3 Bears Childcare Centre Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education; Apple Bear Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education; Hi5 Childcare Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education [2024] NSWCATAD 204

Catchwords: STAY – administrative review of decision to revoke approval to operate child care centres - stay refused – factors relevant to a stay Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: 3 Bears Childcare Centre Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education; Apple Bear Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education; Hi5 Childcare Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education [2024] NSWCATAD 204 Hearing dates: 2 July 2024 Date of orders: 2 July 2024 Decision date: 25 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Mulvey, Senior Member Decision: The decision made by the Respondent is stayed until 6pm on 5 July 2024. Catchwords: STAY – administrative review of decision to revoke approval to operate child care centres - stay refused – factors relevant to a stay Legislation Cited: Children ( Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Education and Care Services National Regulations Cases Cited: Bentran Pty Ltd v Sabbarton [2014] NSWCATAP 37 Liu v Chinese Medicine Council of NSW [2019] NSWCATOD 13 Mother’s Choice Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education [2020] NSWCATAD 194 New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: 3 Bears Childcare Centre Pty Ltd (First Applicant) Apple Bear Pty Ltd (Second Applicant) Hi5 Childcare Pty Ltd (Third Applicant) Secretary, Department of Education (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: N Li (Respondent) Solicitors: T Trang (Director) (First, Second and Third Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2024/00222909 2024/00223933 2024/00220080 Publication restriction: The disclosure or publication of the name of any child referred to in the evidence is prohibited. Note: a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person. REASONS FOR DECISION On 2 July 2024 , I heard two miscellaneous application s in respect of three separate but related applications for administrative review of decisions made by the respondent; the Secretary of the Department of Education. The first miscellaneous application was an application by the respondent to join each of the applications to be heard and case managed together . If that order is made the evidence in one matter could be used as evidence in the other. I granted th at application and consolidated the three applications to be case managed and heard together . I delivered oral reasons for that decision. The second application is a request by the applicants for a stay of a decision made by the respondent of 4 June 2024, cancelling each applicant ’ s approval to operate a child care centre with effect from 4 July 2024. I refused the stay application in each application. A request has been made by the applicants to provide written reasons for my decision. These are my reasons. Each of the three related applicants are corporate entitie s. Each applicant has the same director Mr Tuan Trang . He is the person responsible for the management and control of each company . A child care centre is run by each company in South Western Sydney under the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW) ( ‘ the National Law ’ ). By letter dated 4 June 2024 to each of the applicants a delegate of the respondent , referred to a show cause notice which had been given to the applicants , and informed each company that a decision had been made to cancel its service approval under s 79(1)(a)( i ) of the National Law, with effect on 4 July 2024 ( “ the cancellation decision ” ) . Mr Trang, on behalf of each company lodged an application for administrative review of the cancellation decision. The application for a stay had been case managed by the Tribunal. The parties were ordered to file evidence and submissions. On 20 June 2024, I adjourned the hearing of the stay application part heard . The parties were given further time to lodge and file evidence and submissions. On the morning of this hearing, Mr Trang lodged with the registry and relied upon a further three folders of documents (Blue, Red and Green) and written submissions. Mr Li, counsel for the respondent did not object to those documents. Mr Trang also relied upon the original documents lodged with the stay applications a written submissions from the adjourned 20 June 2024 hearing. The respondent relied upon an affidavit of Rebecca McPhee (with voluminous attachments) and written submissions filed 1 July 2024. It must be noted that the respondent ’ s documents were filed in accordance with the Tribunals orders made on 20 June 2024. Mr Trang said he had received the respondents documents electronically. I enquired if he was able to proceed with the stay application given the large number of documents filed by the respondent. Mr Trang assured me that he was not seeking an adjournment and he wanted the stay application determined. I determined to proceed with the stay application. Mr Trang requested that a consul tant he retained Ms Ribarovski be allowed to give oral evidence about the improvements that had been made in the centres. Mr Li objected to that request. I refused the applicants relying upon the oral evidence of Ms Ribarovski . This is because, no