doctor.
2. The information in the documents provided stated that Mr West had assisted Mr Bellucci in an informal manner at the mobile pizzeria truck after making friends with Mr Bellucci. Mr West claimed he provided voluntary services to Mr Bellucci to support the Pellegrino Pizza. The letter from the migration lawyer stated that Mr West did some preparatory work and odd jobs, for which he received no payment.
3. Mr West claimed that in March 2023 some men described as 'backpackers' from Italy worked at the Pellegrino Pizza for a short period. The handwritten note said that one man started 'dick teasing' me, otherwise described as 'blowing kisses' and making 'silly and unwanted sexual advances'. The man is not named.
4. The written note then states that Mr Bellucci's sister Senat Bellucci came to Australia from Italy in September 2022 and started 'dick teasing me, staring at me and throwing kisses at me, cuddling me and holding my hand'. The lawyer's letter stated that this occurred at social gatherings at Mr Bellucci's home and at a festival in June 2023.
5. In the VCAT application Mr West stated that he wanted compensation for hundreds of hours of work, and $50,000.00 for unpaid work.

1. Mr West claims that he has been sexually harassed in the area of employment.
2. Employee is defined in section 4 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the EO Act). It states:

employee includes -

(a) a person employed under a contract of service, whether or not under a federal agreement or award;

(b) a person employed under the Public Administration Act 2004 or appointed to a statutory office;

(c) a person engaged under a contract for services;

(d) a person who is engaged to perform any work the remuneration for which is based wholly or partly on commission -

and in Part 6 includes, but does not otherwise in this Act include, an unpaid worker or volunteer;

1. Part 6 of the EO Act refers to the prohibition of sexual harassment. It states:
   1. What is sexual harassment?

(1) For the purpose of this Act, a person sexually harasses another person if he or she -

(a) makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the other person; or

(b) engages in any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person -

in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

(2) In subsection (1) conduct of a sexual nature includes -

(a) subjecting a person to any act of physical intimacy;

(b) making, orally or in writing, any remark or statement with sexual connotations to a person or about a person in his or her presence;

(c) making any gesture, action or comment of a sexual nature in a person's presence

1. Relevant to this matter is s 94:
   1. Harassment in common workplaces

(1) A person must not sexually harass another person at a place that is a workplace of both of them.

(2) For the purposes of this section it is irrelevant -

(a) whether each person is an employer, an employee or neither; and

(b) if they are employees, whether their employers are the same or different.

(3) In this section workplace means any place where a person attends for the purpose of carrying out any functions in relation to his or her employment, occupation, business, trade or profession and need not be a person's principal place of business or employment.

14 A person can be held responsible for another person who may be sexually harassing a person. There is a prohibition of authorising or assisting discrimination. A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of Part 4 or 6 or this Part[1] and an application can be made against this other person.[2]

1. Similarly, ss 109 and 110 provides that employers can be held responsible for others:

109 Vicarious liability of employers and principals

If a person in the course of employment or while acting as an agent -

(a) contravenes a provision of Part 4 or 6 or this Part; or

(b) engages in any conduct that would, if engaged in by the person's employer or principal, contravene a provision of Part 4 or 6 or this Part -

both the person and the employer or principal must be taken to have contravened the provision and a person may bring a dispute to the Commission for dispute resolution or make an application to the Tribunal against either or both of them.

110 Exception to vicarious liability

An employer or principal is not vicariously liable for a contravention of a provision of Part 4 or 6 or this Part by an employee or agent if the employer or principal proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer or principal took reasonable precautions to prevent the employee or agent contravening this Act.

1. Section 75(1) of the VCAT Act states as follows:

Summary dismissal of unjustified proceedings

(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. The established principles for deciding applications under s 75 require VCAT to exercise great caution. It is a serious matter to dismiss or strike out a proceeding summarily. A high threshold must be met before VCAT can summarily dismiss or strike out all or part of a proceeding.[3]
2. The power to summarily dismiss or strike out a proceeding, or a part of a proceeding, should be exercised only where it is obvious that the proceeding cannot possibly succeed or where it is obvious that the proceeding is an abuse of process for other reasons. Otherwise, an applicant is entitled to have the case fully heard and determined at a final hearing. It must be very clear indeed that the proceeding is absolutely hopeless or so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed.[4] Deficiencies in an applicant's particulars of claim are generally not a reason to strike out the claim or the particulars entirely.

