Annual Report

2012-2013

The Hon. Greg Smith, SC MPAttorney General and Minister for JusticeParliament HouseSYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Attorney

In accordance with section 26 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, I am pleased to present the 15th annual report of the Tribunal, covering the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Judge KEVIN O’CONNOR AMPresident

14 October 2013

Level 10, John Maddison Tower, 86 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW 2000Phone 02 9377 5711 Facsimile 02 9377 5723

Telephone Typewriter 02 9377 5859 www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adt

Contents

Table of Abbreviations 4

The Year(s) in Review 5

Our Objectives 10

Services to Users 11

Membership 14

The Divisions and the Appeal Panel 17

Introduction

Reports

-GeneralDivision 19

-GuardianshipandProtectedEstatesList 21

-RevenueDivision 22

-CommunityServicesDivision 24

-LegalServicesDivision 26

-EqualOpportunityDivision 29

-RetailLeasesDivision 33

-VictimsSupportDivision 36

-AppealPanel 37

Supreme Court Oversight 38

Alternative Dispute Resolution 40

Practice and Procedure 41

Appendices

AppendixAFinancialInformation 42

AppendixBListofMembers 43

AppendixCLegislation 46

AppendixDCaseLoad,TimeStandards 48

AppendixEStatistics 50

AppendixFSignificantAppealCases 59

AppendixGDecisionsorganisedintoDivisionandInternal 62andExternalAppealPanel,from1July2012

Table of Abbreviations

4

AAT AdministrativeAppealsTribunal

ACAT AustralianCapitalTerritoryCivilandAdministrativeTribunal

ADA Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

ADB Anti-DiscriminationBoard

ADT AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal

ADTAct Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

AUSTLII AustralasianLegalInformationInstitute

CCYPAct CommissionforChildrenandYoungPeopleAct1998

COAT CouncilofAustralasianTribunals

CSD CommunityServicesDivision

CCYP CommissionforChildrenandYoungPeople

DAGJ DepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice

EOD EqualOpportunityDivision

FHOGAct First Home Owners Grant Act 2000

FOI FreedomofInformation

FTT FairTradingTribunal

GIPA Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

GD GeneralDivision

GT GuardianshipTribunal

HRIPA Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002

LPA LegalProfessionAct2004

LSD LegalServicesDivision

MHRT MentalHealthReviewTribunal

NCAT NewSouthWalesCivilandAdministrativeTribunal

PPIPA Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

RD RevenueDivision

RLA RetailLeasesAct1994

RLD RetailLeasesDivision

RTT ResidentialTenanciesTribunal

QCAT QueenslandCivilandAdministrativeTribunal

SCA Supreme Court Act 1970

VCAT VictorianCivilandAdministrativeTribunal

VCT VictimsCompensationTribunal

VSD VictimsSupportDivision

The Year(s) in Review

THE YEAR(S) IN REVIEW

This will be the 15th and last annual report ofthe Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The ADTwillcloseon31December2013.Itsjurisdictionswill transfer to the New South Wales Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (NCAT) on 1 January2014, assuming passage in the Spring Session2013oftherequiredlegislation.

In the remarks that follow, I will give somepersonal reflections on the ADT’s role and workoverthelast15years.AsiscustomaryIwillalsodealwiththeyearcoveredbythisannualreport,1July2012to30June2013.

The Policy Setting of the ADT

The ADT’s creation in 1998 responded to twogovernment policies. The first embraced theneedforabettersystemfortheexternalmeritsreview of adverse government administrativedecisions. The second acknowledged the publicaccess, professional and administrative goalsserved by having small tribunal jurisdictionsbroughtintoalargerwhole.

InNSWcallsforabettersystemfortheexternalmerits appeal of administrative decisionscan be traced back to the early 1970s. Officialrecommendations to that effect issued in1972 (NSW Law Reform Commission) and1977 (Wilenski report into State governmentadministration).

The ADT Act applied to NSW governmentadministration well-established and successfulfeatures of the Commonwealth government’sadministrativelawpackage.

TheADTActrequiredtheNSWpublicserviceforthe first time toestablishasystemfor internalreviewofspecifiedadministrativedecisions,andto be transparent in the giving of reasons, andforthosereasonstomeetstatutorybenchmarks.The new law required administrators that made‘reviewabledecisions’tonotifyaffectedpeopleof their external review rights. The function ofexternal review was vested in an independenttribunalheadedbyajudge,theADT.TheADThad

all the powers of the decision-maker. Its charter required it tomakethe‘correctandpreferable’decisioninrelationtothematter.The General Division of theTribunal, the Revenue Divisionand the Community ServicesDivision carry out almost all ofthe merits review work done attheADT.

The second policy involved apartial response to deliberationsthen occurring within the NSWgovernment as to the value ofreducing the number of separate tribunals andintegratingthemintoalargerwhole.

In the end only a few of NSW’s many tribunalswere brought together into the ADT. Amongthem were three important tribunals, theLegal Services Tribunal, the Equal OpportunityTribunal and the Community Services AppealsTribunal. Their functions were transferred totheDivisionsbearing thosenames.A fewothervery small tribunals were abolished and theirwork absorbed into the General Division (forexample, school appeals, boxing appeals). Inaddition a number of administrative appealsjurisdictionshousedintheordinarycourtsweretransferred (e.g. firearms licensing appeals,passenger transport licensing appeals), andlocatedintheGeneralDivision.

The transfer of the Retail Leases Divisionto the ADT from the Commercial Tribunalwas a by-product of a similar amalgamationdiscussionthathadoccurredintheFairTradingportfolio. There the Consumer Claims Tribunaland Commercial Tribunal were merged in 1999to form the Fair Trading Tribunal (FTT). TheMinisteratthetimethebillwasbeingfinalised(whowasalsotheAttorneyGeneral,thelatetheHon. Jeff Shaw QC) considered that the retailleases jurisdiction of the Commercial TribunalwouldbebetterplacedintheADTratherthantheFTT. The Residential Tenancies Tribunal (RTT),the largest tribunal in the State at that time,

5

Judge Kevin O’Connor AM President

6

continued as a separate entity. Then in 2002the FTT and the RTT were merged to form theConsumerTraderandTenancyTribunal(CTTT).

Notably,majortribunalsoperatinginthehealthdiscipline and guardianship sectors remainedunaffectedbythesedevelopments,forexampleGuardianship Tribunal, Medical Tribunal,Nurses Tribunal, Mental Health Tribunal; as didtribunal-like decision making relating to injurycompensation, i.e. Victims Services, WorkersCompensationandMotorAccidentClaims.

The creation of NCAT mirrors similar stepsalready taken in Victoria (1998), WesternAustralia (2004), Queensland (2008) and theAustralian Capital Territory (2008), as well asGreat Britain (2007). Injury compensation andmental health review are the only significanttribunal functions to remain outside the NSWintegratedstructure.Thoseareas,asithappens,do form part of some of the super tribunalsalready mentioned. Interestingly, the recentrestructureofvictimssupportrightsinNSWwillmean thatone injurycompensation jurisdiction(presentlywiththeADT)willtransitiontoNCAT.

The ADT’s Contribution to Administrative Justice and Grievance Resolution in NSW

Iwillnotattemptanyglobalassessment.Thatisforothers.

Butsomethingsareclear.

As at 1998, the right to appeal against anadverseagencyFOIdecisionhadbeenavailableunder NSW law for nearly ten years. FOI was alandmarkreformacrossgovernmentinAustralia,starting with the Commonwealth in 1982. TheNSW appeals jurisdiction had been housed inthe District Court. Yet there was no body ofpublished court case law to guide governmentagencies, citizens or lawyers in relation to theinterpretationofkeyprovisionsoftheFOIAct;instarkcontrasttotherecordsduringthoseyearsof the Commonwealth Administrative AppealsTribunal(AAT)inrelationtotheFederalAct,andtheVictorianAATinrelationtotheVictorianAct

(commenced1983).

The ADT has published numerous decisionsrelatingtoFOI,myestimateisatleast400.Thefield now has a body of learning, informed byanumberofleadingCourtofAppealdecisions.

The various occupational licensing appealjurisdictionshadbeenhousedintheLocalCourtandtheDistrictCourt,withasimilarabsenceofguidingpublisheddecisions.

TheADT’sbodyofcaselawacrossallitsareashascontributedtopredictabilityandconsistencyinthe interpretation of a wide range of statutes.TheADThasfromthebeginningbeencommittedto the publication of its reserved decisions tothewidestaudience.

Like tribunals generally, the ADT has offereda level of accessibility not seen in the courts.Claims that might be non-viable financially inthe Supreme Court can be brought in the ADT,with itsneutralcostsruleand lessstrictness inrelationtotherulesofevidenceandadherencetocivilprocedurerules.Thispointisdemonstratedin two of the ADT’s jurisdiction that are largelyor wholly concurrent with the Supreme Court,

i.e. retail leases disputes and reviews of Staterevenue decisions. Proportionately most of thecasesineachareastartintheADT.

The ADT was the first multi-jurisdictionaltribunal in Australia to have an internalappeal tier. In 1998 this set it apart fromthe Commonwealth AAT and Victorian CivilAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT). As was typicalof tribunal statutes in the past, the right ofappeal from the Commonwealth AAT and VCATwas on a question of law to a superior court.AppealstotheADTAppealPanelcouldbemadeon a question of law, and, with the leave ofthe Panel, the appeal could be extended to themerits.Thisprovidedasimpler,moreaccessibleand less confined option than seen previously.The appeal could be made in a costs-neutralenvironmentfreefromtheproceduralstricturesofthecourts.

7

The Appeal Panel has played a significant rolein ensuring that the values of predictabilityand consistency are reflected in the work ofthe ADT. Members have been observant inapplying leading Appeal Panel rulings, and itis usual for parties to rely on them in supportof their submissions. The UK reforms includea right of internal appeal. (The eminent judgewho conducted the review leading to the UKreforms, Sir Andrew Leggatt, sat in on an ADTAppealPanelhearingduringhistriptoAustraliatoexamineAustralia’s tribunalstructures.)TherightofinternalappealisafeatureofbothQCATand ACAT, and was recommended for inclusionin VCAT by its President in his report on VCAT’sfirsttenyearsin2009.

I have made no detailed reference in thisoverview to the Equal Opportunity and LegalServices divisions. The predecessor tribunals,the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and the LegalServices Tribunal already had strong recordsin relation to transparency of processes and inproducing scholarly and influential reasons fordecisions. Both Tribunals had had leaders ofstanding,manyof thememinent judges.ThoseTribunalsbroughttotheADTabodyofmemberswith good experience, and with a reputationfor strong standards of decision-making. Thiswas to the benefit of the fledgling ADT, andhopefully the same kind of benefit will bedelivered to NCAT by those coming into it fromtheADTandtheothermajortribunals.

The Members and Staff of the ADT

The ADT’s structure has consisted of two full-time members, with the balance all sessional;togetherwitharegistrythathashadonaverageabouttenfull-timestaff.

The two full-time members throughout thelife of the ADT have been me, as President,and Magistrate Nancy Hennessy, as the full-time Deputy President. It became apparentat an early point that there needed moremembers than just we two regularly present atthe plant. For example, if we were tied up in

hearings or one of us was away, how would anurgent stay matter be handled; or who couldRegistry go to for urgent advice or attendanceto administrative requests requiring a judicialofficer’sattention.

I obtained commitments from key members toworkattheTribunalonaregularbasis.

Those members have played a key role infostering good standards in the ADT. I tookout figuresat the10yearpointof theADTthatshowedthatofthe4000decisionspublishedtothattime,2200weretheworkofsixpeople,thetwofull-timersandthefourkeypart-timers.

I take this opportunity to thank publicly thepart-time members to whom I am referring:Steve Montgomery, Sigrid Higgins, MichaelChesterman,AnneBritton(wholeftusforafull-time appointment with the Commonwealth AATin 2009 and Peter Molony (already very activeintheTribunal,whotookoverAnne’splace).

WehavebeenwellservedbyourDivisionalHeadsover the years: Community Services Division -Magistrate Nancy Hennessy (appointed 1999),Tom Kelly (2001), Anne Britton (2006) andSigrid Higgins (since 2010); Equal OpportunityDivision - Judge Helen Murrell (1998), Judge(nowJustice)MeganLatham(1999),MagistrateNancy Hennessy (since 2002); Retail LeasesDivision - Chris Rossiter (2001), MichaelChesterman (since 2003); Revenue Division- Jane Needham SC (2005), Rashelle Seiden(since2012);LegalServicesDivision-CarolineNeedhamSC(1998),theHonJohnNader(2002),her Honour Angela Karpin (2005) and the HonJusticeWayneHaylen(2008).

The Registry has had strong, experiencedleadership throughout its history. The Registryhas benefited from being able to draw into itsranks staff with wide experience in the NSWcourtandtribunalsystem.ThestaffarecalledontodealwiththediversityoftheADT’sconferralsof jurisdiction (spread over more than 100statutes),communicatethatknowledgeinaway

8

that is understood by people aggrieved, legalpractitionersandothers,anddosoinawaythathonoursthegoalsofaccessandinclusion.Theyhavemanagedthose responsibilitieswithgreatacumen, and on many occasions, with a levelof forbearance and tolerance that would testmany of us. I thank everyone who has servedin the Registry, and particularly, our foundingRegistrar, Cathy Szczygielski, her co-Registrarat a later point, Karen Wallace, the presentRegistrar, Pauline Green and her deputy,ChristineSkinner.

I pay special tribute to two people, LynneWatsonandNancyHennessy.

Lynne has been my friendly, perceptive andever-calm Associate over the life of the ADT,continuing a connection which commenced in1989 when she joined the staff of the FederalPrivacyoffice.

Nancy joined the ADT in 1999 from theCommunityServicesAppealsTribunalwhereshewas the part-time head. Her first appointmentwas as part-time Deputy President andDivisional Head of the Community ServicesDivision. InMarch2001shebecameafull-timeDeputy President, and in November 2002 wasappointed a Magistrate, and remained with theTribunal. She has been a key reason for anysuccesstheADThasenjoyed.

The Latest Year in Review

TheADTreceived841newprimaryfilingsinthelast year, 115 less than the previous year. TheDivisional variations are as follows: General:396 - 25 more; CSD: 34 - 8 less; RD: 91 - 47less;EOD:112-63less;RLD:175-24less;LSD:33 - one less. There were 66 appeals filed; 47internaland19external.

The primary filings intake is the lowest in thelast ten years. On the other hand, disposalswerehighduringthelastyear,at937inthecaseofprimaryfilings,and69inthecaseofappeals.

The interaction of the two factors, lowerintake, high disposal rate, has led to furtherimprovement in the ADT’s turnaround times.The average disposal rate across the ADT is 29weeks. This is a very good result, and closeto the 26 weeks (6 months) mark that I see asthe benchmark for a tribunal with the kind ofbusinesstheADThandles.

Four Divisions have disposal rates at or under29weeks(General,CSD,RLDandEOD),andtwoexceed it – LSD: 42 weeks; Revenue Division:48 weeks. The Revenue Division has in factcleared more cases than it received in the lastyear. The weak average is partly a function ofthesignificantdropinfilingsgiventheformulathatisusedtocalculatedisposaltime(pendingbusiness divided by registrations). If thelower filing rate continues then a significantimprovement in the disposal time can beexpectedoverthenextfewmonths.

TheLSD’sdisposaltimerepresentsasignificantimprovement-thebest in itshistoryaspartoftheTribunal.Itreflectsinparttheconclusionofcases involving multiple applications affectingpartnersinthesamefirm.

The Addition of the Victims Support Division

TheADTacquiredanewDivisionon3June2013as a result of the passage of victims supportreformlegislation,theVictimsSupportDivisionreplacing the Victims Compensation Tribunal.A fuller account of its functions is given in theDivisionalreport.

Initially all business pending at the date ofrepeal of the old law (3 June 2013) has beentransferred to the ADT for disposal. In duecourse the ADT will receive review applicationscommenced under the new law. VSD decisionsarenotappealabletotheAppealPanel.

The VSD’s inaugural Divisional Head was MrBrian Lulham, a retired magistrate, who sat asthe VCT under the old law. Mr Lulham resignedfor personal reasons on 17 September 2013.We thank Brian for his assistance to the ADT inmanagingthetransition.

9

IshouldexplainthatthestatisticaltablesinthisreportdonotpresentandanalyseVSDfilingsinthewayseenfortheotherDivisions.Therewillbe comprehensive statistics, I expect, in thefirstNCATannualreport.

NCAT Developments

I will not report at length here on this subject.There is a dedicated web site managed by theNCAT project team that covers the details.NCAT will commence on 1 January 2014. Theoverallprocess isbeingoverseenbyasteeringcommitteemadeupofseniorofficersofthekeydepartments, serviced by a four person projectteam, below which lies a consultative structurethat includes heads of existing tribunals andrepresentativeofsomeusergroups.

The first NCAT Act passed in February 2013,established the governance structure of NCAT.NCAT has four Divisions. Two cover the areaoccupied by the Guardianship Tribunal and theConsumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, andbear names reflecting that background. On theother hand, the ADT is not continued in thisway. The ADT’s areas are spread across threeDivisions,namelytheAdministrativeandEqualOpportunity Division (AEOD), the Occupationaland Regulatory Division (ORD), and theConsumer and Commercial Division (CCD). TheADT’sretailleasesjurisdictiongoestotheCCD,the ADT’s professional discipline jurisdictions(legal profession, veterinary practitioners,architects, registered surveyors, accreditedcertifiers) and occupational licensing reviewfunctionsgototheORD,whiletheremainderoftheADT’sworkgoestotheAEOD.

ThemainNCATActisawaited.Itwillcoveritskeyoperational features – practice and procedure,membership, composition of panels, variationsbetween classes of business, rights of appeal,costs,legalrepresentation.

NCAT will provide a clear ‘fourth pillar’ in theNSW courts and tribunals system – the otherpillars being the Supreme Court, the District

Court and the Local Court. If the interstateprecedents are any guide, it should mean thatNCAT will have a clear place and voice in anintegrated,collegiatejusticesystem.Asisseenin the interstate precedents, that should meanthat it will be able to draw on the professionaleducation resources and the complaint-handling expertise of the Judicial Commission.NCATitselfwillfurnishanenvironmentinwhichbetter levels of professional development andwork variety will be available to members,especiallyfull-timelawyermembers.NCATwillhave a State-wide footprint in a way that hasnotbeentrueofsome,atleast,oftheincomingtribunals. It will, hopefully, have front ofhouse practices that are simple for people toaccess and to understand. As is seen in theinterstate precedents, the challenge remainsto combine the community benefits of unifiedadministrative structures with the need tohandle different streams of dispute in the waybestsuited to theeffective resolutionof thosedisputes.

