Talk:Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

I have moved the original VCAT article to Volontaire Civil à l'Aide Technique, and redirected VCAT to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal instead. Three of the four links to VCAT were intended to point to the Victorian Government agency, and it returns many more Google results than the other two articles on the disambiguation page. Novakreo 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New Editor
Hi there, I've always been quite interested in how these quasi-courts operate and plan to do some editing here. Feedback welcome :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede
There are a number of issues with the lede. Based on the foundational constitutional principle of the separation of powers, it is misleading at best to suggest the Tribunal makes decisions on behalf of state government. The legislature, the executive and judiciary protect and maintain their independence to the greatest extent possible. For the same reason, I would not describe VCAT as a "government agency". Yes, it is a creature of statute, and has no originating jurisdiction that a formal Court has, but it's not a government agency in the way there is public transport (if it's not outsourced) or the FBI, or a Royal Commission etc.

Secondly, 'miscellaneous' is not the best word to describe what is now being reported as one of the largest judicial bodies (measured by annual number of applications made) in the Southern Hemisphere. Justice Stuart Morris is reported as saying "VCAT has now emerged as the principal jurisdiction for the resolution of mainstream civil disputes in Victoria".Danh108 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article structure
I would propose adding a table of contents that allows for quick referencing to the specific list areas VCAT covers (which has now increased - the present list is outdated as VCAT has continued to expand). Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of referencing
I'm not adverse to the changes made - someone knows their stuff. But pretty much no references for the whole article :'( Danh108 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted the claim about being the "busiest" tribunal - as well as no reference, it lack specificity - perhaps it would be better to state something like "receives the most applications" of any Court/Tribunal in Australia. Then there is a least no need to define 'busiest'. Also, I note the claim is directly contradicted by the website for the Magistrates Court, who claim they are the "busiest". Regards Danh108 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)