WUT v Victoria Police

WUT brought an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which had affirmed the decision of an officer of the Department of Justice and Regulation to refuse the renewal of WUT’s private security licence. The Tribunal had found that WUT was not a fit and proper person to hold a private security licence, primarily due to concerns about WUT’s mental health. WUT argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not considering all relevant considerations and by failing to afford procedural fairness to a self-represented litigant. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the questions posed to WUT by the decision-maker were relevant and necessary to determine whether WUT was a fit and proper person to hold a licence, whether the Tribunal had failed to afford procedural fairness, and whether the Tribunal had otherwise erred in law.

The Supreme Court found that the questions posed to WUT were relevant and necessary to determine whether WUT was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Court found that the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 did not prohibit the decision-maker from asking questions about WUT’s mental health, as the questions were necessary to comply with or were authorised by the Private Security Act 2004. The Court also found that the Tribunal had not failed to afford procedural fairness to WUT, as the Tribunal had taken into account WUT’s lack of legal representation and had given WUT an opportunity to respond to the decision-maker’s questions. The Court found that the Tribunal had not otherwise erred in law.

The Supreme Court dismissed WUT’s application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was not unreasonable and that there were no errors of law. The Court found that the decision-maker had considered all relevant matters and had given WUT an opportunity to respond to the decision-maker’s questions. The Court found that the Tribunal had not failed to afford procedural fairness to WUT and that the questions posed to WUT were necessary to determine whether WUT was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was lawful and that there were no grounds for leave to appeal.