JudgeKevinO’Connor,AMPresidentOctober2013

10

The Tribunal’s objectives are set out in theobjects clause of the legislation establishingthe Tribunal, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the ADT Act”). Section 3states:

3. Objects of Act

TheobjectsofthisActareasfollows:

(a)to establish an independent AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal:

(i) to make decisions at first instancein relation to matters over which it isgivenjurisdictionbyanenactment,and

(ii) to review decisions made byadministrators where it is givenjurisdiction by an enactment to do so,and

(iii)to exercise such other functions as areconferred or imposed on it by or underthisoranyotherActorlaw,

(b)ensure that the Tribunal is accessible, itsproceedings are efficient and effective anditsdecisionsarefair,

(c)to enable proceedings before the Tribunalto be determined in an informal andexpeditiousmanner,

(d)to provide a preliminary process for theinternal review of reviewable decisionsbefore the review of such decisions by theTribunal,

(e)torequireadministratorsmakingreviewabledecisions to notify persons of decisionsaffectingthemandofanyreviewrightstheymighthaveandtoprovidereasonsfor theirdecisionsonrequest,

(f) to foster an atmosphere in whichadministrative review is viewed positivelyas a means of enhancing the delivery ofservicesandprograms,

(g)to promote and effect compliance byadministrators with legislation enacted byParliamentforthebenefitofthecitizensofNewSouthWales.

Our Objectives

11

The Tribunal is committed to providing aforum accessible to all users. This includes acommitment to ensuring that proceedings arefair,informal,efficientandeffective.

Location and facilities

The Tribunal is located at the 10th floor, JohnMaddison Tower, 86 Goulburn Street, Sydney.TheTribunalmovedto thisbuilding inOctober,2011. There were numerous problems with thefitout,mostnowresolved.Theissuesnotedlastyearremain,andhopefullywillbeaddressedintheNCATenvironment.

Remote users and regional access

The Tribunal seeks to be accessible to remoteusers and those users who cannot attend theTribunalforotherreasons.

TheTribunalroutinelysitsoutsideSydneywhenoneormorepartiesliveinaregionalarea.PanelsoftheTribunalsatoutsideSydney75daysinthelast year. The usual venue for regional sittingsisat the localcourthouse.During theyear, theTribunal sat at Queanbeyan, Armidale, TweedHeads, Newcastle, Dubbo, Gosford, Orange,Ballina, Port Macquarie, Lithgow, Lismore,Albury, Bathurst, Parkes, Cowra, Tamworth,Toronto,WaggaWagga,EastMaitland.

TheLegalServicesDivisionof theTribunalalsosits at the Industrial Relations Commissionpremises in Sydney. (The Divisional Head is ajudgeoftheIndustrialRelationsCourt.)

Where appropriate the Tribunal also allowspartiestoappearbyphoneorvideolink,ratherthaninperson.

At the directions and interlocutory stages, atleast one party uses a telephone link in abouta third of cases. Often both parties use atelephonelink.Suburbanandcountryresidentsandlegalpractitionerswelcomethisfacility.

TheADThasahearingroomequippedwithvideolinkfacilities.

Access by persons with disabilities

The Tribunal’s disability access features wereoutlinedinlastyear’sreport.Duringthecurrentyear, signage has been installed to notify thepublic clearly of the presence of surveillancecamerasandofhearingloopfacilities.

Website

TheADTsitewasupdatedinApril,2012.ThesitehaslinkstoADTlegislationandrules,dailylawlists and published decisions. It also providesinformation about each Division includingGuidelines, Practice Notes and standard forms.An electronic version of all Annual Reports canbeaccessedonline.

Openness

The Tribunal, being a judicial body, sits andhears most cases in public. All hearings arenotified in the newspaper and are open to thepublic unless special orders are made to closethem.

Mosthearingsareconductedwithoutrestrictionastopublicationofnamesorotherinformation.Where appropriate, the Tribunal may decide tosuppressthenamesofpartiesorwitnessesand/orthecontentofevidence.

Services to Users

12

Publication of Decisions

The Tribunal’s policy is to publish on theinternet all reserved decisions and selectedoral decisions. Wide dissemination ofdecisions promotes understanding of theTribunal’sroleandreasoning,andcontributesto a consistent, predictable approach to themakingofdecisions.

Comprehensive publication of the Tribunal’sdecisions is undertaken by the Departmentof Attorney General and Justice (DAGJ) on itsCaselaw NSW website at www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au.

Comprehensive publication also occurs onthe AUSTLII (Australasian Legal InformationInstitute)websiteatwww.austlii.edu.au.

AnumberofspecialistreportingservicescoverrelevantdecisionsoftheTribunal.

During the reporting period, the Tribunalpublished in this way 361 decisions made upof:

• 56AppealPaneldecisions

• 305Divisionaldecisions.

Caselaw system

The new Caselaw website commenced on 1January 2011. Until the end of 2010 not onlywere Tribunal’s decisions presented in acollective format (alphabetical, and by casenumber), they were also presented underDivisionheadingsandAppealPanelheadings.The later feature has been lost. Last year’sreport noted the negative impact that thischange has had on the presentation to thepublicoftheTribunal’soutput.

Registry Report

The Registry has ten positions, including theRegistrarandDeputyRegistrar.

Registrystaffworkinsmallteamsspecialisingin case management, client services andsupport services. In order to develop andmaintainindividualskills,officersarerotatedbetweentheteams.

TheRegistryprovidesthefollowingservices:

• enquiries;

• registrations;

• managementoflistings;

• support services for part-time membersand,ifrequired,hearingroomassistance;

• remuneration and other administrativesupportforpart-timemembers;

• maintenance of the Tribunal’s website;and

• preparation and uploading of writtendecisions.

A separate position of Research Associate to

the President provides legal and researchsupport for the President, the full-timeDeputyPresidentandmembersgenerally.

Pauline Green Registrar

13

Staff development

Staff receive training through the DAGJ’sLearning and Development Unit and throughattendance at conferences and seminars.Staff also receive in-house training on newlegislation and procedural changes. All staffprepare an Achievement Plan, which is used asa tool to identify opportunities for individualofficers to develop and consolidate the skillsthey require to effectively deliver services tomembersandTribunalusers.

Budget and financial information

The Tribunal is an independent statutory bodywhich for budgetary purposes is a businesscentre within the DAGJ. The Tribunal has threesourcesoffunds:

• GovernmentRevenue,

• PublicPurposeFundand

• RetailLeaseBondInterestAccount.

TheDAGJprovidesthegovernmentfunding.

TheTrusteesofthePublicPurposeFundprovidefunds to meet the cost of operating the LegalServices Division of the Tribunal. The PublicPurposeFundisderivedfrominterestearnedonsolicitors’clients’fundsheldincompulsorytrustaccountdepositsundertheLegal Profession Act 2004.

The third source of funds is the interest frombonds held by the Director General of theDepartment of Trade and Investment, RegionalInfrastructureandServicesonbehalfoftenantsunder the Retail Leases Act 1994. The moneyreceived from the Interest Account is used tomeet the cost of operating the Retail Leases

DivisionoftheTribunal.

AppendixAisasummaryfinancialstatementforthereportingyear.TheDAGJ’sannualreportwillalsoincludeabudgetreport.

Themembershiphasthreecategories:

• presidential judicial members, i.e. thePresidentandtheDeputyPresident,usuallydescribedbythelattertitles;

• non-presidential judicialmembers,usuallydescribedbythetitle‘judicialmember’;and

• non-judicial members, known by thatdescription.

Asat30June2013,therewere:

• 9presidentialmembers;

• 30judicialmembers;

• 54non-judicialmembers.

AllmembersexceptforthePresidentandoneoftheDeputyPresidentserveonasessionalbasis.Wehavestandingarrangementswithtwoofthejudicial members to serve for a fixed numberof days each week. Most of the presiding anddecision-writing work is done by a small groupofmembers,namelythetwofull timemembers- the President, full-time Deputy PresidentHennessy,andthefollowingpart-timemembers- Deputy President Higgins and Chesterman,and part-time Judicial Members Montgomery

andMolony.

The Appeal Panel and some Divisions (notably,the Legal Services Division, the EqualOpportunity Division and the CommunityServices Division) normally hear cases in theformofmulti-memberpanels.Ontheotherhandthe General Division and the Revenue Divisionnormallyhaveasinglememberhearthematter.

Retirements from the Tribunal

Members to retire during the reporting period,who we thank for their service, were: DeputyPresident, the Hon Rodney Magdwick QC;JudicialMember,JulianMillar;andNon-JudicialMember,GrahamMallison.

In addition Judicial Member Gail FurnessSC, resigned in February 2013, followingher appointment as counsel assisting theCommonwealth Royal Commission intoInstitutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.We congratulate her on her appointment, andacknowledge the substantial contributionshe made to the work of the Tribunal in itsadministrative review and equal opportunityjurisdictionsoverseveralyears.

Soon after the end of the reporting period,JudicialMemberandMediator,CarolynHuntsmanresignedinJuly2013totakeupanappointmentasajudicialofficer,thatofMagistrate.ShehadbeenasignificantcontributortotheworkoftheTribunalinrecentyears.

New Appointments

Deputy President: Rashelle Seiden, DivisionalHead,RevenueDivision;BrianLulham,DivisionalHead, Victims Support Division, (commenced 3June2013;resigned17September2013).

Judicial Members: Geoffrey de Q. Walker andNormanIsenberg,RevenueDivision

Non-Judicial Members: Peta Drake and MattFoldi,AdvisoryMembers,RetailLeasesDivision;Kim Turner, Community Member, VeterinaryDisciplineList.

14

Membership

15

Annual Conference

The Tribunal held its annual members’conference on 16 November 2012 at SydneyMasonic Centre. This is the Tribunal’s majorcollegiate event, and most of the Tribunal’smembersattended.

After opening remarks by the Attorney Generaland Minister for Justice, the Hon Greg SmithSC MP, Justice Anna Katzmann of the FederalCourt delivered the keynote address on‘Confidentiality,PrivacyandOpenJustice’.

A sparkling array of speakers addressed thelater plenary sessions: Professor Michael Leggon ‘TribunalsandSocialMedia:Tweets,Emails,Blogs: Case Management and EvidentiaryIssues’; the internationally renowned anti-gun campaigner Rebecca Peters on ‘Towards aSafer Society: The Domestic and InternationalGun Control Debate’; and ‘Tribunals and theMass Media: Openness and Seclusion’, a panelcomprisingJulianDisney,ChairoftheAustralianPress Council, Bernard Lagan, journalist,and John McAteer, Deputy NSW PrivacyCommissioner.

The Divisional break-out sessions includingpresentations by Anina Johnson, then of theCSO, with an administrative law update, JudgeRoger Dive of the Drug Court on therapeuticjurisprudence and Marcel Savary, Courts PolicyManager, DAGJ on national harmonisation ofprofessionaldisciplineregimes.

Council of Australasian Tribunals

Tribunal service in Australia is carried on by awidearrayoffull-timeandpart-timemembers,withadiversityofskillsandbackgrounds.COATis the umbrella professional organisation fortribunalmembersinAustraliaandNewZealand.The ADT President, Judge Kevin O’Connor, hasbeen a member of the committee of the StateChapterofCOATsinceitsinceptionin2002,andserved as convener of the Chapter from 2007-2011.HeservedonthenationalexecutiveoftheCOATduringthelatterperiod.

COATNSWconductstwomajorcollegiateeventseach year - the annual conference and theWhitmore Lecture. Fifteen members of theADT attended the COAT NSW conference heldon Friday 14 September 2012 on the theme‘The Tribunal Skill Set’. Don Watson, notedwriter on politics, plain English and sometimespeechwriter to a Prime Minister, gave thekeynote address on ‘Plain English DecisionWriting’. Other speakers at the conferenceincluded Dr Wendy Hu on the art and scienceof diagnosis, Kate Eastman SC on privacy lawanddecision-makingandapanelof judgesand

tribunal members, led by retired Justice KevinLindgrenonbiasandthequestionof ‘to recuseornottorecuse?’.

16

2012 ADT Members Conference

RebeccaPeters

AninaJohnsonMarcelSavary

MichaelLegg

17

Following the addition of the Victims SupportDivision on 3 June 2013, the ADT has sevenDivisionsandanAppealPanel.

TheADTActdividestheworkoftheTribunalintotwocategories:

· the‘reviewofreviewabledecisions’;and

· themakingof‘originaldecisions’.

The first category covers those administrativedecisions made by a public body such as a

government agency or a Minister affectingcitizens in an individual way that are declared‘reviewable’bytheTribunal.

Theterm‘originaldecision’referstoanymatterwhere the Tribunal is specified as the maker ofthefirst legally-bindingdecisiononthematterof controversy. Applications heard in the EODand the RLD fall into this category. They areanalogoustocivilsuits.

An alternative way of dividing the business ofthe Tribunal is into its two major streams - the‘administrative’ or ‘public law’ functions; andthe‘civil’or‘privatelaw’functions.

Professionaldisciplinestructurestypicallyhavetwotiers.Thelowertierisusuallyempoweredtomake orders short of deregistration in relationto conduct that amounts to unsatisfactoryprofessional conduct. The upper tier is giventhe wider power to deregister for professional

misconduct, in addition to the powers open tothelowertier.Often,butnotalways,uppertierproceedings must be commenced in a publictribunal. When proceedings are commenced inthiswayintheADTtheyfallwithinthe‘original’jurisdiction, whereas appeals (‘reviews’) ofdisciplinary decisions taken by bodies that aremore internal to the profession fall within the‘review’jurisdiction.

The mixing of administrative review functionsand other determinative functions in the onetribunal is possible under State law but isunconstitutional under Commonwealth law.Under Commonwealth law ‘judicial functions’can only be carried out by courts, and courtscan only be constituted by judges. Reviewof administrative decisions is regarded as‘non-judicial’andthereforecanbedonebynon-courts,andthereforehave in thehearingpanelnon-judgeandnon-lawyermembers.Asaresultin Commonwealth tribunals these two speciesof activity cannot reside in the same house. Anillustration of this difference is that a federalequal opportunity case can only be heard by acourt,whereastheuseofanmixedlawyer/non-lawyer panel in a case brought under State lawasseenattheADTispermitted.

The Divisions and theAppeal Panel

From left : Deputy Presidents Brian Lulham, Sigrid Higgins, Rashelle Seiden, Michael Chesterman, President Kevin O’Connor, Deputy Presidents Wayne Haylen, Nancy Hennessy (As at 30 June 2013).

18

Divisions and Appeal Panel: Outline

Administrative or ‘public law’ divisions

· GD:operative6October1998.ThisDivisionhears most applications by citizens forthe review of administrative decisionsor administrative conduct. Disciplinarymatters, whether original applications orreview applications, not involving lawyersareheardinthisDivision;

· CSD:operative1January1999.ThisDivisionhears applications for review of variousadministrativedecisionsmadeintheFamilyand Community Services portfolio and forexemption from a statutory prohibitionon being engaged in child-relatedemployment;

· RD: operative 1 July 2001. This Divisionhears applications for review of variousStatetaxationdecisions;

· LSD: operative 6 October 1998. ThisDivision hears complaints against legalpractitioners;and

· VSD: operative 3 June 2013. This Divisionundertakes reviews of certain injurycompensation decisions made by theCommissionerofVictimsRights.

The Civil or ‘private law’ divisions

· EOD: operative 6 October 1998. ThisDivision hears complaints of unlawfuldiscrimination, harassment, victimisationandvilification;and

· RLD: operative 1 March 1999. This Divisionhearsclaimsbypartiestoretailshopleases.

Appeal Panel

The Tribunal’s upper tier, the Appeal Panel,hears‘internal’appealsagainstdecisionsbytheDivisions of the Tribunal and ‘external’ appealsagainst certain decisions by the GuardianshipTribunal (‘GT’) and the Mental Health ReviewTribunal.

19

· PresidentoftheADTsince1998

· Judge,DistrictCourtofNSWsince1998

· DeputyChair,InterpolDataProtectionCommittee,Lyon2005-11

· LawReformCommissioner,NSW(part-time),2007-2010

· Chairperson-FairTradingTribunal1999-2001;CommercialTribunal1997-98

· InauguralFederalPrivacyCommissionerandCommissioner,AustralianHumanRightsCommission1988-1996

ThePresident isalsotheDivisionalHeadof theGeneralDivision.

Case Load

The General Division has the largest caseloadof the Tribunal’s various Divisions. It mainlyhandles applications for review of adverseadministrative decisions. There are two mainstreams – reviews of decisions affectingoccupational and related licences (e.g. taxidriversauthorities,towtruckdriverauthorities,security guard licences, firearms licences,building trades licences), and reviews relatingto information rights in relation to accessto government documents or protection ofpersonal information. There are some otherspecial jurisdictions, for example applicationsfor dismissal of elected councillors from civicoffice.

The General Division houses the professionaldisciplinejurisdictionsotherthanlegalservicesdiscipline (i.e. veterinary practitioners,architects, registered surveyors, accredited

certifiers); and also deals with applications forreview of decisions made by the NSW Trusteeand Guardian in its capacity as appointedguardianorfinancialmanager(thereisasectiondealingwitheachareaelsewhereinthisreport).

In 2012-13 the Division received 396applications (46% of the Tribunal’s intake), anincreaseof25overlastyears.Theywerespreadacross 25 statutes. During the year there were387 disposals. There were 213 pending mattersatyear’send.

There were 206 filings in the occupational andrelated stream, an increase of 30 over lastyear, but in line with the figure two years ago.There were 149 filings in the information lawstream,onelessthanlastyear.Itwouldappearthat filings in this category of business havesettled at around this level, now more thantwo years since the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009(GIPA)commenced(itreplaced the FOI Act). This stream divided into96GIPAfilingsand53privacyfilings(40underPPIPA,13underHRIPA.Thisdistributionpatternisverysimilartolastyear.

The main further category is the trustee reviewfilings, of which there were 20 (see separatereport).

Case Management

Two case management processes are usedin the Division. All information law reviewapplications go to a case conference processknown as planning meetings. These usuallysucceedineitherresolvingthedisputeentirelyor narrowing its scope. Other applications forreview go to a directions hearing, and in mostinstances there is only one event of this kind,at which a timetable is set which providesfor exchange of submissions and relevantmaterialbetweenthepartiesandfixesthedatefor hearing. The President and the full-timeDeputy President alternate in presiding at thefortnightly directions list. These procedureshave contributed to a good record of timelydisposalintheDivisionovermanyyears.

The General Division

Judge Kevin O’Connor AM President

20

Timeliness

The average disposal time for a matter in theGeneral Division therefore is 28 weeks, thesameaslastyear.Thisisinlinewiththehistoricpattern in the Division. It is good given thevarietyandcomplexityofthework.MayIagainthanktheDivision’smembersfortheireffortsinachievingthisoutcome.