1. Pellegrino Pizza's application for the matter to be struck out was lodged on 29 May 2025 after a directions hearing where Mr West indicated he had provided all the information that he would seek to rely upon. The submission of Mr Bellucci included a number of statements, evidence relevant for a final hearing if that was to occur and the grounds for the strike out application.
2. This document stated that Mr West's application did not disclose a cause of action and lacked substance and detail. It stated that there was no statement of claim or particular information about the alleged incidents, did not demonstrate any employment or workplace relationship or prove allegations that the alleged wrongdoing occurred in a workplace setting or was connected to the respondent's business. Mr Bellucci stated that the claims appear retaliatory after he set clear boundaries following inappropriate behaviour by Mr West. Mr West was merely seeking to damage Mr Bellucci's legal and professional standing, and also that:

the application is not a genuine pursuit of justice, but a strategic attempt to destabilise the respondent's personal and professional life. The applicant expressed explicit intent to see the respondent removed from Australia in order to assume control of the business and pursue a romantic relationship with the respondent's partner.[5]

1. Mr Bellucci claimed that the alleged wrongdoing did not occur within a defined employment or volunteer relationship or in a workplace or connected with his business operations.

1. At the hearing I explained that the claim appeared to be a claim for sexual harassment in a common workplace. I agreed that the Mr West did not meet the definition of employee as none of the defined circumstances met his situation but noted that for Part 6 sexual harassment matters it did include an unpaid worker or volunteer, which Mr West arguably was. I noted that the definition of 'common workplace' and Mr West's involvement in that aspect of Mr Bellucci's life was a matter of argument and evidence, and it may or may not be true.
2. I also noted that the arguments regarding Mr Bellucci or Pellegrino Pizza being responsible for the alleged conduct under either s 106 or s 109 of the EO Act was a matter of argument, making no determination on this point at that time.
3. I raised with Mr West a number of issues that arose from his claims, including the lack of particularity in his information, questions regarding the appropriateness of the named respondent, issues with aspects of his claims against an unknown backpacker that were brought after a delay which meant that evidence in relation to that aspect of the claim would be difficult to produce, issues with the claims regarding Mr Bellucci's sister and the lack of particulars regarding that aspect of the claim, made it difficult for Mr Bellucci to respond to what was being alleged. I noted that the claims provided limited to no information as to why Mr Bellucci or the business was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing, relevant as the business was the named respondent in the application. The application also did not disclose a remedy that was available to the Tribunal. I advised Mr West that compensation for unpaid work was not a matter for the Human Rights list of VCAT but would be more relevant for a Fair Work Commission application if he believed he was entitled to unpaid wages.
4. At the hearing I asked Mr West what other remedy he was seeking if unpaid wages were not available as an outcome. Mr West stated that he would like to have Mr Bellucci deported from Australia. I noted that this was beyond my power. Mr West then made a suggestion regarding corporal punishment that I again advised was not a remedy available from any court or tribunal. I advised that the lack of a stated remedy made it difficult for the respondent to respond to the application appropriately. Later in the hearing Mr West provided a figure of $50,000 which referred back to the stated claim for unpaid wages.