statement had been filed by Ms Ribarovski in accordance with the Tribunal ’ s previous orders. No notice had been given to the respondent that Ms Ribarovski would be giving evidence and that the Respondent had had no opportunity to consider and obtain any reply to the proposed evidence of Ms Ribarovski . The National Law The National Law is part of the national scheme for the regulation of the education and care of children. The objectives and guiding principles of the National Law are set out in s 3 as follows: 3 Objectives and guiding principles (1) The objective of this Law is to establish a national education and care services quality framework for the delivery of education and care services to children. (2) The objectives of the national education and care services quality framework are— (a) to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending education and care services; (b) to improve the educational and developmental outcomes for children attending education and care services; (c) to promote continuous improvement in the provision of quality education and care services; (d) to establish a system of national integration and shared responsibility between participating jurisdictions and the Commonwealth in the administration of the national education and care services quality framework; (e) to improve public knowledge, and access to information, about the quality of education and care services; (f) to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden for education and care services by enabling information to be shared between participating jurisdictions and the Commonwealth. (3) The guiding principles of the national education and care services quality framework are as follows— (a) that the rights and best interests of the child are paramount; (b) that children are successful, competent and capable learners; (c) that the principles of equity, inclusion and diversity underlie this Law; (d) that Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are valued; (e) that the role of parents and families is respected and supported; (f) that best practice is expected in the provision of education and care services. The National Law provides, in s 4: 4 How functions to be exercised An entity that has functions under this Law is to exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the national education and care services quality framework set out in section 3. I have had regard to the objectives and guiding principles set out in s 3 of the National Law in deciding this matter. A person must obtain a ‘ provider approval ’ under Part 2 of the National Law together with a ‘ service approval ’ under Part 3 of the National Law in order to be able to operate an education and childcare service lawfully in New South Wales (see s 103 of the National Law). A service approval is subject to the conditions set out in s 51 of the National Law. Under s 51(5) of the National Law, a service approval is subject to any conditions prescribed by the national regulations. This is a reference to the Education and Care Services National Regulations (2011) ( ‘ the National Regulations ’ ) which provide, among other things, for a National Quality Standard (see Schedule 1) and for prescribed rating levels (see reg 57, Part 3.2) As to the cancellation of a service approval, the National Law provides as follows: 77 Grounds for cancellation of service approval A Regulatory Authority may cancel a service approval if— (a) the Regulatory Authority reasonably believes that the continued operation of the education and care service would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of any child or class of children being educated and cared for by the education and care service; or (b) the service has been suspended under section 72 or 73 and the reason for the suspension has not been rectified at or before the end of the period of suspension; or (c) the service approval was obtained improperly; or (d) a condition of the service approval has not been complied with. 78 Show cause notice before cancellation (1) This section applies if the Regulatory Authority is considering the cancellation of a service approval under section 77. (2) The Regulatory Authority must first give the approved provider a notice ( show cause notice ) stating— (a) that the Regulatory Authority intends to cancel the service approval; and (b) the reasons for the proposed cancellation; and (c) that the approved provider may, within 30 days after the notice is given, give the Regulatory Authority a written response to the proposed cancellation. 79 Decision in relation to cancellation (1) After considering any written response from the approved provider received within the time allowed by section 78(2)(c), the Regulatory Authority— (a) may— (i) cancel the service approval; or (ii) suspend the service approval for a period not more than the prescribed period; or (iii) decide not to cancel the service approval; and (b) must give the approved provider written notice of the decision. (2) Subject to section 81, the decision to cancel the service approval takes effect— (a) at the end of 14 days after the date of the decision; or (b) if another period is specified by the Regulatory Authority, at the end of that period. (3) The notice of a decision to cancel must set out the date on which it takes effect. (4) A cancellation of a service approval includes the cancellation of the service approval