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

General Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

21

Guardianship and Protected Estates List

Deputy President Hennessy manages theGuardianshipandProtectedEstatesList.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appealsfrom certain decisions of Magistrates, theGuardianship Tribunal and the Mental HealthReview Tribunal. These appeals are known asexternalappealsbecausetheyareappealsfrombodiesotherthantheTribunal.TheTribunalalsohasjurisdictiontohearappealsfrom:

1.decisions of Magistrates relating toDependency Certificates under the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act2007;

2.certain decisions made by the GuardianshipTribunal under the Guardianship Act 1987including:

• reviewing the appointment of, orreplacing,anenduringguardian

• making or reviewing a guardianshiporder

• making or reviewing a financialmanagement order, reviewing theappointmentofafinancialmanager;and

• giving directions about a guardian’sfunctions.

3.decisions of the Mental Health ReviewTribunal(MHRT)madeundertheNSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 that the estate of apersonbesubjecttofinancialmanagement.

ThisListalsomanagesmeritsreviewapplicationsheardatfirstinstanceintheGeneralDivisionfor:

• review of decisions of the NSW Trusteein connection with the exercise of theNSWTrustee’sfunctionswhenmanagingestates;

• review of decisions of the NSW Trusteein relation to the functions of a personappointedasamanager;and

• review of decisions of the PublicGuardianinconnectionwiththeexerciseof the Public Guardian’s functions as aguardian.

Three member panels with specialist expertisein this area hear external appeals. Usually first

instancereviewsareheardbyajudicialmemberwithspecialknowledgeofthearea.Sometimesasecond(non-judicial)membersits,forexamplean actuary with expertise in the long-termadministrationoflargeestates.

Case Load

External Appeals

As at 30 June 2012, there were four externalappeals pending. During the year 19 newappeals were lodged, 17 from decisions of theGuardianship Tribunal and two from decisionsof Magistrates under the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act 2007. Nineteen appeals werefinalised, leaving four appeals pending atthe end of the year. The two appeals fromMagistrates were withdrawn without a hearing.Of the 17 appeals from decisions of theGuardianship Tribunal, ten were dismissed andeight were withdrawn. In one case the AppealPaneldecidedthatitdidnothavejurisdiction.

Timeliness

The time standards for appeals is 80% to befinalised in 6 months and 100% in 12 months.Thosetimestandardswereexceededas100%ofappealsweredisposedofinlessthan6months.

Review Decisions

As at 30 June 2012, there were four reviewapplications pending. During the year 19applications were lodged and 19 were finalisedleaving four review applications pending at theendoftheyear.

Of the 19 applications that were finalised, theadministrator’sdecisionwassetasideorvariedinonecaseandaffirmedin8cases.Intheother10 cases, the matter was dismissed for variousreasonseitherwithorwithoutahearing.

Timeliness

The time standard for merits review decisionsis that 85% should be finalised in less than 6months and 100% in less than a year. Thosestandardsweremet.Seventeenof thenineteen(89%)tooklessthan6monthstocomplete.Theremaining two matters (11%) took between 6and12monthstocomplete.

22

•Barristersince

1996

•Director,Barristers’SicknessandAccidentFundPtyLtd

•Member,RevenueListUsersGroup,SupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,2010–2012

•Member,BarAssociationProfessionalConductCommittee,2010-2013

•Member,BarAssociationMediationCommittee,2006-2007

The Divisional Head is Rashelle Seiden, abarristerwhospecialisesinrevenuelaw.

Case Load

ThecaseloadoftheRevenueDivisiondecreasedfrom 138 filings last year to 91 filings thisyear. The decrease has mainly resulted from asignificantdropinlandtaxdisputes(downfrom69to31)andinfirsthomeownergrantdisputes(downfrom19 to7,an expecteddeclinedue tothephasingoutofthatlegislation).Theaveragedisposal time has extended to 48 weeks. Theclearance rate for the last year has been betterthan 100%. As noted by the President in theforewordtothisreport,thedisposalrateshouldimprovemarkedlyinthenextyear.

Insomeinstancesthedelayindisposalisduetothefactualandlegalcomplexityofsomematters,in particular land tax disputes where expertevidence is often relied upon and payroll taxdisputes. Further, the preliminary conferencesystemwhichwasintroducedtoidentifymatterswhich could be resolved expeditiously withoutthe need for a hearing, has led to some delays

withmattersbeingreferredbacktothedecisionmakerorpartiesdelayingcommencingevidencepreparation. Nevertheless, the preliminaryconference system continues to benefit theparties, in particular unrepresented litigants. Anewpracticeguidelinehasissuedwithaviewtoeliminatingunneededdelaysintheseprocesses.

Themes and Issues

The main categories of business continue to belandtaxdisputesandpayrolltaxdisputes.

Inthecaseoflandtaxthemainareasofdisputeconcern the interpretation and application ofthe primary place of residence exemption andthe primary production exemption. The lawdistinguishes between land zoned rural andother land. The primary production use mustmeetacommercialitystandardinallcaseswheretheexemptionisclaimedfornon-ruralland.Thecommerciality issue has been the source of agood deal of litigation in the Tribunal and theSupremeCourtinrecentyears.

With respect to payroll tax the main areas ofdispute concern grouping of entities. A groupcan only utilise the non-tax threshold once.

ThereforebusinessesseenbytheCommissionerasgroupedoftencontestthatfindingorrequesttheexerciseofdiscretiontopermitde-grouping.

Revenue Division

Deputy PresidentRashelle Seiden

23

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Revenue Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

Applicants for review in the Revenue Divisionare required to satisfy an onus of proof inrelation the factual basis upon which theyassert their entitlement to special treatmentas compared to other taxpayers, by way of anexemptionorconcession.Thebalanceistippedagainst a taxpayer in a way not seen in theTribunal’sothermeritsreviewjurisdictionwherethe Tribunal simply has regard to all relevantmaterial with fixed onus of proof requirementsfalling on review applicants. This differenceanditsconsequenceswascanvassedinarecentAppealPaneldecision,Cornish Investments Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue(RD)[2013]NSWADTAP25

The Court of Appeal decisions affecting theRevenue Division in the last year are reviewedlaterinthisannualreport.

24

Community Services Division

•Part-timeJudicial

MemberoftheADTsince2001,DeputyPresidentsince2010

•Barristersince1999

•Part-timeMemberDefenceHonoursandAwardsAppealsTribunalsince2008

•PatentandTradeMarksAttorneysDisciplinaryTribunal2005–2012

•ExecutiveSecretary,InternationalCommissionofJurists,Geneva,1995-1997

•Manager,FairTradingDivision,NewZealandCommerceCommission,1991-1994

The Divisional Head is part-time DeputyPresidentSigridHiggins.

Structure and Functions

The Division has both a merits review andoriginal decision-making function. Theoriginal decision-making function pertains toapplicationsforchild-relatedworkdeclarationssought under the CCYP Act by persons withproscribedcriminaloffencehistories.

The merits review function is wide-ranging,and allows people affected by many types ofadministrative decisions in the family andcommunity services portfolio and the ageingand disability portfolio to apply for review. Adetailedlistappearsinpreviousannualreports.

Case Load

Thirty-four new applications were filed duringtheyear.Thisrepresents4%oftheADT’sintake.

Therewere11applications in theADT’s originaljurisdiction for a declaration under the CCYPAct. The other 23 applications sought review ofa reviewable decision. The Division finalised46 applications, clearing a backlog from theprevious year, and returning the Division’saverage disposal time to 22 weeks, in line withthegoodrateseenovermostpreviousyears.

Mediation continues to be used to resolvedisputes involving decisions about authorisedcarers and the child(ren) in their care. Eightreviewapplications werereferredtomediationand of these, five applications settled atmediationandtwosettledafterthemediation.

Review Jurisdiction: New Regime

The child-related employment declarationjurisdiction has been restructured: see theChild Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012.Thefeaturesofmostsignificanceforchildprotection is theexpansionof thosecoveredtoinclude volunteers, and the requirement thatall people working with children must receivea clearance. All of these people must in futureobtain a clearance check from the Children’sGuardian unless they are ‘disqualified’ byreasonofaproscribedcriminalhistory.

AdisqualifiedpersonmayapplytotheTribunalforan ‘enablingorder’. Anapplicationforsuchan order is akin to an order under the repealeds33IoftheCCYPAct. Inadditionapersonwhois the subject of an adverse decision of theChildren’s Guardian may apply to the ADT forreview.

Deputy PresidentSigrid Higgins

25

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Community Services Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

Withoutgoingintothedetailhere,wenotethatsome uncertainty surrounds the question ofwhether home based carers still have a right toapplyforreviewofanadversedecisionbyalocalcouncil refusing them registration to operatesuch a service. The uncertainty arises from thetermsofthenewlawscoveringthisarea.

26

· JudgeoftheIndustrialCourtsince2001

· Barrister1976-2001;QC,1991

· Part-timeDeputyPresidentofADTsince2008

· Previously,Chair,RacingAppealsTribunal;Chair,AustralianConsumersAssociation;Member,NSWPrivacyCommittee.

TheHon.JusticeWayneHaylenoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWalesisHeadoftheLSDandisapart-timeDeputyPresident.

Structure and functions

TheDivisionhearsprofessionaldisciplinecasesrelating to the conduct of legal practitioners.Applicationsfororiginalfindingsandordersmaybe made by the Bar Council, the Law Society orthe Legal Services Commissioner. Practitionersmay apply for review of internal disciplinarydecisions made by the relevant committees oftheBarCouncilandtheLawSociety.TheDivisionmay also hear and determine client claimsfor compensation arising from misconduct,practitioner applications to allow employmentintheirpracticeofpersonswithconvictionsforseriousoffences.

Hearings in the Division are conducted bya panel of three members comprising twojudicial members and a non-judicial memberfrom the general community. A senior judicialmemberpresidesandthehearingsarenormallyconducted in public. The presiding member inmany cases is a judge (the Divisional Head) orone of the Deputy Presidents who is a formerjudge. In addition, the Supreme Court has aninherent jurisdiction to control and disciplinelocal lawyers. The Division, like the SupremeCourt, has available to it a wide range ofsanctionsformisconduct.

Case Load

Duringthereportingyear33matterswerefiledand 57 finalised. This has led to a substantialimprovement in the Division’s clearance rate,tothebestinitshistoryaspartoftheADT.Theaverage disposal time is now 42 weeks. Thisoutcome follows a concerted effort over recentyears to improve case management proceduresand to ensure that matters were allocated ahearing date in a prompt and timely way. TheTribunal has previously recognised that thereare legitimate reasons that may cause delay(including, appeals or related appeals in asimilar matter, intervening illness or obtainingexpert evidence) but delays of this nature arerelatively rare. The Tribunal will continue tocloselymonitorthecasemanagementofmattersto ensure that the recent good results are builtupon.

Disciplinary outcomes

The33mattersfiled inthepastyearall relatedto solicitors, there were no filings this yearrelatingtobarristers.Therewere21applicationsfor disciplinary orders, ranging from orders forstrikingoff(deregistration),toreprimandsandcompensation orders; as well as 2 applicationsforreviewofadisciplinarydecision.Theyother10mattersweremadeup

5 applications for employment of employmentof convicted persons (LPA s 18), 4 applicationsfor approval of lay associates with convictions(LPA s 17), and one application for removal ofsuspensionofapractisingcertificate.

In summary, the 57 matters disposed of duringtheyearresultedin15practitionershavingtheirnames removed from the Roll (deregistration).There were 21 practitioners the subject ofreprimands, and 15 the subject of fines. NinehadconditionsimposedontheirrighttopractiseandinonecasetheTribunalthepractitionerwasordered to undertake further legal education.(It istobenotedthatmultipleordersaffectingthesamepractitionerweremadeinsomecases.)In the reporting year, no orders were maderequiringapractitionertopaycompensation.

Legal Services Division

Deputy President, the Honourable Justice

Wayne Haylen

27

Significant Decisions

There were two successful practitioner appealsto the Court of Appeal against decisions of theDivision, each dealing with important points ofprinciple.

Last year’s report referred to the decisions inrelated cases involving the same firm wheregross overcharging was proven and findingsof professional misconduct entered: Legal Services Commissioner v Keddie [2012]NSWADT 106 (removal from the Roll) andLegal Services Commissioner v Scroope [2012]NSWADT 107 (reprimand, fine of $5000). MrScroopewasanemployeeinMrKeddie’sfirm.Inboth cases the practitioners had admitted thatgross overcharging had occurred. The evidencedemonstrated that office practices wereinadequately supervised such that numerousentries were made on the bill without clearlyindicating the appropriate level of charge-outand there was virtually no checking of whetherwork was indeed performed or, appropriatelyperformed.Therewerealsootherpracticesthatledtogrossovercharging.

Mr Scroope appealed against the finding ofprofessional misconduct and the fine whichrelatedtothebillhesenttoaparticularclient.The Court of Appeal reduced the finding to oneof unsatisfactory professional conduct, andreduced the fine to $2000: Scroope v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] NSWCA 178. TheCourt accepted that overcharging and over-servicingaclientwasaseriousmatterbutnotedthat the practitioner was only to be disciplinedfor wrongful conduct: it was the underlyingconduct upon which the charge was based thatdetermined the proper characterisation of theconduct.Inmitigationofthesolicitor’sconduct,the court noted that the firm’s billing systemwas seriously deficient and over which thepractitioner had no control: a significant causeof the inaccuracies in the bill was the entirelyinadequate computerised system operated bythefirm.

Thecourtnotedthatthebillhadbeenapprovedby the supervising partner but, nevertheless,the appellant should have realised that someentries were inappropriate and warrantedfurther consideration considering the size ofthe bill and the admission that it representedapproximately63%morethantheclientshouldhave been charged. In failing to be astuteto the possibility of overcharging in thesecircumstances, the practitioner was found tohaveallowedabilltobeforwardedtotheclientwith the serious deficiencies reflected in thechargedallegation.

Considered against all the background, theconductamountedtounsatisfactoryprofessionalconductratherthanprofessionalmisconduct.Interms of overall principle, it is significant thatthe Court accepted that an employed solicitor,supervised by a partner, could be guilty ofovercharging but such a determination woulddepend upon the facts and circumstances ofeachcase.

Nature of the Division’s review jurisdiction in relation to internal disciplinary orders

InDonaghy v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2013]NSWCA154,theCourtof Appeal considered the role of the Tribunalwhen reviewing a decision of the Council ofthe Law Society. In relation to the particularcomplaint made against the practitioner, theCouncil, through its Professional ConductCommittee, resolved that it was satisfied thatthere was a reasonable likelihood that thepractitioner would be found by the Tribunal tohave engaged in unsatisfactory professionalconduct. Beingsatisfiedof themattersraised,the Committee resolved to reprimand thepractitioner.

On review, the Tribunal found the factsalleged as established and then proceededto determine whether those findingsamounted to unsatisfactory professionalconduct or was conduct capable of beingunsatisfactory professional conduct on behalfof the practitioner. The Tribunal concluded

28

that the practitioner’s conduct amounted tounsatisfactoryprofessionalconduct.

The Court of Appeal noted that the Council,in proceeding under LPA, s 540(1) was to besatisfied that it was reasonably likely that thepractitioner would be found by the Tribunal tohave engaged in unsatisfactory professionalconduct. This provision required the Councilto predict or forecast the outcome of a hearingbefore the Tribunal on a “test of reasonablelikelihood” (applying Murray v Legal Services Commissioner[1999]NSWCA70;46NSWLR224at [88]; Carson v Legal Services Commissioner [2000]NSWCA308at[43]).

TheCourtofAppealnotedthattestdidnotrequiresatisfactionthatthepractitionerhadengagedinsuchconductbutrequiredsatisfactionthattherewas a reasonable likelihood of that outcomefollowing a hearing before the Tribunal. TheCourt noted that ADT Act, s 63(1) required thatwhen determining a review of a “reviewabledecision”, the Tribunal was to decide what wasthe correct and preferable decision havingregard to the material then before them. TheTribunal’sdecisionwassetasideandremittedtotheTribunalforredetermination.

Solicitor purporting to have instructions when none obtained

In Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Hancock [2013] NSWADT 63, theTribunal found the practitioner guilty ofprofessionalmisconductonthreegrounds. TheTribunalconsideredthatalegalpractitionerwhoassumed the role of solicitor acting for partieswho were borrowing substantial funds on thesecurityoftheirresidence,withoutinstructionsand in the knowledge that no instructions hadbeen provided, acted in a “disgraceful anddishonourable manner.” Such a practitionerviolated the fundamental principle that legalpractitionersmustonlyperformtheprofessionaltasks that they know, or reasonably believe,to have been entrusted to them. Further, theTribunalwassatisfied that inmisleadingfellowpractitioners and other professional people,

throughrepresentationsknowntobefalse,intobelievingthatinstructionstoactforaborrower/mortgagor had been received, was similarly“disgraceful and dishonourable conduct.” Inaddition, the practitioner’s use of a purportedauthority to give directions for the paymentof a mortgage in order to appropriate, withoutentitlement, a portion of the funds being lentwastobecategorisedinthesameway.

Other Professional Discipline Jurisdictions

The General Division deals withthe other professional disciplinecategories vested in the ADT.Hearings are conducted before a presidentialmember of the ADT, a non-judicial memberwith relevant professional qualifications andstanding, and (other than in the instance ofaccredited certifiers) a community memberwho is familiar with the profession. There wasone filing under the Veterinary Practice Act,one under the Architects Act and five underthe Buildings Professionals Act (accreditedcertifiers).

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Legal Services Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

29

Equal Opportunity Division

•Full-timeDeputyPresidentoftheADTsince2001;previouslyPart-timeDeputyPresident1999-2001;

•AppointedMagistrate,2002

•President,CommunityServicesAppealsTribunal,1997-1999

•SeniorLegalOfficer,Anti-DiscriminationBoardofNSW1990-1997

•Previouslysolicitor,lawreformresearcher,lawteacher,UniversityofSydney

The Divisional Head is Magistrate NancyHennessy,full-timeDeputyPresident.

Structure and Function

TheDivisionexercisesjurisdictionconferredbytheAnti-Discrimination Act1977(ADA).

The Division hears and determines mattersfallingintothefollowingfivecategories:

• referred complaints: complaints ofdiscrimination, harassment, vilificationand victimisation that have beenreferred to it by the President of theAnti-DiscriminationBoard(ADB);

• applications for leave: whenacomplainthas been declined by the President ofthe ADB the applicant must obtain theTribunal’s leave or permission beforethecomplaintcan proceed;

• applications for the registration of conciliation agreements made at the ADB;

• applications for interim orders;and

• reviews of exemption decisions: theTribunal can conduct a merits reviewof a decision made by the President ofthe ADB in relation to applications forexemptionfromtheADA.

Membership

A panel of three sits on most hearings – onejudicial member and two non-judicial memberswho have expertise in various areas of anti-discriminationlawandpractice.Forsomekindsof preliminary and interim applications, theTribunalcomprisesonlyonejudicialmember.