1. Mr West is a self-represented litigant with no experience of bringing matters to a court or a tribunal. Enforcing strict criteria regarding the provision of materials that may apply to a more experienced or represented party may not be appropriate in all the circumstances. Balanced against this is the circumstances of Pellegrino Pizza as represented by Mr Bellucci, who is a self-represented litigant himself where English is not his first language. Mr Bellucci's documents are better presented than Mr West's materials, notwithstanding that a letter from a lawyer created for a different purpose was provided by Mr West with his application.
2. There are a significant number of difficulties with the application. It appears that there are two claims: one against a person known only as an Italian backpacker, and the second against Mr Bellucci's sister Senat Bellucci. Neither of these claims are particularised in a manner in which would allow Mr Bellucci on behalf of Pellegrino Pizza the opportunity to reasonably fashion a response to the claims.
3. The claim against the Italian backpacker is very vague and unparticularised. Mr West has not detailed who this person is or when and where incidents took place. At the hearing he described gestures and signals that he was uncomfortable with, but was not able to explain what aspect of the gestures and signals were sexual in nature. Mr West made no reference to any comments being made to him by this Italian backpacker. Mr West stated he did not know the name of this person or where he was now residing.
4. I noted that information regarding what might be included as conduct of a sexual nature was specified at s 92 of the EO Act, and that this aspect of the application may turn on the evidence of all parties as to what had occurred. In this aspect of the claim, an unknown person, who is not contactable and presumably no longer in Australia, is the person who conducted this activity. This person should have been named as a respondent to this proceeding but cannot be as no information about them has been forthcoming. Given the passing of time, the temporary visa status and the nature of this person's short-term employment, it is not unreasonable that Mr Bellucci does not have relevant contact details for this unnamed individual. Given that the alleged harasser is not available to provide evidence as to the conduct, and that evidence is highly relevant to the case, it is difficult to see how this aspect of the application can proceed. Pellegrino Pizza, as the named respondent, has no capacity to mount a defence to these unparticularised and vague assertions.
5. The claim against Mr Bellucci's sister is also vague and unparticularised. There are significant concerns regarding the nature of the claim as presently put to me in the application and accompanying materials. Aside from an incident at a festival in June 2023, the location, dates and actions of Ms Bellucci are not provided in any detail. At the hearing Mr West described an incident where Ms Bellucci put her hand in his pocket to hold his hand. The application describes 'kisses' being blown at him. The date and location of these events were not provided, which is relevant as the letter from the lawyer as provided by Mr West describes events occurring at Mr Bellucci's home and not a workplace. It is not clear on the information that Ms Bellucci had any role at the business aside from accompanying her brother to that location on occasion. It is not clear any incident as alleged by Mr West occurred in the workplace.
6. I asked Mr West why he had not included Senat Bellucci as a respondent in this proceeding, given she was an alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment. Mr West did not explain this exclusion.
7. I expressed my concerns as to who this application was made against at the hearing. I noted that the presently named respondent, Pellegrino Pizza, may not be the appropriate respondent if it could not be shown to be responsible for the actions of a person at the workplace under s 109 of the EO Act. No submissions on the issue of vicarious liability were provided by Mr West in any of his submissions.
8. There were no submissions provided by Mr West on the responsibility of Mr Bellucci personally for authorising and assisting what has allegedly occurred. Mr West makes no specific allegations that Mr Bellucci sexually harassed him but has been seeking to cause difficulties directly to Mr Bellucci. This includes the letter written to the Compliance Section of the Department of Home Affairs which suggests that Mr Bellucci is of bad character which should be taken into account 'in their determination of any future application made by Mr Bellucci to enable him to remain in our country'.[6] Mr Bellucci is not personally a respondent to this proceeding.
9. I do note that Senat Bellucci is available to give evidence as information before the Tribunal demonstrates that she remains in Australia and could have potentially been named as a respondent in this application. Evidence in the form of a statement had been provided from her which demonstrated that she would contest the allegations as made, a matter I stated would be for a final hearing if there was one.
10. Pellegrino Pizza, through Mr Bellucci, is entitled to have an opportunity to respond to a case being put forward against them. They are entitled to know the particulars of the case that is being alleged, and what outcome is being sought by the applicant. This has not been provided by the applicant, despite being asked and advised to do so in directions provided prior to the s 75 hearing. The claims as put by Mr West are so vague that there is no present opportunity for the respondent to prepare and respond to what is said to have occurred.
11. The claims involving the Italian backpacker have no prospect of being able to be determined by the Tribunal due to the evidentiary issues that arise from an unknown and untraceable alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment. As it presently stands, these claims are misconceived and lack substance.
12. The claims regarding Senat Bellucci are vague and unparticularised in such a way that they do not demonstrate a matter that can proceed against Pellegrino Pizza. Despite the opportunity afforded him to do so, Mr West has not provided the further information that would assist in progressing this matter. As it presently stands, these claims lack substance.
13. Mr West was emotional at the hearing, and I accept he is aggrieved by his experience. He has presented medical evidence that shows he has been seeing a doctor regarding depression. Mr Bellucci, while not admitting to any allegation, provided an apology to Mr West if Mr West felt that Mr Bellucci had caused difficulties for him. I noted that an amount of money provided by Mr West to Mr Bellucci was being paid back by Mr Bellucci under an agreed instalment plan.
14. Noting the guidance about being cautious about dismissing or striking matters out under s 75 of the VCAT Act, I consider that the present circumstances as presented are so vague and unparticularised that they do amount to an application that is misconceived and lacks substance for the purposes of s 75 of the VCAT Act.
15. In the circumstances as presented to the Tribunal, it is appropriate to strike out the application on the grounds of s75(1) of the VCAT Act.
16. I note that a strike out of the application does not preclude the applicant from applying to reopen the case. Advice should be sought on the grounds that this may occur.

[3] Towie v Victoria [2008] VSC 177.

[4] Axicom Pty Ltd v Melton CC [2020] VCAT 190.

[5] Paragraph 8 of the s 75 strikeout application.

[6] Final page of lawyer's letter dated 23 September 2023.