to the extent that it relates to an associated children’s service. (5) This Law applies to a suspension of a service approval under this section as if it were a suspension under section 72. The applicant ’ s right to seek the external review of the cancellation of its service approval is provided for in s 192(b)(iv) of the National Law, which says: 192 Reviewable decision—external review A reviewable decision for external review is— … (b) a decision of the Regulatory Authority under this Law as applying in any participating jurisdiction— … (iv) to cancel a service approval under section 79 or 307; or The Tribunal has power to stay the decision to cancel applicant ’ s service approval pursuant to s 43 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW): 43 Effect of pending general applications and appeals (1) This section applies to the making or lodgment of any of the following (a pending general application or appeal )— (a) a general application for the review or other re-examination of a decision made by an external decision-maker, (b) an external appeal, (c) an internal appeal. Note— See Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 for the effect of pending administrative review applications on administratively reviewable decisions and the making of orders staying or otherwise affecting such decisions. (2) A pending general application or appeal does not affect the operation of the decision to which the application or appeal relates, or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision, unless the Tribunal makes an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation of the decision. (3) The Tribunal may make such orders (whether with or without conditions) staying or otherwise affecting the operation of a decision to which a pending general application or appeal relates as it considers appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the determination of the application or appeal. Applicable principles The principles applicable to an application for a stay of the cancellation of a service approval were set out in Mother’s Choice Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education [2020] NSWCATAD 194 at [16]-[18]: 16. In Bentran Pty Ltd v Sabbarton [2014] NSWCATAP 37 Wright J at [9] summarised the principles applicable to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion to decide whether a stay of a decision should be granted under s 43 of the NCAT Act (citations omitted): (1) Generally a successful party is entitled to the benefit of the decision or orders that the party has obtained at first instance, but a stay may be granted where the applicant has demonstrated an appropriate case to warrant the exercise of discretion in its favour – s 43(2) and (3) of the Act. (2) In practical effect the onus is on an applicant for a stay to make out a case that it is appropriate for the court to make such an order. (3) The mere lodgement of the notice of appeal is insufficient, of itself, to demonstrate that it is an appropriate case to warrant the granting of a stay. (4) An order staying the operation of a decision or orders will generally be appropriate where such an order is reasonably necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal – s 43(3) of the Act. This is similar to, if not the same as, the considerations applied by the Courts that where there is a risk that an appeal will prove abortive if the applicant succeeds and a stay is not granted, or where unless a stay is granted an appeal will be rendered nugatory, the discretion should generally be exercised in favour of granting a stay. (5) The Tribunal may also take into account the strength or otherwise of the case of the party seeking the stay. This consideration may be particularly relevant when it is plain that an appeal, which does not require leave, has been lodged without any real prospects of success and simply in the hope of gaining a respite against immediate execution of the decision. (6) The Tribunal's power to grant a stay includes a power to make such an order subject to such conditions as the Tribunal specifies. (7) In exercising the discretion, the Tribunal will also weigh the balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties and may impose appropriate conditions so as to achieve a result that is fair to all parties. (8) Finally, the overriding principle in an application for a stay is to ask what the interests of justice require. 17. In applying these principles, it is necessary to have regard to the statutory context in which the decision was made ( Liu v Chinese Medicine Council of NSW [2019] NSWCATOD 13). In the context of the National Law, this includes that the rights and best interests of the child are paramount and that best practice is expected in the provision of education and care services. 18. In addition, in New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95 Spigelman CJ explained that, in an application for a stay where the issues involve the protection of the public, the public interest is entitled to significant weight. Background to the cancellation decision The respondent gave reasons for its decision to cancel each applicant ’ s authorit ies to operate child care centres. I have had regard to the individual decisions, however, they are in some respects the same . A considerable volume of information was provided to me with respect to the past breaches of the National Law and the National Regulations. I have regard to all of it, and I will not set it out here in detail. Given the urgent nature of the stay application, noting that the cancellation decision comes into effect on 4 July 2024, I have set out a summary of the more significant and concern ing conduct of the applicant ’ s, Mr Trang and the staff . Hi 5 Childcare Centre Pty Ltd ( Hi5 ) is an approved provider under the National Law (PR-40006179). It holds service approval SE-00008271 which authorises it to operate 3 Bears Childcare and Preschool, located at 107 Lord Street, Cabramatta ( 3 Bears Cabramatta ). 