Apart from Deputy President Hennessy, therearethreeotherDeputyPresidentswhositpart-time in the Equal Opportunity Division: DeputyPresidents Chesterman, Patten and Higgins. Inaddition there are six judicial and fifteen non-judicialmembersallofwhomsitonasessionalbasis.

Outcomes and Disposal Rates

There were 104 matters pending at thebeginning of the year. One hundred and twelvenew applications were received. Of those, 88were referred complaints, 16 were applicationsfor leave to proceed and six were applicationsfor an interim order. There was one applicationfor the registrationofaconciliationagreementandoneapplicationforareviewofanexemptiondecision.

TheDivisionfinalised138matters,26morethanit received, leaving 78 applications pending attheendoftheyear.

The Equal Opportunity Division’s time standardfor disposal of matters is 80% of matters to befinalised within 12 months and 100% within 2years.Thisyear108(78%)werefinalisedwithin12 months and 28 (21%) within 2 years. Theremaining2(1%)ofmattersweremorethantwoyearsoldwhentheywerefinalised.

The outcomes for each category of applicationarediscussedbrieflybelow.

Deputy President , Magistrate Nancy Hennessy

30

Referred complaints

Ifacomplaintcannotbeconciliatedoritcannotberesolvedforsomeotherreason,thePresidentof the ADB may refer it to the Tribunal. Onehundredandsixreferredmatterswerefinalisedthis year. Of those matters, orders were madein the applicant’s favour in 14 cases (13%),the application was dismissed after hearingin 3 cases (3%) and 5 applications (5%) weresummarily dismissed. Eighty-four cases (79%)were dismissed for reasons including that theyhadbeensettledorwithdrawn.

Mediation

For referred complaints, the Tribunal conductsa preliminary case conference at which partiesareofferedtheopportunityofmediationiftheircase is suitable. Of the 106 referred matterswhichwerefinalisedduringtheyear,mediationwas conducted in 55 matters (52%). Of thosematters, 50 settled at or after mediation and 5proceededtohearing.

There is a significant incentive for parties toresolve complaints without having a hearingbecause of time and cost considerations. In

particular, if parties are legally represented,legal costs can consume a considerableproportion of any compensation that mayultimatelybeawarded.

Grounds of complaint

A complaint may allege more than one groundof discrimination. The most frequently citedgrounds of discrimination were race (24),disability (19), sex discrimination (13) andvictimisation(8).Smallernumbersofcomplaintswere lodged on other grounds. There were nocomplaints of marital status discrimination orHIV/AIDSvilification.

Applications for leave to proceed

Where the President of the ADB declinesa complaint because, for example, it lackssubstance or is frivolous or vexatious, thecomplainant may require the President to refer

the complaint to the Tribunal. Once referred,theapplicantmustobtaintheTribunal’s“leave”or permission before it can go ahead. Fiveapplications for leave were pending at thebeginningoftheyearandtheTribunalreceived24newapplications.Ofthe24leaveapplicationsdisposed of during the year, leave was grantedin 6 cases and refused in 12 cases (84%). Theapplicantwithdreworsettledtheapplication intheremaining6cases.Alltheapplicationswerefinalisedinlessthan6months.Fiveapplicationsremainpendingat30June2013.

Applications for the registration of conciliation agreements made at the ADB

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to registerconciliation agreements made when complaintsare still with the President of the ADB. Theagreement, once registered, can be enforcedasanorderoftheTribunal.Onenewapplicationfor registration was made this year and theagreementwasregistered.

Applications for interim orders

The President of the ADB, or a party to acomplaint, may apply to the Tribunal for aninterimordertopreservethestatusquobetweentheparties,ortherightsoftheparties,pendingdeterminationofthecomplaint.Thisyear6newapplications for an interim order were made,6 were finalised and one remains pending. Anorder was made in two cases and refused inthreecases.Intheremainingcasetheapplicantwithdrewtheapplication.

Significant Cases

Costs awarded in three racial vilification cases-TradvJones(No.3)(EOD)[2013]NSWADTAP13 Trad v Jones (No 5) [2013] NSWADT 127 andJones and Anor v Ekermawi (No. 2) (Costs)(EOD)[2013]NSWADTAP18

In December 2009, the Tribunal found thatbroadcasterAlanJonesandthelicenseeofradiostation 2GB, Harbour Radio Pty Limited, hadbreachedtheracialvilificationprovisionsoftheAnti-Discrimination Act 1977. Comments made

31

by Mr Jones in 2005 during the “Cronulla riots”werefoundtohavevilifiedLebaneseMuslimsonthegroundoftheirrace.Theapplicant,MrTrad,appliedforcosts.

Thenormalruleisthateachpartypaystheirowncosts.Costsmayonlybeawarded if it is fair todo so. Mr Trad had offered to settle the entireproceedings by way of an on-air and a writtenapology before any significant legal costs hadbeen incurred. The Tribunal found that AlanJones and 2GB had unreasonably rejected thatoffer. The Tribunal ordered Alan Jones and 2GBtopayMrTrad’scostsbecausethetermsoftheoffer were more favourable to the respondentsthan the orders that the Tribunal ultimatelymade. In the decision, the Tribunal made thefollowingcommentat[3]:

It is a fundamental human right recognised bythe Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act) thatevery person should be able to live free fromracial vilification. High profile public figureslike Alan Jones have ready access to legaladvice.If,eitherinadvertentlyorintentionally,MrJonesvilifiesapersonoragroupofpeopleonthe ground of race he should, at least, respondquicklyandacknowledgeandapologise foranywrongdoing.Thatdidnothappeninthiscase.

The respondents have appealed to the AppealPanel.

In two other cases involving Alan Jones andRadio 2GB, the Appeal Panel ordered them topaycosts.

In the first case, the Appeal Panel ordered MrJones and 2GB to pay half of Mr Trad’s costs onappeal. The main reason for that order was thecomplexity of the proceedings that requiredexperienced legal representation: Trad v Jones(No.3)(EOD)[2013]NSWADTAP13.

Thesecondcase,Jones and Anor v Ekermawi(No.2)(Costs)(EOD)[2013]NSWADTAP18,involvedadifferentapplicant.TheAppealPanelorderedMr Jones and 2GB to pay Mr Ekermawi most ofthe costs of an appeal against an interlocutory

decision of the Tribunal. The main reasonsthe Appeal Panel gave for ordering costs werethat Mr Jones and Radio 2GB had exposed MrEkermawito“asecondroundoflitigationattheappeallevel;theappealhasbeenunsuccessful;and, three of the four grounds relied upon bythe appellants were manifestly weak.” TheAppealPanelcommentedat[12]that:

Interlocutory skirmishes have the potentialto lengthen considerably the time a matteris before the Tribunal, particularly when firstinstance proceedings are themselves dividedtodeal firstwith interlocutory issues,andthenappealsarebroughtagainstthoseinterlocutoryrulings.

Third parties who “aided and abetted”discriminatoryconductjoinedasparties

Intwocasesheardthisyear,theTribunaljoinedthird parties to complaints because it acceptedtheapplicant’ssubmissionthatthethirdpartiesmayhave“aidedandabetted”orcontributedtotheunlawfulactofanotherperson.

In the first case, TU v Vaisman (No 2) [2013]NSWADT 97, the Tribunal joined Dr Balafas, a

doctor contracted by AMI Australia HoldingsPty Ltd, as a respondent. The Tribunal hadpreviously ordered AMI to pay the applicant,TU,$30,000 in damages for refusing to provideservices relating to erectile dysfunction on theground that he is HIV positive. AMI had notcomplied with the orders before it went intoliquidation. TU lodged a fresh complaint withthe President of the Anti-Discrimination Boardagainst Dr Vaisman, the former Chief ExecutiveOfficer and sole director of AMI, and KarenBaker, a nurse employed by the company. ThatcomplaintallegedthatDrVaismanandMsBakerarejointlyliabletopaythedamagesawardedtoTU because they caused, instructed, induced,aided or permitted AMI to discriminate againsthim: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, s 52. AfterthecomplainthadbeenreferredtotheTribunal,TUappliedtojoinDrBalafas,adoctorcontractedbyAMI.

32

The question for the Tribunal was whether DrBalafas instructed, induced,aidedorpermittedAMI to discriminate against TU and, if so,whether he is liable to pay some or all of thedamages for that unlawful act. The Tribunaldecided that Dr Balafas was a person “whosejoinder isnecessary to thedeterminationofallmatters in dispute in the proceedings.” If TUcan prove that Dr Balafas contributed to AMI’swrongdoinginawaythatisunlawfulunders52of the AD Act, he will be jointly liable for thedamagesthattheTribunalhasawarded.

In the second case, Roach v James [2013]NSWADTAP1,theAppealPanelupheldadecisionbytheTribunaltojoinMsRoach,thewifeofthedirector of a company, as a respondent to theproceedings.Thecompany,whichemployedtheapplicant,hadbeenvoluntarilywoundup.Astheapplicant could not bring proceedings againstthe company, she applied to join Ms Roach toher complaint of sexual harassment against afellow employee. The Tribunal accepted that ifMsRoachhad“permitted” theallegedharasserto sexually harass the applicant, she could beliable under s 52, the “aiding and abetting”provision of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.The Appeal Panel held that Ms Roach’s joinderwas necessary to the determination of allmattersindisputeintheproceedings.

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Equal Opportunity Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

33

•DivisionalHeadandDeputyPresidentsince2002

•ActingJudge,DistrictCourtofNSW1998-2008

•EmeritusProfessor,UniversityofNewSouthWalessince2001

•ProfessorofLaw,UNSW1979-2001;DeanofLaw,1990-95

•LawReformCommissioner,Commonwealth,1983-86(full-time),1987-92(part-time)

•LawReformCommissioner,NSW,1993-96,1999-2006(part-time)

•Previouslylawteacher,Universities

ofLondon,NairobiandWarwick

The Divisional Head is Emeritus ProfessorMichael Chesterman, part-time DeputyPresident.

Structure and functions

TheRetailLeasesDivisionexercisesjurisdictionconferred by the Retail Leases Act 1994 (‘RLA’)on the Tribunal to determine applicationsrelatingto‘retailshopleases’asdefinedinthisAct. The Supreme Court, the District Court andthe Local Court may also exercise jurisdictionin civil proceedings brought under this Act. Butsection 75(2) of the Act establishes a generalprinciplethatretailtenancydisputes‘shouldbedealtwithbytheTribunalratherthanbyacourt’.

On 26 November 2012, the Tribunal publisheda new Guideline relating to the appointmentof specialist retail valuers. Its predecessor(Practice Note No. 20, published in July 2006)

dealtonlywithapplicationsfortheappointmentbytheTribunalofasinglespecialistretailvaluerto determine the current market rent of leasedpremisesunders19(1A)ors31(1A)oftheRLA.The new Guideline deals with these, and alsowith applications under section 32A(1) for theappointment of two specialist retail valuers toconduct a review of a determination that hasbeen made by a single valuer (who may havebeen previously appointed by the Tribunalor by agreement of the parties to the lease).Applicationsundersection32A(1)arerelativelyfewinnumber.

On1January2014,theAdministrativeDecisionsTribunal will cease to exist and its variousDivisions will be absorbed into a newly createdtribunal, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal(‘NCAT’). It is intended that within NCAT theRetailLeasesDivisionwillformpartofaDivisionto be called the Consumer and CommercialDivision.

Case load, disposal rates and outcomes

The figures discussed here appear in tabularforminAppendixEtothisReport.

During recent years, though not in 2011-2012,the number of new applications filed in theDivision has declined significantly. In the yearunder review, this trend downwards continued.Thenumberofnewapplicationsfellfrom196(in2011-2012)to175.

At the beginning of the year under review,69 applications were pending. The number ofapplications disposed of was 185, exceedingby 10 the number filed. This left 59 pendingapplicationsattheendoftheyear.

Among the 175 new applications, 44 wereapplications for theappointmentofaspecialistretail valuer to determine the current marketrentunderalease,orfortheappointmentoftwovaluerstoreviewsuchadetermination;95wereretailtenancyclaimsinothercategories;3wereunconscionable conduct claims; and 33 were‘combined’claims,involvingbothretailtenancyclaimsandunconscionableconductclaims.

Retail Leases Division

Deputy PresidentMichael Chesterman

34

Of the 185 applications that were disposedof, the outcomes were as follows: 90 werewithdrawn, dismissed on the ground of noappearance, or settled without orders beingmade;11weresettledwithconsentordersbeingmade;5weredismissedafterahearing;5weredismissedonthegroundof lackof jurisdiction;andin74,orders(non-consensual)weremade.

It should be pointed out that these 74applications in which non-consensual orderswere made included a significant number –around 40 – involving the appointment of oneor (occasionally) two specialist retail valuers.In most instances, these appointments aremade in chambers by judicial members of theDivision, without the parties being required toattendatanystage.Accordingly,thenumberofcontested applications in which a hearing wasrequired was only about 44. These comprisedthe 5 applications classified as ‘dismissedafter a hearing’, the 5 applications that weredismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdictionandafurther34(orthereabouts)inwhichnon-consensualordersweremade.

Thenumberofapplications thatdidnot requireanydeterminationbytheTribunal(otherthanaconsent order) was 101. This represents 54.6%of the number disposed of. That proportion ishigher than the equivalent figure for last year(49%), but lower than the figure for the yearpreceding(56.2%).

During the year, Appeal Panels delivered 9decisions (the same number as last year)relating to appeals from decisions made bythe Division. Only 6 sets of proceedings wereinvolved, because in three of them a decisionby the Appeal Panel relating to liability wasfollowedbyadecisionrelatingtocosts.

Relevant features of these appellate decisionsareasfollows:-

In two of them, relating to the same litigation,the Appeal Panel first assessed the damagesto be awarded to an appellant who had alreadysucceeded in its appeal on liability, then madedeterminations as to the costs at first instance

andonappeal.ThePanel’slengthydecisionsonliability, assessment of damages and costs arethe subject of a further appeal to the Court ofAppeal.

In another decision, the Panel allowed theappeal to the extent of reducing the amount ofdamagesawardedatfirstinstance.

In three further decisions, the Panel reachedthesameresultastheDivision,thoughinoneofthemitslineofreasoningdifferedsignificantlyfromthatadoptedbytheDivision.

Eachofthethreeremainingdecisionsrelatedtothe costs of the appeal and of the proceedingsconductedintheDivision.

Timeliness

According to time standards adopted by theDivision, 85% of the applications made to itshould be disposed of within six months and100%withinoneyear.Asisfrequentlythecase,it has not proved possible to adhere to thesestandards.Outofthe185applicationsdisposedof in 2012-13, 139 (75.1%) were disposed ofwithinsixmonthsand168(86.2%)withinayear.These figures indicate slightly slower disposal

ratesthanwereachievedin2011-2012.

Significant questions determined in decisions of the Division

The many matters dealt with this year in thecasesdecidedbytheDivisionincluded:

• Whetherabrothelfallswithinthephrase‘amusementandentertainmentservices’inSchedule1totheRLAandisthereforea‘retailshopbusiness’.

• Whether the Tribunal, on finding thatan applicant’s unconscionable conductclaim, if wholly successful, would callfor an award of damages exceeding theTribunal’s upper limit of $400,000 (asestablished in section 73 of the RLA),would be required to declare that ithad no jurisdiction or alternatively thatthe claim should be transferred to theSupremeCourtundersection76A.

35

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Retail Leases Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

• The circumstances in which claims fordamages under section 10 of the RLA(pre-leasemisrepresentations),section62B (unconscionable conduct) and/orsection 62D (misleading or deceptiveconduct)willbedefeatedongroundsofestoppeland/orwaiver.

• The common law and statutoryrequirementsforthecreationofaretailshoplease.

• Whether either of the following clausesin a lease imposed a ‘penalty’ and wastherefore invalid under principles ofcontract law: (a) a stipulation thatthe lessee must pay instalments ofadditional rent (‘compliance rent’),which the lessor would waive if thelessee had not been in breach of thelease; and (b) a clause requiring thelessee to pay interest at 15% on anymoneyowingtothelessorbutunpaid.

• Whether specific obligations imposedon a lessee company relating toalterations and fit-out of the premises

being undertaken by it were ‘essentialconditions’.

• What constitutes a ‘determination’ by aspecialistretailvaluer.

36

• Chairpersonandpart-timememberoftheVictimsCompensationTribunal,2009-2013

• ActingMagistrate,July2008-June2013

• LocalCourtsMagistrate1992-2008

• Solicitor,Goulburn1967-2008

TheDivisionalHeadisMrBrianLulham.

Structure and Functions

The Victims Support Division of the ADT is thesuccessortotheVictimsCompensationTribunal.The Division commenced operation on 3 June2013consequentontheenactmentoftheVictims Rights and Support Act 2013. The 2013 ActrepealedtheVictims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. The law regulates the administrationof victims support payments from the VictimsSupportFund.Thelawalsoallowsforordersforrestitutiontobemadeagainstoffenders.

Applications for victim support must be madeto the Commissioner of Victims Rights. TheCommissioner must determine the applicationby approving the giving of victims support ordismissing the application. The Commissionermay grant financial assistance for immediateneeds, financial assistance for economic lossandmakea ‘recognitionpayment’. TheActsetslimitson theamountsawardableas recognitionpaymentslinkedtothedegreeofseriousnessofthe offence of violence, for example, $15,000for financially dependent family member ofa homicide victim, $7,500 for the parent,guardian or step parent of a homicide victim,$10,000forthevictimsofasexualassaultwhichinvolves serious bodily injury or an offensive

weaponoriscarriedoutbytwoormorepeople,$5,000forasexualassaultwhichdoesnothavethose elements, an attempted sexual assaultresulting in serious bodily injury, assault withgrievous bodily harm or assault of a child thatisaseriesofrelatedevents,$1500forindecentassault, attempted sexual assault not resultinginseriousbodilyinjury,robberyorassault.TheCommissionermaymakeanorderforrestitutionagainst a person who has been convicted of arelevant offence. A dissatisfied applicant for arecognition payment may apply to the ADT forreviewoftheCommissioner’sdetermination,asmay a person against whom a restitution orderhasbeenmade.ThereisnorighttoappealtotheADTAppealPanel.

Case load

The 2013 Act provided for all applicationspending before the Victims CompensationTribunal to be transferred to the ADT. As aresult, approximately 200 files have beentransferred.Asatthe30June2013,theVictimsSupportDivisionhadjustcommencedtoprocessthe transferred business. The first reviewsof applications lodged under the new Act arenot expected to reach the ADT until aroundSeptember2013.

This jurisdiction will become a List within theAdministrative and Equal Opportunity DivisionofNCAT.

Victims Support Division

Deputy President Brian Lulham

37

The President manages the operation of theAppealPanelandthelistingofappeals.

Case load, disposal times

The Appeal Panel received 47 internal appeals,and19externalappeals.Therewere50internalappeal disposals, and 19 external appealdisposals.

