1. The answer to this is no. The proceeding has been determined rapidly, the application lodged in late 2024 and referred for order in late February 2025. A directions hearing was scheduled for April 2025 but adjourned at Mr Bellucci's request as he was interstate. A directions hearing was held on 7 May 2025. Pellegrino Pizza's section 75 application was lodged on 27 May 2025 and heard on 8 August 2025.
2. As proceedings go in the Human Rights List, this matter has proceeded to determination quickly. Mr West has not hindered that process in any way. This is not a reason to award costs to Pellegrino Pizza.

109(3)(C) - THE RELATIVE STRENGTHS OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY EACH OF THE PARTIES, INCLUDING WHETHER A PARTY HAS MADE A CLAIM THAT HAS NO TENABLE BASIS IN FACT OR LAW

1. I accept that the application as put by Mr West were very limited and made findings that the claims lacked substance. I note that an aspect of the claims were dismissed because the identify and whereabouts of a 'Italian backpacker' were not included, prejudicing the ability of Pellegrino Pizza to amount a defence to the allegation that this alleged employee sexually harassed Mr West. In essence, those allegations could not be tested.
2. Similarly, the claims made against Senat Bellucci were vague and unparticularised. As noted in the decision, it was unclear as to why Senat Bellucci was not included as a respondent, given the allegation that she had sexually harassed Mr West. She was not included, and this was a matter relevant to the decision.
3. The application having been struck out after the section 75 application has benefited Pellegrino Pizza. They have not had to go to further costs in participating in a final hearing, which would have required further preparations and a hearing where evidence would be required to be provided by Senat Bellucci, a witness with a statement as provided by Pellegrino Pizza. The outcome of this matter in favour of Pellegrino Pizza has benefited Pellegrino Pizza.
4. Given the finding that the application was misconceived, lacked substance and was an abuse of process, I accept that this is a reason broadly in support of a decision to award costs. I also note that the limitations of the application have benefitted Pellegrino Pizza in its defence of the allegations.
5. This is not a reason to make an award of costs in this proceeding.

109(3)(D) - THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCEEDING

1. The proceedings are not complex. While Pellegrino Pizza sought legal advice, it would appear that they have been able to prepare the case on their own, including utilising ChatGPT and other AI services. This is not a reason to award costs in this proceeding.

109(3)(E) - ANY OTHER MATTERS THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS RELEVANT

1. Pellegrino Pizza has provided a settlement offer. As a self-represented litigant, particularly in relation to the seeking of costs, it is not unreasonable that Pellegrino Pizza is unaware of the limitation as provided in clause 22 of schedule 1 of the VCAT Act and the effect this has on the consideration of settlement offers in equal opportunity matters. This provision is a specific reason to disregard this settlement offer as a reason to make an award for costs.
2. Even if it was available for me to take the settlement offer into consideration, I do not believe it appropriate to do so. The settlement offer is highly conditional and required significant concessions by Mr West and actions on his behalf, all for the consideration that each party would bear their own costs. Further, Mr Bellucci stated he would continue to maintain the repayment schedule of a loan that he acknowledges is owed to Mr West, an obligation he has in any event and does not provide any additional relief to Mr West. I note that the right for Mr West to recover the debt as acknowledged by Mr West may have been affected if Mr Bellucci was to fail to make the payments he is required to do so. It is not a reasonable settlement offer in that regard alone.
3. With regard to other matters, I note that Mr Bellucci was responsible for the proceedings to continue to proceed in person. Requesting an adjournment of the directions hearing set for 15 April 2025 as he would be interstate, Mr Bellucci wrote:

As the hearing is currently set for in-person attendance, I would prefer it to remain that way. I do not wish to convert it to an audio link, as I will be in a rural location with limited internet reliability, and I believe this matter is best addressed face-to-face.

1. It is not unreasonable to have the matter heard in person. However, given that there was an opportunity for the directions hearing to be heard with remote attendance, that Mr Bellucci incurred costs to travel to this proceeding is affected by preference as stated above.
2. Pellegrino Pizza has stated that this application is part of a 'broader campaign of harassment and retaliation' beyond the VCAT proceedings, causing maximum damage through multiple avenues of attack. This included the complaint to the Department of Homeland Affairs and the making of subsequent contact with Mr Bellucci by Mr West.
3. As stated at the hearing, Mr West is aggrieved by what he claims occurred in his relationship with Mr Bellucci and Pellegrino Pizza and the subsequent deterioration of that relationship. Mr West was upset that the unpaid assistance he states he provided over a period of time was not acknowledged, or that he loaned money to support the development of the business, which is now being repaid. He is now aggrieved by the ending of this application.
4. The information about a course of action that is malicious or aimed at causing maximum damage is not evident in the materials before me. Mr Bellucci, in seeking to gain a visa will be able to provide a response to the allegations made. If Mr Bellucci believes he is at risk from Mr West, he has other avenues available to him to restrict Mr West approaching or contacting him.
5. I do not consider these other matters a reason to award costs in this proceeding.

1. Having considered the provisions listed in section 109(3) of the VCAT Act individually in the light of the submissions received, I have not found any factors that support it being fair for the Tribunal to depart from the usual position that each party bears their own costs under section 109(1) of the VCAT Act and make a costs order in favour of Pellegrino Pizza.
2. Having considered the provisions of section 109(3) of the VCAT Act and my findings in relation to each of those provisions together and in total, I am not satisfied that, on balance, it is fair for the Tribunal to make a costs order in favour of Pellegrino Pizza.
3. As a result, Pellegrino Pizza's application for costs against Mr West under section 109 of the VCAT Act is dismissed.

[1] Oliver v Bassari (Costs) (Human Rights) [2022] VCAT 1005.

[2] [2007] VSC 117 [20].