3 Bears Cabramatta is authorised to provide education and care to a maximum of 36 children at any one time. Apple Bear Pty Ltd ( Apple Bear ) is an approved provider under the National Law (PR-40007017). It holds service approval SE-00006429, which authorises it to operate 3 Bears Childcare and Preschool Fairfield, located at 99 Wolseley Street Fairfield ( 3 Bears Fairfield ). 3 Bears Fairfield is authorised to provide education and care to a maximum of 45 children at any one time. 3 Bears Childcare Centre Pty Ltd ( 3BCC ) is an approved provider under the National Law (PR-40004292). It holds service approval SE-00006213, which authorises it to operate 3 Bears Childcare, located at 61 Prospect Road Canley Vale ( 3 Bears Canley Vale ). 3 Bears Canley Vale is authorised to provide education and care to a maximum of 54 children at any one time. In the folder of documents, the respondent provided evidence of numerous inspections, assessments and complaints in relation to the operation of each of 3 Bears Cabramatta, 3 Bears Fairfield and 3 Bears Canley Vale , from March 2023 to February 2024 . T he respondent ’ s contention is that where Mr Trang is the sole controlling mind of each company, the evidence of one of the applicants engaging in, or failing to correct, conduct by its staff that breaches the National Law , is relevant to the question of the fitness and propriety of each of the individual companies to continue to hold their approval to operate . Mr Trang confirmed at the hearing that he was, in effect, the controlling person of each company. This was not in dispute. Each of the cancellation decisions relied on s 31(a), s 31(b) and s 31(e) of the National Law which provide as follows: (a) the Regulatory Authority is satisfied that the approved provider or a person with management or control of an education and care service operated by the approved provider is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the provision of an education and care service, (b) the Regulatory Authority is satisfied that the continued provision of education and care services by the approved provider would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of any child or class of children being educated and cared for by an education and care service operated by the approved provider, (e) the approved provider has breached a condition of the provider approval. The decisions relating to two of the applicants, include the following conduct which the respondent contends to have occurred : Intentionally over enroll ed students at the child care centres , which lead to the lawful student numbers and staff to student ratios being exceeded; without parental consent, moved children between the child care centres, to minimise over enrolling students , and in an attempt to avoid detection during times of inspection by officers of the respondent ; conceal ed from officers of the respondent the true student numbers at each centre , including provided care for children at Mr Trang ’ s non approved personal residence; t aken children outside of the centres, without permission under the guise of “ excursions ” to public libraries and supermarkets , apparently for a similar purpose; financially inducing staff by way of additional renumeration to over enrol students . Conversely, threatened staff to a reduc tion in pay if over enrolment numbers were not maintained ; directing staff to use “ upper floor as additional childcare centre ” ; making parents wait for the return of children from one centre to another; use of a highchair as a restrictive practice/restraint on children; transferring child ren with a disability or inability to speak to non-approved areas, on excursions or other centres (without parental approval) ; wilfully classifying over enrolments as “ emergency placements ” without evidence; penalis ed staff when they discussed operational inadequacies with ot her staff members ; failed to notify the respondent of serious incidents, including injuries to children and assaults ; fail ed to keep proper injury records and incident report registers; fail ed to properly, or at all, attend to treating serious injuries to children whilst at the centre; threatened staff via text message that “ if there is one more complaint from parents or one more child pulling out [the applicant ] will terminate staff ” ; sen t a text message to staff on 7 January 2023 directing the organisation ’ s “ transport team ” to transport the children whose parents were “ less problematic ” , out of the centre to ensure appropriate staff to child ratios were not exceeded; o n 11 May 2023, a complaint was made about 3 child ren being placed in a van and parked on the street to escape an inspection by the respondent , without the children ’ s water bottle and backpack; targeted vulnerable families and overcharging child care subsidy by claiming their five days ’ child care subsidy entitlement whilst only providing 3 days care ; failed to have adequate risk assessments and authorisations completed for excursions and transporting children ; and failed to verify that staff had working with children checks. The records include the following alleged breach es . Firstly, on 17 October 2019, problems with electrical maintenance exposing wires above a handwashing sink. More recently in February 2024 , inspections revealed allegations of serious and unacceptable risk to children in failing to identify a diagnosed allergy ’ s and treating a child with a topical cream for suspected anaphylaxis. 