75% of internal appeals were either dismissed(28), found to be outside jurisdiction (1),withdrawn(5)orthesubjectofaconsentorder(1). The balance (12) resulted in orders partlyor wholly allowing the appeal. In the case ofexternalappeals84%wereeitherdismissed(7),withdrawn(8)orheldtobeoutsidejurisdiction(1). The balance (3) result in orders partlyor wholly allowing the appeal. Most internalappeals and all external appeals were disposedofinlessthan6months.

The Appeal Panel’s more significant decisionsarethesubjectofanAppendixtothisreport.

In recent years that Appendix has also referredto Supreme Court and Court of Appeal appealdecisions. This year the Supreme Court/Courtof Appeal judgments are dealt with in the nextsectionofthisreport.

Appeal Panel

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Internal Appeals- Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

0

.5

1

0

6

12

18

12-1311-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

External Appeals- Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

38

Supreme CourtOversight

Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145 was themajor decision in the last year. The ADT hearsapplications for review of various decisionsmade by the Registrar of Births, Deaths andMarriages.

In this instance the Registrar refused toregister a change of sex by a person from thesexrecordedontheRegisterto‘nonspecific’or‘notspecified’.ThereviewapplicantwasborninScotlandasamaleandin1989underwentsexualreassignment surgery involving castration andthe creation of a semi-functioning vagina. TheRegistrar’s view was that the law required himto identify the ‘sex’ of a person, and that onlyadmitted of indentification as either a maleor female. No third possibility was open. TheRegistrar’sdecisionwasaffirmedbytheGeneralDivision,andanappealdismissedbytheAppealPanel. The Court of Appeal upheld the reviewapplicant’s appeal, holding that the ADT haderredinlaw.

Thisisnottheplaceforadetailedaccountofthereasoning. In essence, the Court held that themodernunderstandingoftheterm‘sex’asused

in a statute of the present kind had evolved soastorecognisethatsomepersonshadagenderidentity that fell outside the ‘binary’ model ofmale/female,andthatthemeaningofthetermnowincorporatedatleastathirdpossibility,thatof‘inter-sex’people.Intheprincipaljudgment,BeazleyPconcluded:

It follows from what I have said that I consider that the word “sex” in Pt 5A of the Act does not bear a binary meaning of “male” or “female” and that a person is entitled to have an entry in the Register of a sex other than either of those two identifiers. There are other sexual identifications that may be registered.

There is no right of appeal to the Appeal Panelin professional discipline matters. Appeals godirect to the Court of Appeal. There were twocases in this category, Donaghy v Council of

the Law Society[2013]NSWCA154andScroope v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] NSWCA178. They have been discussed in the LegalServicesDivisionsectionofthisreport. Ineachcase the Court of Appeal held that the LSD haderredinlawinparticularrespects.

Nor is there a right of appeal to the AppealPanel in child employment exemption cases.In LA v Commissioner for Children and Young People [2012]NSWSC1454theCourtdismissedan appeal in which the primary question waswhethera findingofanoffenceproven withoutaconvictionbeingenteredin1984neverthelessamounted to a ‘conviction’ within the meaningof the relevant law because of an extendeddefinition given to ‘conviction’. The CourtagreedwiththeADT’sdecisionthattheextendedmeaning applied. There was a second questionas to whether the offence of ‘gross indecency’constituted a ‘serious sex offence’. Again theCourtagreedwiththeADTthatitdid.

InCommissioner for Children and Young People v VR [2012] NSWSC 1385 the Court upheldthe Commissioner’s appeal against grantingpermission to an applicant with a serious sex

offence history to engage in child-relatedemployment subject to strict conditions. TheCourt upheld the Commissioner’s objectionsthat given the Tribunal’s finding that it wasnot satisfied after an extensive hearing thatthe applicant no longer posed an unacceptablerisk it was not open to it to continue as it didto allow the applicant to be involved in child-relatedemployment(medicalpractice)onstrictconditions.

There were three state revenue appeals fromdecisions of the Appeal Panel and one referralofaquestionoflaw.

ThereferralofthequestionoflawwasthesubjectofChief Commissioner of State Revenue v Print National Pty Ltd[2013]NSWCA96.Thequestionwent to the scope of the ADT’s merits reviewjurisdictionintaxmatters.Thetaxpayersought

39

review of decisions by the Chief Commissionerto issue formal notices requiring the provisionof information, instruments and records unders 72 of the Tax Administration Act. Section86(1)(b) allows a taxpayer “dissatisfied” withany decision of the Chief Commissioner undera taxation law to lodge a written objection.Decisions made by the Chief Commissioner inrelation to written objections are reviewableby the ADT. The Court held that “dissatisfied”ins86(1)(b) isnot limited todecisionshavingan immediate and direct effect on a person’sactualorpotentialliabilitytotax.Thereforethetaxpayer could lodge a written objection to aninvestigatorynotice,andifdissatisfiedapplytotheTribunalforreview

In De Marco v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWCA 86 the taxpayers hadsought relief from land tax on the basis thathe had occupied land he owned as his principalplaceofresidence.Theylivedinamobilehomeand later a caravan. This conduct was unlawfulin the sense that they had lived in this waywithout the required council approval. Becauseof that, the Chief Commissioner had refused to

allow the claim, a view upheld by the RevenueDivisionandonappealtheAppealPanel.Ineachinstancetheviewwasadoptedthattheuseandoccupation of the land had to be lawful. TheCourtofAppealdisagreed,andheldbymajoritythat, properly construed, all that mattered wasthe facts as to use and occupation. The Courtalsoobservedthatthedefinitionof“residentialland”requiredthattherebeuseandoccupationof a “building”. The matter was remitted forredetermination.

In Sayden Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWCA 111 the Courtallowed an appeal against a decision of theAppeal Panel, and restored the decision of theRevenue Division which had upheld the reviewapplicant’s objection to an assessment for landtax.Theissuewastheproperinterpretationofs3A(3B)(a)(ii)oftheLandTaxManagementAct,anditsapplicationtotheprovisionsofthedeed

of trust to ascertain. The Court decided thatthe Appeal Panel was wrong in upholding theCommissioner’sassessmentthatthetrustwasa‘special trust’ and not a ‘fixed trust’, the lattertypeoftrustreceivingspecialtreatment.

In Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue[2013]NSWCA189theCourtofAppealdismissed an appeal against a decision of theAppeal Panel which had in turn dismissed ataxpayer’s appeal from the Revenue Division.ThetaxpayerhadunsuccessfullychallengedtheChief Commissioner’s assessment of liabilityto pay land tax on the ground that the subjectpropertywasnotaprincipalplaceofresidence.

In Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission [2012] NSWCA 421; and [2013]NSWCA 15 (No 2) the Court found no error intheAppealPanel’sdecisiontoupholdtheEOD’sdismissalofacomplaintofracialdiscrimination.In Ekermawi v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2013]NSWCA 54, the Court of Appeal refused to giveleave to proceed to an originating summonspurporting to appeal against an EOD decisionmadeatfirstinstance,notingthatnoappeallaydirecttotheSupremeCourtbutmustfirstgotothe Appeal Panel. In Schoeman v Department of Attorney General and Justice [2013] NSWCA88 the Court refused leave to appeal againsta decision of the Appeal Panel setting asidea costs order made at first instance in favourof the appellant by the General Division. Itreviewed the Appeal Panel decision and foundnoerror.

40

Mediation is one form of alternative disputeresolution available to parties under the ADT Act. The other form, neutral evaluation, isnot currently in use. Appropriate matters arereferredtomediationwiththeaimofprovidingaquickandeffectivemechanismforresolvingorpartlyresolvingapplicationsthatarebeforetheTribunal.

Mediationisastructurednegotiationprocessinwhichthemediator,asaneutralandindependentparty, assists the parties to achieve their ownresolutionofthedispute.Amattermayonlybereferredtomediationifallpartiesconsent.TheADTprovidesmediationatnocosttotheparties.The ADT has 6 trained mediators listed at theendofthelistofmembersinappendixB.

With rare exceptions, anything said by a partyduring a mediation session cannot be used asevidenceinthehearing.Ingeneral,themediatorcannot disclose information provided by theparties without their consent and the partiescannot disclose information communicatedduringthemediation.

Mediation is frequently used in the EqualOpportunity Division (EOD) but also inCommunity Services Division (CSD) and theGeneralDivision(GD).Therewere77mediationsconductedthisyearofwhich61wereresolvedatmediationoraftermediation,andonly9wenttohearing. Mediations are used frequently in theEOD, where of 55 mediations held, 50 settledat or following mediation without the need fora hearing. In GD there were 7 mediations and 4settled at or following mediation. In the CSD:8 mediations, with 7 settled at or followingmediation. The rate of success remains highwith 85% settling at mediation or prior tohearing. This is the usual experience of courtsandtribunalsusingannexedmediation.

TheADThasanumberofotheralternativedisputeresolution options including, preliminaryconferences, planning meetings and makingdecisions based on the papers. Mediation isused extensively in the Equal Opportunity,CommunityServicesandRetailLeasesDivisions.

Planning meetings and case conferences, usedin the General and Equal Opportunity Divisionsis an effective process in narrowing the issuesindisputeandcontributestoahighpre-hearingsettlementrate.WhereappropriatetheTribunalwill remit matters for reconsideration by theagency.Preliminaryconferencesarecommonlyused in the Revenue Division. The statisticsshow almost 70% of Revenue Division filingsdonotproceedtohearing,suggestingthepre-hearing procedure is successful in achievingagreedresolutions.

In the Retail Leases Division attempts atmediation are required of the parties prior tofiling. Where parties seek an urgent interimorderpriortoattemptingmediation,theinterimorder application is determined and then thedispute is referred back to the Retail TenancyUnitformediation.

Alternative DisputeResolution

41

Practice andProcedure

The practice of the Tribunal is formallydocumented in its Act, Practice Notes andRules. The Rules of the Tribunal are found inthe Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules 1998. The experience of the Tribunal has beenthat it is more practical to deal with practiceand procedure issues via Practice Notes orGuidelines. The Parliament has recognised thevalue of using Practice Notes, and given theirusestatutoryforce(ADTAct,s91A).

The Tribunal has five operative Practice Notesand13operativeGuidelines.Thenewguidelinesthathaveissuedthisyearare:

• Appointment of Specialist Retail Valuers: Guideline

• Professional Discipline : Legal Practitioners, Veterinary Practitioners, Architects and Building Professionals : Original Applications : Guideline

• Expert Witness: Guideline

Of these, the Professional Discipline Guidelineisofspecialsignificance.Itisarevisedversionof an earlier guideline that applied to theprofessional discipline streams of the ADTother than legal profession discipline. Thenew guideline now applies to all professionaldiscipline jurisdictionsat theADT.ThedetailedRules that previously governed practice andprocedureintheLSDhavelargelybeenrepealed.

Subject to any special features of the LegalProfession Act or the governing Acts of theother professions, the Tribunal now pursuesa universal case management approach toprofessional discipline filings. These changeshave contributed to greater clarity around suchmatters as: clear separation of the disciplinaryfindings sought from the disciplinary orderssought; attention to the question of whetherthe pre-filing process met any jurisdictionalrequirements;therespondent’sresponsibilitiesin relation to the reply to the disciplinaryapplication;andcasemanagementthereafter.

TheTribunalhasfiveusergroups:

• FreedomofInformation

• Privacy

• GuardianshipandProtectedEstates

• LSD

• RevenueDivision

The LSD and Revenue groups met twice duringthe year. There were also meetings with theInformation Commissioner in connection withthechangesflowingfromtheGIPAreforms.

Legislative amendments

TherewerenoamendmentstotheADTActinthereportingperiod.

42

Appendix A: Financial Information Administrative Decisions Tribunal Financial Information as at 30 June 2013I

Actual Budget Variance

EmployeeRelatedPayments $ $ $(includingCrownLiabilities) 3,521,012 3,581,016 60,003OtherOperatingExpenses 430,342 676,443 246,101Depreciation 13,487 69,724 56,237Maintenance 307 4,300 3,993

Total Expenditure 3,965,148 4,331,482 366,334

UserCharges[2] (123,923) (62,172) 61,751RecoupfromRBIA[3] (855,905) 0 (855,905)RecoupfromPPF[4] (1,036,223) (1,287,667) (251,444)OtherRevenue[5] (19,656) (22,451) (2,795)Total Revenue] (2,035,707) (1,372,290) 663,417

Net Cost Of Services 1,929,441 2,959,192 1,029,751

Notes

1ThisappendixisbasedoninformationsuppliedbyDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice’sFinanceServices.TheAuditOfficehadnotcompletedtheauditoftheDepartment’sfinancialstatementswhenthisinformationwassupplied.

2UserChargesTheuserchargesareforfilingfees,feesforservicesandsaleoftranscriptsandsoundrecordings.

3RetailLeasesDivisionTheRetailLeasesDivisionisfundedbytheRetailLeaseBondInterestAccountwhichiscontrolledbytheSmallBusinessCommissioner.TheamountcontributedtowardstheoperatingcostsoftheTribunalincludingmembers’feesandtranscriptionservicesisshownat[3].Theamountshownrepresentsthebalanceofthecontributionfor2010-11andthecontributionfor2011-12.

4LegalServicesDivisionTheLegalServicesDivisionisfundedbythePublicPurposeFund.TheamountcontributedtowardstheoperatingcostsoftheTribunalincludingmembers’feesandtranscriptionservicesisshownat[4].

5OtherRevenueTheotheritemsofrevenueincludemotorvehiclesalarysacrifice.

Appendices

43

Appendix B: List of Members and Mediators

ThisisalistofmembersoftheTribunalduringthereportingperiod,organisedbyDivisions.Inthecaseof new members appointed during the current reporting period, their date of appointment is shownnexttotheirname.Inthecaseofacontinuingmember,theirfirstdateofappointmentisshownintherelevantpreviousannualreportunlesstheyheldappointmentstoformertribunalsandwerecontinuingundertransitionalprovisions.

IfamemberhasbeenassignedtomorethanoneDivision,thereisacorrespondingentryineachDivision.

ThePresidentisassignedtoallDivisionsinaccordancewiths21(1)oftheADTAct.

PRESIDENT JudgeKEVINPATRICKO’CONNOR,AM,to31December2013AssignedtoallDivisionsinaccordancewiths21(1)oftheAdministrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Full-time)MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY,to31December2013Assignedassetoutbelow.

GENERAL DIVISION Current Expiry dateDivisional Head JudgeKEVINPATRICKO’CONNOR,AM,President 31.12.13Deputy Presidents PETERRAYMONDCALLAGHAN,SC 31.10.13MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 31.12.13SIGRIDHIGGINS 31.12.13HonActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.13Judicial Members CATHERINELOUISEFITZGERALD 31.10.13STEPHENEDWARDFROST 31.10.13GAILBARTONFURNESS,SC *06.02.13CAROLYNHUNTSMAN *11.07.13NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.13SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.13PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13STEPHENHENRYMONTGOMERY 31.10.13GEOFFREYDENNISDEQUINCEYWALKER(from20.08.12) 19.08.14Non-judicial Members ZITAROSEANTONIOS 31.10.14MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13ROSSANDREWFITZGERALD 31.12.13PETERCHARLESGOUDIE 31.10.13JANETTEBELVAMcCLELLAND 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER 31.10.13PHILIPPAJUDITHSMITH,AM 31.10.13MICHAELVONKOLPAKOW 31.10.13Presidential Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 31.12.13

Judicial Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list LOUISEANNGOODCHILD 31.10.13CAROLYNHUNTSMAN *11.07.13SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.13JULIANJOSEPHMILLAR 31.10.12PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13Non-judicial Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13BARBARARUTHFIELD 31.10.13JENNIFERGREEN 31.10.13RALPHWILLIAMMERRELL 31.10.14BRUCEGEOFFREYTHOMSON 31.10.14ANNDOMINICAWUNSCH 31.10.13Non-judicial Members, Public Health ANNEMARIEHENNESSY 31.10.13RICHARDMATTHEWS,AM 31.10.13Non-judicial Members, Accredited Certifier PETERGABRIELFRIEDMANN 31.10.13PHILIPARTHURHAYWARD 31.10.13GRAHAMJOHNMALLISON 31.10.12Non-judicial Members, Veterinary Surgeons Discipline MAGDOLINEAWAD 31.10.13TANYALORRAINECARTER 31.10.13ANDREWJONATHANDART 31.10.13PETERKENNETHKNIGHT 31.10.13FIONAJENNIFERCLARK 31.10.13ROSALIEJANEMAYO-RAMSAY 31.10.13KIMFREDERICTURNER(from5.11.12) 31.10.13Non-judicial Members, Education TERENCERICHARDBURKE,AM 31.10.13ALANWILLIAMRICE,AM 31.10.13TREVORWOOTTEN 31.10.13

44

Non-judicial Members, Architects JANEMARGARETJOSE 31.10.13PATRICKJOHNO’CARRIGAN 31.10.13PETERROYWATTS,AM 31.10.13EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION Divisional Head MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY,DeputyPresident 31.12.13Deputy Presidents MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14SIGRIDHIGGINS 31.12.13HonActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.13Judicial Members JENNIFERLOUISECONLEY 31.10.13GAILBARTONFURNESS,SC 06.02.13CAROLYNHUNTSMAN *11.07.13NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.13RICHARDJOHNPERRIGNON 31.10.13ANNESCAHILL 31.10.13JOHNALEXANDERSTEVENSWAKEFIELD 31.10.13ROBERTSONJAMESWRIGHT,SC 31.10.13Non-judicial Members ZITAROSEANTONIOS 31.10.14MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13BARBARARUTHFIELD 31.10.13DENNYGROTH 31.10.13ELAYNEHAYES 31.10.13ELSIEMARYHEISS 31.10.13NOELARTHURHIFFERNAN 31.10.14DINOOKELLEGHAN 31.10.13ANTHEAELISABETHLOWE 31.10.14JANETTEBELVAMcCLELLAND 31.10.13MIKEMUNIRNASIR 31.10.13JENNIFERLEENEWMAN 31.10.13JOACHIMSCHNEEWEISS,AM 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13PHILIPPAJUDITHSMITH,AM 31.10.13TREVORWOOTTEN 31.10.13COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION Divisional Head SIGRIDHIGGINS 31.12.13Judicial Members LOUISEANNGOODCHILD 31.10.13SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.13PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13CAROLYNHUNTSMAN *11.07.13TheHonGRAHAMROBERTMULLANE 31.10.13Non-judicial Members MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13PHILIPFOREMAN 31.10.13JANEGOODMAN-DELAHUNTY 31.10.13JENNIFERGREEN 31.10.13DENNYGROTH 31.10.13JOHNVINCENTLEBRETON 31.10.13JANMASON 31.10.13

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION Divisional Head TheHon.JusticeWAYNEROGERHAYLEN,DeputyPresident 15.06.14Deputy Presidents MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14HonActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.13Barrister Members PAULEDWINBLACKET,SC 31.10.13SHARRONNORTON,SC 31.10.14LIONELPHILIPROBBERDS,QC 31.10.14ROBERTSONJAMESWRIGHT,SC 31.10.13Solicitor Members MICHAELJAMESBARNES 31.10.13JOHNSYDNEYCURRIE 31.10.13DAVIDGRAHAMFAIRLIE 31.10.13SANDRANERYLHALE 31.10.13NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.13TheHonGRAHAMROBERTMULLANE 31.10.13JOHANNAPHEILS 31.10.13MICHELLEANNERIORDAN 31.10.13JOHNALEXANDERSTEVENSWAKEFIELD 31.10.13Non-judicial Members CARLDONALDBENNETT 31.10.13JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13ROSSANDREWEDWARDFITZGERALD 31.10.13ELAYNEHAYES 31.10.13SIMONROBERTHAYES 31.01.13TheHonJOHNTINGLE 31.10.13RETAIL LEASES DIVISION Divisional Head MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN,DeputyPresident 19.10.14Deputy Presidents PETERRAYMONDCALLAGHAN,SC 31.10.13MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 31.12.13SIGRIDHIGGINS 31.12.13HonActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.13Judicial Members DENNISBLUTH 31.10.14MARGARETCOLLEENHOLE,AM 31.10.13PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13STEPHENHENRYMONTGOMERY 31.10.13TheHonGRAHAMROBERTMULLANE 31.10.13KIMBERESFORDRICKARDS 31.10.13Non Judicial Members JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13BRIANTERRYHARRISON 31.10.13ERICMICHAELJAMESLONIE 31.10.13GARYJOHNPINTER 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13TERENCEJAMESTYLER 31.10.13PETASUZANNEDRAKE(from20.08.12) 19.08.14MATTHEWKEITHFOLDI(from20.08.12) 19.08.14

45

REVENUE DIVISION Divisional Head RASHELLELEAHSEIDEN,DeputyPresident(from26.07.12) 25.07.14Judicial Members JULIANBLOCK 31.10.13STEPHENEDWARDFROST 31.10.13MARGARETCOLLEENHOLE,AM 31.10.13RICHARDJOHNPERRIGNON 31.10.13AMARJITSINGHVERICK 31.10.13NORMANISENBERG(from20.08.12) 19.08.13GEOFFREYDENNISDEQUINCEYWALKER(from20.08.12) 19.08.14Non Judicial Members CARLDONALDBENNETT 31.10.13JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13DANNYKOUTOULAS 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13VICTIMS SUPPORT DIVISION Divisional Head BRIANLULHAM,DeputyPresident(from3.6.13) *17.09.13MEDIATORS ListofMediatorsunders106oftheADTActAppointmentshavebeenlimitedtoservingmembersoftheTribunal.COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION LEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHSIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURYCAROLYNHUNTSMANEQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION ZITAROSEANTONIOSLEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHSIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURYJILLIANMOIRCAROLYNHUNTSMANGENERAL DIVISION – GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTED ESTATES MATTERS ZITAROSEANTONIOSLEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHASHLEYLIMBURYCAROLYNHUNTSMAN

GENERAL DIVISION –GIPA AND PRIVACY MATTERS ZITAROSEANTONIOSPENELOPEHELENGOODESIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURYJILLIANMOIRCAROLYNHUNTSMAN

*Dateofresignation

46

Principal LegislationAdministrativeDecisionsTribunalAct1997AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal(General)Regulation2009AdministrativeDecisionsTribunalRules1998

Primary LegislationAboriginalLandsRightsAct1983AdoptionAct2000AgriculturalLivestock(DiseaseControlFunding)Act1998AirTransportAct1964AnimalResearchAct1985Anti-DiscriminationAct1977ApiariesAct1985ArchitectsAct2003AssociationsIncorporationAct2009BirthsDeathsandMarriagesRegistrationAct1995BuildingandConstructionIndustrySecurityofPaymentAct1999BuildingProfessionalsAct2005CharitableFundraisingAct1991ChildProtection(InternationalMeasures)Act2006ChildProtection(OffendersRegistration)Act2000ChildProtection(WorkingwithChildren)Act2012ChildProtection(WorkingwithChildren)Regulation2013Children(EducationandCareServicesNationalLawApplication)Act2010Children(EducationandCareServices)SupplementaryProvisionsRegulation2004ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Act1998ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Regulation2000CoalIndustryAct2001CoalMineHealthandSafetyAct2002CoalMineHealthandSafetyRegulation2006CombatSportsAct2008CommercialAgentsandPrivateInquiryAgentsAct2004CommunityJusticesCentresAct1983CommunityServices(Complaints,ReviewsandMonitoring)Act1993CommunityServices(Complaints,ReviewsandMonitoring)Regulation2004ConveyancersLicensingAct2003Co-operativeHousingandStarr-BowkettSocietiesAct1998DeerAct2006DisabilityServicesAct1993DrugandAlcoholTreatmentAct2007EducationAct1990ElectricitySupplyAct1995Electricity(ConsumerSafety)Act2004

EntertainmentIndustryAct1989ExhibitedAnimalsProtectionAct1986ExplosivesAct2003FairTradingAct1987FirearmsAct1996FirearmsRegulation2006FirstHomeOwnerGrantAct2000FisheriesManagementAct1994FoodAct2003FoodRegulation2010ForestryAct1916GameandFeralAnimalControlAct2002GamingMachinesTaxAct2001GasSupplyAct1996GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009GuardianshipAct1987GuardianshipRegulation2005HealthCareComplaintsAct1993HealthPractitionerRegulationNationalLawRegulationHealthRecordsandInformationPrivacyAct2002HempIndustryAct2008HigherEducationAct2001HomeBuildingAct1989HomeBuildingRegulation2004HousingAct2001HunterWaterAct1991ImpoundingAct1993InstituteofTeachersAct2004LegalProfessionAct2004LicensingandRegistration(UniformProcedures)Act2002LiquorAct2007LocalGovernmentAct1993LotteriesandArtUnionsAct1901MarineSafetyAct1998MineHealthandSafetyAct2004MineHealthandSafetyRegulation2007MotorAccidentsCompensationAct1999MotorDealersAct1974MotorVehicleRepairsAct1980MotorVehicleSports(PublicSafety)Act1985MountPanoramaMotorRacingAct1989NativeTitle(NewSouthWales)Act1994Non-IndigenousAnimalsAct1987NSWTrusteeandGuardianAct2009OccupationalLicensing(AdoptionofNationalLaw)Act2010No100OmbudsmanAct1974PassengerTransportAct1990PawnbrokersandSecond-handDealersAct1996PesticidesAct1999PhotoCardAct2005PlantDiseasesAct1924

Appendix C: Legislation

47

PoliceAct1990PowersofAttorneyAct2003PrivacyandPersonalInformationProtectionAct1998PrivateHealthFacilitiesAct2007Property,StockandBusinessAgentsAct2002PublicHealthAct2010PublicLotteriesAct1996RacingAdministrationAct1998RailSafetyAct2008RegionalRelocation(HomeBuyersGrant)Act2011RegisteredClubsAct1976RelationshipsRegisterAct2010RetailLeasesAct1994RetailTradingAct2008RiceMarketingAct1983RoadTransport(General)Act2005RoadTransport(SafetyandTrafficManagement)Act1999SecurityIndustryAct1997StateWaterCorporationAct2004SurveyingandSpatialInformationAct2002SydneyWaterAct1994SydneyWaterCatchmentManagementAct1998TattooParloursAct2012TaxationAdministrationAct1996ie BettingTaxAct2001 DutiesAct1997 GamingMachineTaxAct2001 HealthInsuranceLeviesAct1982 InsuranceProtectionTaxAct2001 LandTaxAct1956 LandTaxManagementAct1956 ParkingSpaceLevyAct1992 PayrollTaxAct2007 PayrollTaxRebateScheme(Disability

Employment)Act2011PayrollTaxRebateScheme(JobsActionPlan)Act2011

ThoroughbredRacingAct1996TimberMarketingAct1977TowTruckIndustryAct1998TravelAgentsAct1986TravelAgentsRegulation2006ValuersAct2003VeterinaryPracticeAct2003VictimsRightsandSupportAct2013WeaponsProhibitionAct1998WoolHideandSkinDealersAct2004WorkHealthandSafetyRegulation2011WorkplaceInjuryManagementandWorkersCompensationAct1998YouthandCommunityServicesAct1973

48

Appendix D: Case Load and Time Standards

Case LoadAllDivisions AppealPanel-Internal

ApplicationsLodged

ApplicationsCompleted

ApplicationsPending(a)

AppealsLodged

AppealsCompleted

AppealsPending(a)

1998-1999 625(b) 234 391(c) 8 2 6

1999-2000 568 619 340* 44 20 30

2000-2001 666 629 377 53 45 38

2001-2002 695 642 430 61 59 40

2002-2003 766 817 379 73 67 46

2003-2004 908 791 496 65 89 21

2004-2005 919 910 505 77 59 39

2005-2006 969 913 561 82 74 47

2006-2007 1009 954 616 80 76 51

2007-2008 989 955 650 83 84 50

2008-2009 990 952 672 75 82 42

2009-2010 871 988 537 85 84 41

2010-2011 864 933 466 57 62 35

2011-2012 956 845 571 47 56 24

2012-2013 841 937 474 47 50 19

Total 12636 12119 474 937 909 25

NOTESTOTABLE

(a)The figures recorded in the columns “Applications pending” and “Appeals lodged” have not been retrospectively audited orreconciledwitheitherpreviousorsucceedingperiods.

(b)Includes257transferredformpredecessortribunalsandDistrictCourton6October1998and1January1999

(c)Dateofcommencement:6October1998

Appeal - ExternalAppealsLodged

AppealsCompleted

AppealsPending

2002-2003* 1 0 0

2003-2004 28 21 8

2004-2005 19 21 6

2005-2006 17 18 5

2006-2007 15 14 6

2007-2008 21 19 8

2008-2009 20 22 4

2009-2010 20 19 5

2010-2011 13 14 4

2011-2012 10 10 4

2012-2013 19 19 4

Total 183 177 4 *Externalappealsjurisdictioncommenced–28February2003

49

Time Standards

Asat30June2013theTribunal’sperformanceagainstitstimestandardswas:(target appears in brackets)

General Division· 60%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 88%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–100%

Community Services Division· 60%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 74%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–73%

Equal Opportunity Division · 78%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(80%)· 98%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan2years(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–81%

Retail Leases Division· 75%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 91%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–94%

Revenue Division· 38%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 79%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–73%

Legal Services Division · 35%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan9months(90%)· 53%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–57%

Appeals(InternalAppealsfromappealabledecisionsoftheTribunalandExternalAppeals)· 68%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(80%)· 92%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–95%

*Clearanceratioisthepercentageofcasesdisposedofdividedbycaseslodgedoverthelast12months.

50

Appendix E: StatisticsGeneral Division 1/7/2012 - 30/6/2013

1. Case flow 2012-2013

Matterspendingat30June2012 NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013 204 396 387 213

2. Applications by type 2012-2013

ApplicationsforOriginalDecision Applicationsforreview ProfessionalDiscipline 4 388 4

3. Applications by Act 2012-2013

Subject by Act Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 1 Architects Act 2003 2 Apiaries Act 1985 2 Association Incorporation Act 2009 1 Animal Research Act 1 Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 5 Building Professionals Act 2005 3 Business Names Act 2002 Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 Commercial and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 2 Conveyancers Licensing Act 2003 Education Act 1990 Explosives Act 2003 1 Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 Firearms Act 1996 49 Food Act 2003 2 Fisheries Management Act 1994 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 96 Guardianship Act 1987 6 Higher Education Act 2001 Home Building Act 1989 18 Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 13 Hemp Industry Act Impounding Act 1993 2 Local Government Act 1993 4 Marine Safety Act 1998 Motor Dealers Act 1974 3 Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 6 Motor Vehicle Sport (Public Safety) Act 1985 Non Indigenous Animals Act 1987 NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 14 Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 40 Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 14 Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers Act 1996 Passenger Transport Act 1990 85 Protected Estates Act 1983 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 Security Industry Act 1997 18 Shop Trading Act 2008 Surveying and Spatial Information Act 2002 Transport Administration Act 1988 Travel Agents Act 1986 Tow Truck Industry Act 1998 6 Veterinary Practice Act 2003 1 Consumer Claims and Tenancy Tribunal - NJ 1

51

4. Outcomes in Review matters 2012-2013

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunder Mixedresult- Privacy- Privacy- Privacy- No application under reviewsetaside/ Partlyaffirmed/ contravention contravention application Jurisdiction withdrawn/no review varied/remitted/ Partlysetaside -noaction ordermade dismissedappearance/agreement affirmed recommendation variedor reached made remitted

209 102 43 1 15 4 1 8

5. Outcomes in Original matters 2012-2013

Dismissedbecauseapplication Applicationgranted Applicationrefused NoJurisdiction withdrawn/noappearance/ agreementreached 2 0 0 0

6. Outcomes in Professional Discipline 2012-2013

Dismissed Ordersmade Applicationwithdrawndismissed No juridisdiction 0 2 0 0

7. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 235 Disposedofinunder12months 106 Disposedofinover12months 40 Disposedofinover2years 6

8. Mediation

No.ofdisposalswheremediation wasconducted SettledatorafterMediation ProceededtoHearing 7 4 3 Guardianship and Protected Estates List 1/7/2012-30/6/2013 Note: ThisinformationalsoformspartoftheGDstatistics.TheListhastwocomponentsofactivity:ExternalAppeals,andGDReviews.TheExternalAppealsstatisticsareprovidedbelow.AstotheGDReviews,moredetailedstatisticsthanthosethatappearintheGDtable.

1. Case Flow-Guardianship and Protected Estates Review Matters 2012-2013

Pendingat30June2012 NewApplicationsFiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013 5 19 19 5

2. Applications for Review 2012-2013 SubjectbyAct NumberNSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 19

3. Outcomes in Review Matters under the Guardianship Act and the Protected Estates Act 2012-2013

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunderreview Mixedresult- No Total applicationwithdrawn/ underreview setaside/varied/ Partlyaffirmed/ Jurisdiction noappearance/ affirmed remitted/ Partlysetaside agreementreached recommendationmade varied orremitted 9 8 1 0 1 19

4. Timeliness-time from date of application to date of disposal Disposedofinunder6months 17 Disposedofinunder12months 2 Disposedofinover12months 0 Disposedofinover2years 0

52

Community Services Division 1/7/2012 - 30/6/2013

1. Case flow 2012-2013

Matterspendingat30June2012 NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013

28 34 46 15

2. Applications by type 2012-2013

Applicationsfororiginaldecision Applicationsforreview

11 23

3. Applications by Act 2012-2013

SubjectbyAct Number

ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Act1988 1

CommissionforChildrenandYoungPeopleAct1998 11

DisabilityServicesAct1993 0

Children(EducationandCareServices)NationalLaw 3

YouthandCommunityServicesAct1973 1

CommunityServices(ComplaintsReviewsandMonitoring)Act1993 18

4. Outcomes - Reviewable Decisions 2012-2013

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunderreview Mixedresult- No applicationwithdrawn/no underreview setaside/varied/ Partlyaffirmed/ Jurisdiction/ appearance/agreement affirmed remitted/recommendation Partlysetaside Jurisdiction reached made variedorremitted Declined

20 5 6 0 3

5. Outcomes- Original Decisions 2012-2013

Dismissedbecause Declaration DeclarationRefused No Jurisdiction applicationwithdrawn/no Made appearance/agreementreached 8 3 1 0

6. Mediation 2012-2013

No.ofdisposalswhere mediationwasconducted SettledatMediation SettledafterMediation ProceededtoHearing

8 5 2 1

7. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 28

Disposedofinunder12months 6

Disposedofinover12months 10

Disposedofinover2years 2

53

Equal Opportunity Division 1/7/2012- 30/6/2013 1. Case flow 2012- 2013

Matterspendingat NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013 30June2012

104 112 138 78

2. Applications by type 2012-2013

Referralsofcomplaints Applicationfor Applicationsfor Applicationsfor Applicationfor byPresidentof registrationof leavetoproceed interimorders ExemptionAnti-DiscriminationBoard conciliationagreement

88 1 16 6 1

3. Referral of Complaints by President of Anti-Discrimination Board

Headofdiscrimination NumberRace 24DisabilityDiscrimination 19SexualHarassment 3SexDiscrimination 13Victimisation 8Carersresponsibilities 4AgeDiscrimination 5Homosexualvilification 3HomosexualDiscrimination 5RacialVilification 2PregnancyDiscriminationTransgendervilification 2MaritalStatusDiscriminationHIV/AIDSVilification

4A. Outcomes of Referrals 2012-2013

Dismissedbecause Summarydismissalunder Dismissedafter Ordersmade applicationwithdrawn/no sections102,111 hearing afterhearingappearance/agreementreached

84 5 3 14

4B. Mediation

No.ofdisposalswhere Settledatorafter Proceededto Percentageoffinalised mediationwasconducted Mediation Hearing mattersresolvedatmediation

55 50 5 90%

4C. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

forreferrals Disposedofinunder6months 75 Disposedofinunder12months 33 Disposedofinover12months 28 Disposedofinover2years 2

5A. Application for registration of conciliation agreement 2012 - 2013 (thisinformationalsoformspartoftheEqualOpportunityDivisioncaseflowstatisticsabove)

Matterspending Newapplicationsfiled Disposals Pending at30June2012 at30June2013

0 1 1 0

54

5B. Outcome of application for registration of agreement 2012-2013

Agreementregistered Agreementnotregistered Dismissedbecauseapplication withdrawn/noappearance/ agreementreached 1 0 0

5C. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

forregistrationofagreement

Disposedofinunder6months 1

Disposedofinunder12months 0

Disposedofinover12months 0

Disposedofinover2years 0

6A. Applications for leave to proceed 2012-2013 (thisinformationalsoformspartoftheEODcaseflowstatisticsabove)

Matterspendingat30June2012 Newapplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013

5 24 24 5

6B. Outcome of applications for leave 2012-2013

Leavegranted Leavenotgranted Dismissedbecauseapplication withdrawn/noappearance/ agreementreached

6 12 6

6C. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of leave decision

forleaveapplications Disposedofinunder6months 24 Disposedofinunder12months 0 Disposedofinover12months 0 Disposedofinover2years 0

7A. Applications for interim orders

NewapplicationsFiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013

6 6 1

7B. Outcome of applications for interim orders

Ordergranted Ordernotgranted Consentorders Applicationwithdrawndismissed 2 3 1

7C. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

forinterimorders Disposedofinunder6months 5 Disposedofinunder12months 1 Disposedofinover12months 0 Disposedofinover2years 0

8. Review of exemption decisions s 126

Matterspendingat30June2012 Newapplicationsfiled Disposals Pending at30June2013 0 1 1 0