3BCC was found by the respondent to have engaged in over enrolling students. All of the alleged breaches were investigated over an extended period . Each of the respondents were given a show cause notice and provided multiple opportunities to remedy the breaches and, or, demonstrate that the alleged conduct had not occurred or was in some circumstances not established . It is important to note that Mr Trang in his submissions made statements to the effect : Q: What would you like to say about the allegations of moving children between centres: A: No reason to move children from centre to centre. I did not do that. I deny that I moved children from centre to centre. I note this is in direct contradiction to statements provided to the respondent by educators, text messages from Mr Trang to his staff and complaint s by parents to the applicants . After the respondent took me to evidence which contradicted Mr Trang ’ s statements, Mr Trang said in reply : I deny all of what Mr Li mentioned. Somethings we made mistakes One of the staff is Dang Dang, she is responsible for CCS entries and enrolment issues. I told her we are not allowed to over enrol children and to put them on a waiting list, or enrol in another centre. TQ: why have you not put a statement from Ms Dang TQ: Did the over enrolling and moving children between centres happen more than 12 months ago It happened but it is grey area, now it is crystal clear. We have stopped transport in last 12 months to avoid confusion. Mr Trang relied upon enrolment records for the last 12 months which he said show there has been no over enrolment . Mr Trang was unable to provide the same records for the period which the respondent raises concerns and said “ we have changed computer systems ” and we no longer h a ve the records. Mr Trang said he denies that he incentivised staff to over enrol students. However, in a text message to staff he proposed to financially incentivise the educ ators to enrol students over the approved number of students allowed . Mr Trang ’ s inability to make reliable submissions which were consistent with the documentary evidence caused me significant concern. His tendency to incorrectly state the truth, or indeed deny something occurred and then say that i t di d , and then justifying his denial by saying “ that is a grey area ” left me doubting the reliability of his submissions generally . Mr Trang when presented with contradictory documentation attempted to shift the blame on past employees or computer difficulties. I was cautious in respect of the weight I gave to his submissions for th ese reason s . I have taken into consideration that o ne of the applicant s had 91 recorde d breaches of the National Law and the National Regulations between 10 February 2014 and 21 February 2024. Another had 363 recorded breaches over a similar period. It is not in contest that b y 10 July 2023, Mr Trang had been excluded from attendance at the child care centres after being issued a notice under s 171 of the National Law. He has since been found by the respondent to have breach ed that notice. T he applicants say the stay should be granted because there is no immediate or potential risks to the safety, health and wellbeing of children. The applicants have retained the services of an independent consultant Ms Ribarovski and as a result have implemented a number of changes to their business to ensure ongoing compliance with the National Law and the National Regulations. Mr Trang contends that in respect of each of his companies, most of the alleged breaches occurred some time ago and due to the significant improvement in their conduct the Tribunal should have no concern about the risk to the safety, health and wellbeing of children . The applicants rely upon petition s , purportedly signed by parents of children enrolled at the centres and staff. There are letters also provided in support of the stay application. I note the pr o -forma nature of the letters and petitions. However, I take them at face value and give the due weight in respect of this application . There is no evidence to the contrary. Consideration In considering the factors set out in the cases cited above at [ 18 ], I bear in mind the statutory context of the decision subject to the application for review and bear in mind the objectives and guiding principles of the National Law, which are set out in s 3. Generally, t he respondent should be taken to be entitled to the benefit of the decision at first instance unless the applicant can demonstrate that it is appropriate to grant a stay of the orders made. Is a stay reasonably necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal M r Trang made very broa d and unsupported submissions on this point. Despite