8B. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

exemptionapplications Disposedofinunder6months 1 Disposedofinunder12months 0 Disposedofinover12months 0 Disposedofinover2years 0

55

Retail Leases Division 1/7/2012 - 30/6/2013 1. Case flow 2012-2013

Matterspendingat30June2012 Applicationsfiled Disposed Pendingat30June2013 69 175 185 58

2. Applications by type 2012-2013

Retailtenancyclaim 95 Unconscionableconductclaim 3 Combinedretailtenancyandunconscionableconductclaim 33 SpecialistRetailValuer 44

3. Outcomes 2012- 2013

Dismissedbecauseapplication Dismissedafter Settled-Orders Orders No Transferto withdrawn/noappearance/ hearing made made Jurisdiction Supreme agreementreached Court 90 5 11 74 5 0

4. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 139 Disposedofinunder12months 29 Disposedofinover12months 16 Disposedofinover2years 1

Revenue Division 1/7/2012- 30/6/2013

1. Case flow 2012-2013

Matterspending Applicationsfiled Disposals Matterspending at30June2012 at30June2013 117 91 124 84

2. Applications by Type 2012-2013 SubjectbyActDutiesAct1997 10 FirstHomeOwnersGrantAct 7 LandTaxAct 6 LandTaxManagementAct1956 38 PayrollTaxAct1971 3 PayrollTaxAct2007 23 TaxationAdministrationAct1996 4

3. Outcomes 2012- 2013

Dismissedbecauseapplication Decisionunder Decisionunderreview MixedResult- NoJurisdiction withdrawn/noappearance/ reviewaffirmed setaside/varied Partlyaffirmed/Partly agreementreached /remitted/ setaside,varied recommendationmade orremitted 91 23 10 0 0

4. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal Disposedofinunder6months 47 Disposedofinunder12months 51 Disposedofinover12months 24 Disposedofinover2years 2

56

Legal Services Division 1/7/2012- 30/6/2013

1. Case flow 2012-2013

Matterspendingat30June2012 Applicationsfiled Disposed Pendingat30June2013 50* 33 57 28*52priortoauditofdatabase

2. Applications by type 2012-2013

Applicationsfororiginaldecision 15 Applicationsforreview 2 Applicationforprofessionaldiscipline 16

3. Applications by subject 2012-2013

TypeofPractitioner Typeofconduct NumberBarrister Disciplinaryaction 0Solicitor Disciplinaryaction 16Solicitor Reprimand/Compensationorders540 5Layassociate Approvaloflayassociates17(3) 3Layassociate Prohibitiononemployments18 5Layassociate Approvaloflayassociats17(4) 1Solicitor Reviews75 2Solicitor RemovalofSuspensionofPractisingCertifi 1 33

4. Outcomes in Original matters 2012-2013•

Disciplinary - Penalty imposed by type Dismissedafterhearing 2 Fined 15 Reprimanded 21 PractisingCertificatesuspended 0 PractisingCertificatecancelled 0 RemovedfromRoll 23 Consentorder 0 Conditionsimposedonpractisingcertificate 9 Compensation 0 UndertakeandcompletecourseoffurtherLegalEducation 1 Withdrawn 2 Applicationgranted(prohibitemployment) 2 Applicationrefused 0 Approvaloflayassociate Applicationgranted 1 Withdrawn *NB:anumberofmattershavemorethanoneoutcome

5. Outcomes in Review matters 2012-2013

Applicationwithdrawn/Dismissed 3 Decisionunderreviewaffirmed 2 Decisionunderreviewsetaside/varied/remitted/recommendationmade 0 6. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 13 Disposedofinunder12months 17 Disposedofinover12months 15 Disposedofinover2years 12

57

Appeals 1/7/2012 - 30/6/2013

Internal Appeals to Appeal Panel

1. Case Flow 2012-2013

AppealsPending NewAppealsfiled Disposals Pendingat at30June2012 30June2013GeneralDivision 10 21 24 7 CommunityServicesDivision 1 2 2 1 EqualOpportunityDivision 5 4 8 1 RetailLeasesDivision 5 15 12 8 RevenueDivision 3 5 4 4 Total 24 47 50 21

1a Interlocutory Appeals•

Pendingat30June2012 InterlocutoryAppealfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2013 6 7 0 0•(thisinformationformspartoftheInternalappealcaseflowstatisticsabove)

2. Outcome of Internal Appeals 2012 - 2013

Upheld Dismissed/ Consent Withdrawn/ Total (infullpart) Nojurisdiction Orders DiscontinuedGeneralDivision 8 12 0 0 4 24 CommunityServicesDivision 1 0 1 0 0 2 EqualOpportunityDivision 2 6 0 0 0 8 RetailLeasesDivision 4 6 0 1 1 12 RevenueDivision 0 4 0 0 0 4 Total 15 28 1 1 5 50

2a Interlocutory Appeals•

Leavetoproceedrefused Leavegranted Leavegranted& anddismissed butdismissed appealupheld 9 0 0•(thisinformationformspartoftheInternalappealcaseflowstatisticsabove)

3. Timeliness - time from date of appeal to date of determination

Disposedofinunder6months 28 Disposedofinunder12months 17 Disposedofinover12months 3 Disposedofinover2years 2

58

External Appeals to the Appeal Panel 1. Case Flow 2012 -2013

AppealsPendingat NewAppeals Disposals Pendingat 30June2012 filed 30June2013GuardianshipTribunal 4 17 17 4 MentalHealthReviewTribunal 0 0 0 0 Magistrate 0 2 2 0 Total 4 19 19 4

2. Outcome of External Appeals 2012-2013

Upheld(infullorinpart) Dismissed Withdrawn/Discontinued NoJurisdiction 3 7 8 1

3. Timeliness -time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 19 Disposedofinunder12months 0 Disposedofinover12months 0 Disposedofinover2years 0

Applications to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal 1. Case flow 2012 - 2013

NewAppealsFiled Disposals GeneralDivision CommunityServicesDivision 2 EqualOpportunityDivision 1 RetailLeasesDivision RevenueDivison LegalServicesDivision 5 2 AppealPanel 5 8 AppealExternal Total 10 13 NB: one disposed was an application to the High Court 2. Outcome of Supreme Court matters 2012 - 2013

Upheld(infullorpart) Dismissed Withdrawn/ Ordersmade Discontinued followings118referral GeneralDivision CommunityServicesDivision 1 1 1 EqualOpportunityDivision RetailLeasesDivision RevenueDivison LegalServicesDivision 2 AppealPanel 2 6 AppealExternal Total Published Appeal Decisions- Presiding Member

Member Number-InternalDecisions Number-ExternalDecisions TotalO’Connor,P 25 25 Hennessy,DP 6 10 16 Chesterman,DP 13 13 Higgins,DP 2 2 Madgwick,DP 2 2 Seiden,DP 3 3

59

ThefollowinglistrefersonlytoAppealsUpheldinwholeorinpart

FROMGD

New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing v Fahey (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 55

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS)- Identity of maker of Complaint to PublicAgency - Weighing of Considerations For andAgainst Disclosure - Not a “False” Complaint -Whether that Consideration is Relevant at all- Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality -Extension to Merits - Government Information(Public Access) Act 2009, ss 12-15, Table, cl1(d),cl2(a)

Appeal allowed and leave granted to extendto the merits where the agency’s decision wasaffirmed.

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Roy (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 6

Appeal - Respondent applies to withdraw frommatter after hearing - disposal of proceedings-consentorders-nosubstantivereasonsgivenbyAppealPanel-effectondecisionbelow

Appealallowed, thedecisionwassetasideandthedecisionoftheappellantwasaffirmed.

Board of Studies v ANC High School Pty Ltd (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 8

SCHOOL REGISTRATION AND ACCREDITATION- Review of decisions of Board of Studies torecommendcancellationofregistrationofschool

andtocancelaccreditation-VariedbyTribunal-AppealbyBoard-NatureofReviewJurisdiction- Scope of Power to make Orders - Tribunaldecision varied; STATUTORY INTERPRETATION -EducationAct-Boardguidelinesmadepursuanttoregulation-makingpower-Whetherregisterof enrolments and attendances a ‘requirementof registration’ under section 47 - Held not- Tribunal decision upheld - Whether issuesrelevant to Commonwealth provider approvalinvolve ‘requirements of registration’ - Heldnot-Tribunaldecisionupheld-Appealallowedinpart;EXTENSIONTOMERITS-LeaveRefused;COSTS-Respondent’sapplication-NoorderastoCosts.EducationAct1990,s24,s47,s131

Appeal allowed in part setting aside theTribunal’s orders, application to extend to themerits was declined. Respondent’s applicationforcostsoftheappealwasrefusedandnoorderastocosts.

Australian Business Skills Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 9

Merits review - decision to cancel registrationof a registered training organisation (RTO) -whether RTO non-compliant with standardsrelating to delivery of training, assessmentand support for individual trainees - whethercancellationofregistrationjustified

Theappealwasallowedinpart.

Appendix F: Significant Appeal Cases ThisSummarycoversthereportingperiod1July2012to30June2013

60

Department of Family and Community Services, Housing NSW v Edwards (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 17

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS) -AppealbyagencyagainsttermsofTribunalordervarying its refusal to disclose information -WhethertheredactionsdirectedbytheTribunalconsistent with its reasons for decision - Partofappealsettledbyconsent-Astoremainder,leave to extend appeal to merits granted -Tribunal decision set aside in that respect,agency’s decision affirmed - Public interest indisclosure to an individual adversely affectedby administrative action outweighed, in thecircumstances,bypublicinterestinwithholdinginformation the disclosure of which couldreasonablybeexpectedtoexposeapersontoariskofharmorofseriousharassmentorseriousintimidation. Government Information (PublicAccessAct)2009,ss12-14;s14Table,cl3(f).

The Tribunal’s order was varied, with leavegrantedtoextendtheappealtothemerits.

ALY v NSW Trustee and Guardian (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 23

PROTECTED PERSON - NSW Trustee revokedauthority to manage income - Affirmed byTribunal-Appeal-Authorityrestoredinpart

Appeal allowed, the decision of trustee wasvariedtoauthorisetheappellanttomanagethebalance of his disability support pension afterdeductionofthehospitalaccommodationfee.

Sikka v Roads and Maritime Services (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 28

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION - Cancellation ofTaxi Driver Authority - Honesty and Integrity- Duplicate Transactions - Tribunal affirmedcancellation after delivery of oral reasons

- Appeal - Adequacy of Reasons - Standards -Held inadequate - Appeal extended to merits.PassengerTransportAct1990,s33(1),(3),33F

Decision under appeal set aside and theapplicationtoextendappealtomeritsgranted.

Director General, Department of Finance and Services v Baldacchino (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 29

OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING - Motor VehicleRepairers Licence - Tribunal affirmedcancellationorder,butsetasidedisqualificationorders - Appeal by Administrator seekingreinstatement of disqualification orders- Tribunal misunderstood period ofdisqualification and did not address thedisqualification relating to involvement inmanagement - Tribunal decision set aside -Appeal extended to merits - Disqualificationordersreinstated

Appealallowedinpart.

Department of Attorney General and Justice v Schoeman [2012] NSWADTAP 31

COSTS - matter settled - whether fair to awardcosts - relevance of pre-litigation conduct- primary findings of fact - exercise ofevaluative judgement - relevant and irrelevantconsideration-extensiontothemerits

The Tribunal’s decision that the appellant wasto pay the respondent’s costs is set aside,the appeal was extended to the merits of theTribunal’s decision, the application for costswasdismissed.

61

FromCSD

Fairfield City Council v WI [2012] NSWADTAP 39

Appeal - errors of law - no jurisdiction toreviewdecisionofathirdparty-applicationforreviewfutileandofno utility - looking behindan adverse earlier finding - admissibility ofevidence contradicting or inconsistent with anearlieradversefindingbyathirdparty-applyinginapplicable law - failure to give adequatereasons-takingintoaccountirrelevantmattersandfailuretotakeintoaccountrelevantmatters- making findings and reaching conclusions intheabsenceofarelevantthirdparty- leavetoappealonthemerits

Appeal allowed in part, the order setting asideappellant’s decision to remove the respondentcarer’snamefromitsFamilyDay-CareRegisterwas affirmed, while the order the respondentcarer’s name be restored to the appellant’sFamilyDay-CareRegisterwasquashed.

FromEOD

Lawson v State of New South Wales (Housing NSW) (EOD) [2013] NSWADTAP 5

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 - conditionsapplying to the registration of terms of aconciliationagreementasordersoftheTribunal-whetherthetermsofanagreementcouldhavebeenthesubjectofordersunderthisAct

Leave was granted for the appeal to extend tothemerits,appealallowed.

FromRLD

Toga Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd (RLD) [2013] NSWADTAP 2

Retail lease - construction - terms of optionlease - Tribunal’s powers in relation torectification

Declaration made that the Appellant /Cross Respondent was obliged to pay to theRespondents / Cross Appellants the AnnualRent and the Lessee’s Contributions under therenewedleasethatcameintoexistenceupontheexercisebytheAppellant/CrossRespondentoftheoptioncontainedintheregisteredsublease.

Christofi v Mohammady (RLD) [2013] NSWADTAP 10

Retail lease - abatement of rent - diminisheduseabilityduetodamage

The appeal was allowed in part, the amountordered to be paid by the Respondents to theApplicant is reduced, the parties are to bear

theirowncostsoftheappeal.

62

INTERNALAPPEALS

NAME MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION

KTvSydneyLocalHealthDistrict(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP23

AVSGroupAustraliaPtyLimited&TonySleimanvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce(Respondent’sApplication)(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP24

AshleighDevelopmentsPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(RD) [2012]NSWADTAP25

B&LLiningsPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(No6)(RD) [2012]NSWADTAP26

StateofNSW(NSWPoliceForce)vWhitfield(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP27

DepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJusticevSchoeman(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP31

CampbellvDirector-General,DepartmentofFinanceandServices(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP32

TradvJones(No.3)(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP33

QQvNSWOmbudsman(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP34

SpudsSurfChatswoodPtyLtdvPTLtd(No2)(RLD) [2012]NSWADTAP35

AHBvNSWTrusteeandGuardian(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP37

FairfieldCityCouncilvWI(CSD) [2012]NSWADTAP39

ValentinoFranchisePtyLtd(ACN114469662)vBrookfieldMultiplexWSRetailLandownerPtyLtd(CAN109033794)(No2)(RLD) [2012]NSWADTAP40

LNvSydneyLocalHealthDistrict(No.2)(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP41

IOvDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices(CSD) [2012]NSWADTAP42

KTvSydneyLocalHealthDistrict(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP43

BristrolCustodiansLimitedvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(RD) [2012]NSWADTAP44

AFvRoadsandMaritimeServices(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP45

CYvAEFandNorthernSydneyLocalHealthDistrict(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP46

StateofNewSouthWales(NSWPoliceForce)vWhitfield(No.2)(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP48

JonesandAnorvEkermawi(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP50

GelinvSumner(RLD) [2012]NSWADTAP52

MolyneuxvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(RD) [2012]NSWADTAP53

YuvUniversityofNewcastle(EOD) [2012]NSWADTAP54

NewSouthWalesOfficeofLiquor,GamingandRacingvFahey(GD) [2012]NSWADTAP55

RoachvJames(EOD) [2013]NSWADTAP1

TogaPtyLtdvPerpetualNomineesLtd(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP2

AGUvCommonwealthofAustralia(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP3

B&LLiningsPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(No7)(RD) [2013]NSWADTAP4

LawsonvStateofNewSouthWales(HousingNSW)(EOD) [2013]NSWADTAP5

CommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForcevRoy(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP6

KTvSydneyLocalHealthDistrict(No2)(COSTS)(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP7

Appendix G: Decisions Organised into Divisions and Internal and External Appeal Panel, from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013

63

BoardofStudiesvANCHighSchoolPtyLtd(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP8

AustralianBusinessSkillsPtyLtdvAustralianSkillsQualityAuthority(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP9

ChristofivMohammady(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP10

SpudsSurfChatswoodPtyLtdvPTLtd(No3)(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP11

TradvJones(No.3)(EOD) [2013]NSWADTAP13

GelinvSumner(No2)(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP14

TogaPtyLtdvPerpetualNomineesLtd(No2)(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP15

ConstantinvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP16

DepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices,HousingNSWvEdwards(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP17

JonesandAnorvEkermawi(No.2)(Costs)(EOD) [2013]NSWADTAP18

FXvNSWTrusteeandGuardian(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP19

DovervLewkovitz(RLD) [2013]NSWADTAP22

ALYvNSWTrusteeandGuardian(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP23

CornishInvestmentsPtyLimitedvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(RD) [2013]NSWADTAP25

AILvDepartmentofPremierandCabinet(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP26

TurnervDirectorofPublicProsecutions(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP27

SikkavRoadsandMaritimeServices(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP28

DirectorGeneral,DepartmentofFinanceandServicesvBaldacchino(GD) [2013]NSWADTAP29

EXTERNALAPPEALS

AJFvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP28

AJFvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP29

AJJvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP30

LZvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP36

AKPvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP38

LZvNSWTrusteeandGuardian(No2) [2012]NSWADTAP47

AKXvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP49

ALWvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADTAP51

ANRvPublicGuardian [2013]NSWADTAP12

AMOvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2013]NSWADTAP20

ANIandANLvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2013]NSWADTAP21

ANVvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2013]NSWADTAP24

GENERALDIVISIONDECISIONS

AustralianBusinessSkillsPtyLtdvAustralianSkillsQualityAuthority [2012]NSWADT133

AFWvWorkCoverAuthorityofNewSouthWales [2012]NSWADT136

HannavCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT137

AFPvHunterNewEnglandLocalHealthDistrict [2012]NSWADT141

CalandraConstructionsPtyLtdvDirectorGeneralDepartmentofFinancesandServices [2012]NSWADT143

CalandravDirectorGeneralDepartmentofFinancesandServices [2012]NSWADT144

64

AJZvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADT147

MirianivNSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT149

AHGvSnowyRiverShireCouncil [2012]NSWADT152

TurleyvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT162

AHWvPresident,Anti-DiscriminationBoard [2012]NSWADT164

BNvHornsbyShireCouncil [2012]NSWADT165

VZvUniversityofNewcastle(No2) [2012]NSWADT167

AEZvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT199

ConstantinvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT172

Pastrovic&CoPtyLimitedvDepartmentofServices,TechnologyandAdministration [2012]NSWADT177

SecurityTrainingandTacticsPtyLtdvAustralianSkillsQualityAuthority [2012]NSWADT178

AGUvCommonwealthofAustralia [2012]NSWADT179

FaheyvNSWOfficeofLiquor,GamingandRacing [2012]NSWADT181

FXvNSWTrusteeandGuardianandanor [2012]NSWADT184

AFCvTheSydneyChildren’sHospitalSpecialtyNetwork(RandwickandWestmead) [2012]NSWADT189

AILvDepartmentofPremierandCabinet [2012]NSWADT191

WilliamsvDepartmentIndustryandInvestment [2012]NSWADT192

NatureConservationCouncilofNSWvDepartmentofTradeandInvestment,RegionalInfrastructureandServices [2012]NSWADT195

CamillerivPenrithCityCouncil [2012]NSWADT196

AFUvSydneyLocalHealthDistrict [2012]NSWADT197

TurnervDirectorofPublicProsecutions [2012]NSWADT198

SyedvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT206

AFvRoadsandMaritimeServices(No2) [2012]NSWADT210

DascaluvNSWArchitectsRegistrationBoard [2012]NSWADT213

MellinivRegistrar,RegistryofBirths,Deaths&Marriages [2012]NSWADT215

CarrvDepartmentofServices,Technology&Administration [2012]NSWADT216

AMCandALQvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADT217

AMJvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT228

MetroWindowsPtyLtd&OrsvCommissionerofFairTrading(No2) [2012]NSWADT232

BlackvHunterNewEnglandLocalHealthDistrict&DrLattimore(No2) [2012]NSWADT235

HallvRoadsandMaritimeServices [2012]NSWADT239

GirivRoadsandMaritimeServices [2012]NSWADT241

PotiervDepartmentofCorrectiveServices(No3) [2012]NSWADT243

HamsherevCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT244

IrvinevCommissionerofPolice,NewSouthWalesPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT245

SportingShootersAssociationofAustralia(NSW)SydneyBranchIncvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2012]NSWADT249

ALEvPublicGuardian [2012]NSWADT250

KTvSydneyLocalHealthService(formerlySydneySouthWestAreaHealthService)(No2) [2012]NSWADT252

AMGvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADT254

65

ALYvNSWTrusteeandGuardian [2012]NSWADT255

AHCvFireandRescueNewSouthWalesAHCvCharlesSturtUniversity [2012]NSWADT258

FoongvDirector-General,DepartmentofFinanceandServicesNSWFairTrading [2012]NSWADT261

RosenstraussvDepartmentofFinanceandServices [2012]NSWADT264

ANQvDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice,CorrectiveServices [2012]NSWADT271

BourkevRoadsandMaritimeServices [2012]NSWADT272

EdwardsvDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices,HousingNSW(No2) [2012]NSWADT273

MattarvRoadsandMaritimeServices [2012]NSWADT274

MJvDepartmentofEducationandCommunities [2012]NSWADT275

ChoyvWilloughbyCityCouncil [2012]NSWADT277

AMCandALQvNSWTrusteeandGuardianandAOD(No.2) [2012]NSWADT279

RowevRoads&MaritimeServices [2012]NSWADT281

GeorgevCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT1

NSWHenryGeorgeFoundationvDirectorGeneral,NSWDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice [2013]NSWADT2

AMLvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT5

AssadourianvRoadsandTrafficAuthority [2013]NSWADT6

DavosvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT7

WoolleyvLismoreCityCouncil [2013]NSWADT10

SullivanvOkeno [2013]NSWADT12

KaldasvRoadandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT14

RidavRoads&MaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT18

AIFvTheUniversityofWesternSydney [2013]NSWADT20

BaldacchinovDirectorGeneral,DepartmentofFinanceandServices [2013]NSWADT24

DavisonvNSWDepartmentofEducationandTraining [2013]NSWADT25

ByrnevCowraShireCouncil [2013]NSWADT26

AECvNSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT32

ClarkevBlacktownCityCouncil [2013]NSWADT36

TurnervCorrectiveServicesNSW [2013]NSWADT39

ColefaxvDepartmentofEducationandCommunities(No1) [2013]NSWADT42

APBvIllawarraShoalhavenLocalHealthDistrict [2013]NSWADT43

ClarkinvNewcastleCityCouncil [2013]NSWADT44

InaizivRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT45

AFWvWorkCoverAuthorityofNewSouthWales [2013]NSWADT51

SchettlervCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT52

McMillanvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce;BradyvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT53

JacobsvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT54

BNvHornsbyShireCouncil(2) [2013]NSWADT55

GrenfellvDirectorGeneraloftheDepartmentofFinanceandServices [2013]NSWADT57

MirianivCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT59

66

AustralianVaccinationNetworkvDepartmentofFinance&Services [2013]NSWADT60

SelbyvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT61

LevinyvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT62

SabounevDepartmentofFinanceandServices [2013]NSWADT71

BrownvRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT72

BattinvUniversityofNewEngland [2013]NSWADT73

ColefaxvDepartmentofEducationandCommunities [2013]NSWADT75

GeorgevCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT76

CamillerivCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT80

TerzicvRegistrarofBirths,DeathsandMarriages [2013]NSWADT82

VellavDepartmentofFinanceandServices [2013]NSWADT84

LanevCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT85

AEZvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT90

SFvShoalhavenCityCouncil [2013]NSWADT94

AFCvTheSydneyChildren’sHospitalSpecialtyNetwork(RandwickandWestmead)(No2) [2013]NSWADT99

SaggersvEnvironmentProtectionAuthority [2013]NSWADT109

AINandMedicalCouncilofNSW [2013]NSWADT112

McLennanvUniversityofNewEngland [2013]NSWADT113

PottsvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT114

DonnellanvKu-ring-gaiCouncil [2013]NSWADT115

ChapmanvNSWArchitectsRegistrationBoard [2013]NSWADT120

LedaDevelopmentsPtyLtdvTweedShireCouncil [2013]NSWADT121

MohamedvRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT122

KumarvDirectorGeneral,DepartmentofFinanceandServices [2013]NSWADT124

GiannvDepartmentofFinanceandServices(CommissionerforFairTrading) [2013]NSWADT129

ColefaxvDepartmentofEducationandCommunitiesNo2 [2013]NSWADT130

JohnstonvDepartmentofEducationandCommunities [2013]NSWADT132

AFWvWorkCoverAuthorityofNewSouthWales [2013]NSWADT133

AttarvRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT135

ODvDepartmentofEducation&Communities [2013]NSWADT136

PetasvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPolice [2013]NSWADT137

AOBvCommissionerofPolice [2013]NSWADT138

MontevCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT139

ChrisisvCommissionerofPolice [2013]NSWADT142

GhachamevRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT144

SodikivRoadsandMaritimeServices [2013]NSWADT145

KocicvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT146

AKLvUniversityofWesternSydney [2013]NSWADT147

TurnervCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT157

67

COMMUNITYSERVICESDIVISIONDECISIONS

ABL&ABKvDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices [2012]NSWADT130

IOvDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices,CommunityServices [2012]NSWADT158

AEMandAELvLifewithoutBarriers [2012]NSWADT240

AHVvNSWCommissionforChildrenandYoungPeople [2012]NSWADT263

FZvCommissionforChildrenandYoungPeople(No2) [2013]NSWADT22

AKMvNgunyaJarjumChildandFamilyNetworkInc [2013]NSWADT89

PeoplewithDisabilityAustraliaIncorporatedvTheMinisterforDisabilityServices [2013]NSWADT92

AHDandAHEvWilliamCampbellCollegeandAHDandAHEvDepartmentofFamily&CommunityServices [2013]NSWADT98

APTandAPSvDirectorGeneralDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices [2013]NSWADT116

AKAvCommissionforChildrenandYoungPeople [2013]NSWADT131

ABVvDepartmentofHumanServices,CommunityServices [2013]NSWADT134

AMSandAMTvDepartmentofFamilyandCommunityServices [2013]NSWADT140

AIRvDepartmentofFamilyCommunityServices [2013]NSWADT141

EQUALOPPORTUNITYDIVISIONDECISIONS

WongvOfficeoftheBoardofStudiesNSW(No4) [2012]NSWADT128

GellelvGIOGeneralLtd [2012]NSWADT134

WhiteoakvStateofNewSouthWales(DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral-CorrectiveServicesNSW) [2012]NSWADT135

CoopervWesternAreaLocalHealthNetwork(No2) [2012]NSWADT138

AlchinvRailCorporationNSW [2012]NSWADT142

AKUvDepartmentofEducationandCommunities [2012]NSWADT154

ParkesvTheUniversityofNewcastle [2012]NSWADT155

BestwickvAdeccoAustraliaPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT156

HughesvNarrabriBowlingMotelLimited [2012]NSWADT161

ALIonbehalfofALJ&ALKvNSWDepartmentofEducation&Communities [2012]NSWADT174

HillievHensonPropertiesGroup [2012]NSWADT194

YuvUniversityofNewcastle(No2) [2012]NSWADT201

AlabadlavStateofNSW(NSWPoliceForce) [2012]NSWADT205

ObietavAustralianCollegeofProfessionalsPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT208

RatnayakevBondiSurfBathersLifeSavingClub [2012]NSWADT214

MihnyakvWoolworthsLimited [2012]NSWADT219

MeadvNSWDepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice [2012]NSWADT224

MurtoughvNSWBarAssociation(No.3) [2012]NSWADT234

FoxvOfficeoftheBoardofStudies [2012]NSWADT236

BurnsvSunol [2012]NSWADT246

BurnsvSunol(No2) [2012]NSWADT247

BrownvBourkeBowlingClub [2012]NSWADT248

ShvetsovavStateofNewSouthWales(DepartmentofEducationandCommunities) [2012]NSWADT253

TrevanionvWyangalaCountryClubLtd [2012]NSWADT257

68

HughesvNarrabriBowlingMotelLimited(No2) [2012]NSWADT260

TradvJones(No4) [2012]NSWADT265

HammondvKelkyPtyLtdt/asTattersallsHotelGilgandra [2013]NSWADT4

TUvVaisman [2013]NSWADT8

McElroyvSutton(No2) [2013]NSWADT9

KitchenervAwabakalLocalAboriginalLandCouncil [2013]NSWADT11

ShandilvAnimalWelfareLeagueNSW [2013]NSWADT15

CourtvUniversityofWesternSydney [2013]NSWADT16

TrevanionvWyangalaCountryClubLtd(No2) [2013]NSWADT27

AttiavJetstarAirwaysPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT28

NichollsvBrewarrinaRSLClubLimited [2013]NSWADT29

AryvDirectorGeneral,NSWHealth [2013]NSWADT30

ErmelvStateofNSW(DepartmentofFamily&CommunityServices) [2013]NSWADT31

MarianivNSWPoliceForce,StateofNSW [2013]NSWADT35

ANUvStateofNSW(SydneyLocalHealthDistrict) [2013]NSWADT38

HammondvKelkyPtyLtdt/asTattersallsHotelGilgandra(No.2) [2013]NSWADT40

MarcusvTeachersMutualBankLimited [2013]NSWADT41

HabibvStateofNSW(NSWPoliceForce) [2013]NSWADT66

NyitraivBackloadRemovalsandTransportPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT69

BrownvBourkeBowlingClub(No2) [2013]NSWADT74

SmithvWestpacBankingCorporation [2013]NSWADT77

DuncanvChiefExecutive,NSWOfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(No2) [2013]NSWADT78

EkermawivJonesandHarbourRadioPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT79

TUvVaisman(No2) [2013]NSWADT97

ImielskavNorthernSydneyLocalHealthDistrict [2013]NSWADT100

KellyandOrsvTamworthRegionalCouncil [2013]NSWADT107

SeremetisvMosmanMunicipalCouncil [2013]NSWADT108

LiaovStVincent’sHospitalSydneyLtd [2013]NSWADT119

TradvJones(No5) [2013]NSWADT127

RitsonvCommissionerofPolice,NSWPoliceForce [2013]NSWADT148

RETAILLEASESDIVISIONDECISIONS

HannavLombardo [2012]NSWADT163

PPSNomineesPtyLimitedvSummerlandEntertainmentPtyLtd[115055]SummerlandEntertainmentPtyLtdvPPSNomineesPtyLimited[115118] [2012]NSWADT171

HongHaMascotBakeryPtyLtdvG&JDrivasPtyLtdandTeladoPtyLimited(No2) [2012]NSWADT175

UckanvVerdiPtyLimited(No4) [2012]NSWADT180

SpryntPtyLtdvCampanella&anor [2012]NSWADT186

JohnSerafimandPresdatePtyLimitedvJVPigottPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT187

69

NorthEastDevelopmentsPtyLtdvBusinessToAllAustraliaPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT188

WyTradingPtyLtdvWang [2012]NSWADT190

HuntvCasaranPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT193

73UnionStRetailPtyLtdvJ&SGroupPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT212

Chastel-RouxPtyLtdvLe [2012]NSWADT223

LewkovitzvDover [2012]NSWADT227

FathullahvVarma [2012]NSWADT237

MahmoodvChristofi(No2) [2012]NSWADT251

NorthEastDevelopmentsPtyLtdvBusinessToAllAustraliaPtyLtd(No2) [2012]NSWADT256

FengYunvGoulburnInternationalPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT276

73UnionStreetRetailPtyLtdvJ&SGroupPtyLtd&Ors(No2) [2012]NSWADT278

SewingMachineWarehousePtyLtdvPavittIndustriesPtyLtd [2012]NSWADT282

MoussavWarren [2012]NSWADT284

FathullahvVarma(No.2) [2013]NSWADT13

BavelaPtyLtdvFusionMasteringPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT23

AuburnShoppingVillagePtyLtdvAzzi [2013]NSWADT33

FengYunvGoulburnInternationalPtyLtd(No.2)(Costs) [2013]NSWADT47

InspireInternationalHoldingsPtyLtdvHeriotPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT48

HorowitzvBardot [2013]NSWADT50

DraketradingasDrake’sHandmadeJewelleryvTenakauInvestmentsPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT56

JAINGAO&HUIYUANGAOvLEOSIAMPTYLTD [2013]NSWADT58

CocoChocolatesPtyLimitedvLotz [2013]NSWADT83

Charalambous-v-Yeung [2013]NSWADT86

R&RFamilyHoldingsPtyLtdvBevillestaPtyLtd(ReceiversandManagersAppointed) [2013]NSWADT95

NicollvBarnett [2013]NSWADT104

FJLPtyLtdtradingasWyomingCaravanParkandJamesLouizosvMunday [2013]NSWADT117

BrashesConvenienceStorePtyLtdvPitt&CastlereaghPtyLtd [2013]NSWADT118

REVENUEDIVISIONDECISIONS

EKAndersonInvestmentsPtyLtdATFCacsPropertyTrustvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT132

BilquipPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT151

KnopvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT157

MohamedvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT169

CornishInvestmentsPtyLimitedvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT204

DevinevChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT209

GunastivChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT218

MurphyvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT221

PGDukesPtyLtdATFPatriciaDukesFoundationvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT238

DyervChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT262

70

KollnvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT269

LandfallPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2012]NSWADT270

PrintNationalPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT3

LombardFarmsPtyLtdvTheChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT17

NowlanEnterprisesPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT21

FerellavChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT46

PastelPinesInternationalvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT49

BrataniecvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT65

CompleteWardrobes&ShowerscreensPtyLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT67

BettaIndustriesPtyLimitedvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(NSW) [2013]NSWADT68

PaynevChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT88

ReolonvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT96

ZhuangvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT103

UechtritzvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT111

YangvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT123

RajanvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT125

BristrolCustodiansLtdvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue(No2) [2013]NSWADT128

KozmanvChiefCommissionerofStateRevenue [2013]NSWADT143

LEGALSERVICESDIVISIONDECISIONS

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvMiller(No2) [2012]NSWADT129

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvBrooks [2012]NSWADT131

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvAutore [2012]NSWADT139

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvFitzgibbon(No.4) [2012]NSWADT145

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvMeeLing [2012]NSWADT146

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvFitzgibbon(No.3) [2012]NSWADT148

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvBeazley [2012]NSWADT153

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvLo(No2) [2012]NSWADT159

LegalServicesCommissionervTsalidis [2012]NSWADT160

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvLyons [2012]NSWADT166

DonaghyvCounciloftheLawSocietyofNSW(No2) [2012]NSWADT170

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvGalloway [2012]NSWADT176

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvAsuzu(No.3) [2012]NSWADT183

CouncilofLawSocietyofNSWvGuy [2012]NSWADT200

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvHarrison(No3) [2012]NSWADT202

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvIsaac [2012]NSWADT203

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvScully [2012]NSWADT207

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvPizzinga [2012]NSWADT211

71

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvNash [2012]NSWADT220

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvNicholls [2012]NSWADT222

LegalServicesCommissionervBrydenandHagipantelis(No3) [2012]NSWADT225

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvTsalidis(No3) [2012]NSWADT229

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvTsalidis(No4) [2012]NSWADT230

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvTsalidis(No5) [2012]NSWADT231

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvWebb(No2) [2012]NSWADT233

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvFitzsimons [2012]NSWADT242

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvMaloney [2012]NSWADT259

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvEkes [2012]NSWADT266

LawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvAouad [2012]NSWADT267

VertzayiasvCounciloftheLawSocietyofNSW [2012]NSWADT268

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvPaul [2012]NSWADT280

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvXenos [2012]NSWADT283

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvFitzsimons [2012]NSWADT285

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvJohnson [2013]NSWADT19

LegalServicesCommissionervKumar [2013]NSWADT34

TheLegalServicesCommissionervSandroussi [2013]NSWADT37

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvHancock [2013]NSWADT63

CounciloftheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationvNash(No2) [2013]NSWADT64

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvFlynn [2013]NSWADT70

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvLeslie [2013]NSWADT81

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvGillroy [2013]NSWADT87

LegalServicesCommissionervAngelovski [2013]NSWADT93

LegalServicesCommissionervTsalidis,CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvTsalidis [2013]NSWADT101

AusselreMcCaffery [2013]NSWADT102

TheCounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvLundy [2013]NSWADT105

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvRoss [2013]NSWADT106

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNSWvFarah [2013]NSWADT110

CounciloftheLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesvFitzsimons(No2) [2013]NSWADT126

72

©StateofNewSouthWalesthroughtheADT,DAGJ,2013.

Copyright:Youmaycopy,distribute,display,downloadandotherwisefreelydealwiththisworkforanypurpose,providedthatyouattributetheowner.However,youmustobtainpermissionifyouwishto(a)chargeothersforaccesstothework(otherthanatcost),(b)includetheworkinadvertisingoraproductforsale,or(c)modifythework.

Disclaimer:ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedbytheADTforgeneralinformationpurposesandwhileeverycarehasbeentakeninrelationtoitsaccuracy,nowarrantyisgivenorimplied.Further,recipientsshouldobtaintheirownindependentadvicebeforemakinganydecisionsthatrelyonthisinformation.

Foralternativeformats(audiotape,electronicorBrailleversions)ofthisdocumentcontactCorporateServicesorDiversityServicesviaemail:diversityservices@agd.nsw.gov.au,phone:0286887507,fax:0286889626orTTY:0286887733forpeoplewhohaveaspeechorhearingimpairment.