me advising Mr Trang on 20 June 2024, that he should consider adducing evidence to substantiate the possible financial demise of the centres if a stay was not granted , he has not filed any evidence in this regard. The applicants have not demonstrated, apart from a general statement , that the service s may not be able to continue even if the applicants succeeds in having the decision to cancel the service approval set aside. The applicants have not demonstrated that a stay is necessary to secure the effectiveness of the appeal. What is the strength of the applicant’s case M r Trang made many statements about the alleged breaches and conduct of the staff and management of the companies. However, he filed no statement from neither himself, nor any other person, answering the alleged breaches or explaining his conduct. To the contrary, the submissions he made concerning some of the most serious conduct was contradicted in the respondents documentation. Mr Trang then attempted to withdraw, or justify his previous denial with a flimsy explanation , or , an attempt to shift blame. I do not have sufficient information to assess the strength of the case in relation to the history of the facility, though it seems from Mr Trang ’ s submissions and the engage ment of Ms Ribarovski , that measures have been taken to address some , but not all, of the issues. Mr Trang in his submissions made reference to the fact that he was in the process of selling the companies and that he hopes the sale would be concluded in 60 days. While not fully explored at this interim stage, his submissions seemed to be relating the substantive applications being filed to extend the cancellation decision (and this stay) to allow for the companies to be sold and ownership transferred . In considering the object of the Act, this does not weigh in favour of the granting of a stay. The statement cast s doubt upon the purpose and strength of the substantive administrative review applications. I also have a concern that the applicants have filed little, if any , evidence to challenge any of the breaches of the National Law and National Regulations the respondent has found to be established . Likewise, there is little foundation established, at least on a preliminary basis, that the applicants, or any one of them, remain fit and proper for approval. This goes to the very heart of the respondents ’ concerns. Balance of convenience I have taken into consideration that by not granting a stay a significant number of families and man y children will be affected . It is without question that the sudden inability of the applicants to offer a service would be a significant inconvenience for many of those families. The respondent submits that the serious concerns it holds for child safety if the stay is granted should be the prevailing consideration. On the information before me, I am not satisfied that the operation of the service (s) could be addressed on an interim basis by the imposition of conditions. This is because I am not satisfied that the balance of convenience can be consistent with s 3(a) of the National Law . There are far too many serious alleged breaches . Mr Trang agreed to the some conduct occurring which related to a breach, such as over enrolling of children , despite his previous denial s . The unacceptable risk to the health wellbeing and safety of the child can best be protected by refusing a stay. Public Interest The public has an interest in the availability of childcare, but it must be childcare which is focussed upon the safety, health and wellbeing of the children. The educational and development needs of the children need to be met. I accept that the respondent ’ s concerns are serious, ongoing, well researched and documented. I do not accept the applicants ’ contention that the respondents concerns are all historical in nature. Nor do I accept the applicants ’ contention that there is no ongoing risk to the health and safety of children at the centres. Given my findings, I am not satisfied that the applicants ha ve the capacity to provide childcare in accordance with the National Law, even if conditions were included in the stay order . It is not in the public interest to grant a stay of the cancellation decisions a fter 6pm on 5 July 2024 . Conclusion I am not satisfied that a stay of the cancellation decision(s) is consistent with the National Law to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending education and care services at the relevant centre s paramount , after 6pm on 5 July 2024 . Nor is such an order consistent with the guiding principle s of the National Law, namely that the rights and best interests of the child are paramount . I consider the ongoing risk of serious harm to the children enrolled at the centre is unacceptable which , outweigh s the other interests , including the convenience of families and staff at the centre(s) . At the hearing of the stay application, I concluded that it was not appropriate to grant a stay of the decision to cancel the service approval , after 6pm on 5 July 2024. The only reason I granted a very short stay was to allow families to make alternate arrangements for their children after the conclusion of the week ending 5 July 2024. Orders My orders are as follows: The decision made by the respondent on 4 June 2024 is stayed until 6pm on 5 July 2024. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 July 2024