Assaf and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and Procedure) - [2024] ARTA 47

Assaf and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and Procedure) [2024] ARTA 47 (18 December 2024)
Applicant/s:  Alex Assaf
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2020/5334

Tribunal:General Member C. Willis
Place:Melbourne
Date:18 December 2024

Decision:The application for reinstatement is refused.

...............................[sgd]........................................
General Member C. Willis

Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – reinstatement of application for review of decision of Tax Practitioners Board to deregister tax agent – application for review previously dismissed because applicant did not appear – factors to be considered – whether appropriate to reinstate – reinstatement application made more than 28 days after dismissal – whether special circumstances exist – application for reinstatement refused.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), subsection 102(7)
Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth), subsection 42A(2)
Cases
Re Clinnick and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2021] AATA 71
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344
Serpinli v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 2029
Somba and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 425
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On 12 August 2020 Mr Alex Assaf (the Applicant) was notified that the Tax Practitioners Board (the Respondent) had decided to terminate his registration as a tax agent and impose a non-application period of three years (the TPB Decision).
The reasons given by the Respondent included the Applicant failing to declare all of his (personal) reportable income, the Applicant making a false declaration to the Respondent that he did not have overdue tax obligations and the failure of the Applicant as a director of certain entities to ensure compliance of those entities with their taxation obligations. Those other entities were involved in separate proceedings with the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) before the Tribunal (the Taxation Proceedings).
On 1 September 2020 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal[1] for a review of the TPB Decision (the Review Application), as well as a stay of the implementation of the TPB Decision (the Stay Application). The Respondent opposed both the Stay Application and the Review Application.
[1] At this time the ‘Tribunal’ was the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or AAT, established under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
The Stay Application was heard in November 2020, with the Tribunal making a decision on 9 December 2020 to grant the stay, subject to certain conditions which restricted the Applicant from taking on new clients until further order by the Tribunal.
Original Review Application
After the Stay Application was granted, the Review Application proceeded before the Tribunal. Between December 2020 and November 2022 the Review Application was listed for multiple directions hearings and several sets of directions were given by the Tribunal for filing of key documents and evidence, and for other matters relating to the management of the proceeding. Without detailing every one of these events, it is noted that the Applicant sought extensions of time to comply with directions of the Tribunal or variations to the Tribunal’s timetabling on several occasions.[2] The Applicant also failed to comply with certain directions.[3]
[2] See for example ST62, ST71, ST72, ST81, ST82, ST84, ST85, ST107, ST113. A reference to T Documents and Supplementary T Documents is a reference to materials that were required to be lodged with the Tribunal under section 37 of the former AAT Act or materials that must be given to the Tribunal under section 23 of the ART Act.
[3] See for example ST65, ST96.
The Review Application was listed for a final hearing on 25 November 2021. The Applicant put a settlement offer to the Respondent in mid-November 2021 which was rejected. The Applicant then advised that they were no longer legally represented and requested the vacation of the hearing.[4]
[4] ST98.
The November 2021 hearing was vacated and the matter listed for a conciliation in February 2022, with a final hearing date listed for 4 March 2022. On 2 March 2022 the Applicant requested that hearing be rescheduled.[5] The hearing was relisted for 7 April 2022, then rescheduled again to 29 April 2022. Another adjournment request was received from the Applicant, and a directions hearing was held on 29 April 2022 instead of a final hearing.[6] At that directions hearing the Tribunal made directions for the Applicant to file a hearing certificate or the matter would be dismissed and the stay revoked.[7]
[5] ST107.
[6] ST111.
[7] ST114.
The Review Application was again listed for a final hearing, on 16 June 2022. This hearing had to be vacated due to unforeseen circumstances at the Tribunal. The matter was relisted for a final hearing on 31 August 2022. However, there were matters arising in another case part heard by the Tribunal which were potentially relevant to the Review Application, so the Tribunal adjourned the Review Application proceeding.[8]
[8] ST120.
A further directions hearing was listed for 9 November 2022 for the purpose of discussing submissions and setting a (further) date for the final hearing. Neither the Applicant nor his representative appeared at the directions hearing. Senior Member James indicated that he was satisfied that the Applicant had been given appropriate notice of the directions hearing, and that he was minded to exercise the power under subsection 42A(2) of the AAT Act to dismiss the Review Application should the Applicant (or his representative) fail to appear at the next listed directions hearing. Senior Member James listed a further directions hearing for 23 November 2022.[9]
[9] ST125.
The Applicant did not appear on 23 November 2022. Therefore the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application under subsection 42A(2) and advised the parties accordingly.[10] The correspondence advising the dismissal included information relating to procedures for the Applicant to request reinstatement of the matter.
[10] ST127
The Applicant’s representative sent an email to the Melbourne Registry of the Tribunal on 29 November 2022 which read:
Hi Guys
Is it possible to get this hearing rescheduled, as we were experiencing technical difficulties, receiving email correspondence.[11]
[11] ST128.
The Tribunal responded the following day by advising that since the matter had been dismissed and it was regarded as finalised, the Tribunal would take no further action and the Respondent’s decision (the TPB Decision) would be in force. The Applicant was advised that if he wished to apply for reinstatement of the matter, he needed to follow the process for a reinstatement application. The email from his representative set out above was not sufficient for this purpose. The Tribunal’s response included information about how to make an application for reinstatement.[12]
[12] ST129.
Reinstatement application
On 26 June 2024 the Applicant through his new legal representative wrote to the Tribunal seeking to have his Review Application reinstated (the Reinstatement Application). He said that at the time of the earlier proceedings he was experiencing significant personal challenges, including his own physical and mental health issues, family illness, separation from his wife and carer responsibilities. He was involved in other civil litigation proceedings which created financial difficulties such that he could not continue to pay for legal representation in the Review Application.
Accompanying the Reinstatement Application was material the Applicant described as medical evidence. This included a copy of a letter dated 19 November 2021 from a surgeon confirming that a person with the same surname as the Applicant (presumably his father) underwent a procedure for kidney cancer in January 2021, and copies of blood test and radiology results for that person dated November 2021. Also attached was a copy of an NDIS application dated 11 June 2024 outlining significant health issues of a named child, together with a photograph of a young child apparently having medical treatment in hospital.
The covering letter to the Reinstatement Application also said that:
·The Applicant always intended to pursue the Review Application and therefore he had recently obtained legal advice on his options
·During his discussions with the Respondent ‘the 3 years’ (presumably a reference to the three year non-application period) was not sought
·He believes he has an arguable case and is a fit and proper person
·The taxation decisions which led to the TPB Decision had been reviewed by the Commissioner with the outcome being significantly different to that upon which the TPB Decision had been based.
RELEVANT LAW
When the Applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal on 26 June 2024, they indicated that he was ‘seeking leave to have his application reinstated outside of the 28 day limit’. Although they did not refer to a specific provision for reinstatement, they correctly identified that the Review Application had been dismissed under subsection 42A(2) of the former AAT Act. Therefore, an application for reinstatement would previously have been made under subsection 42A(8A) and, ‘if it considers it appropriate to do so’, the Tribunal could have reinstated the application under subsection 42A(9).
On 14 October 2024, the ART Act commenced application. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, applications for review to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Section 99 of the ART Act contains the equivalent provisions to subsection 42A(2). Section 102(7)[13] of the ART Act provides that if an application is dismissed under section 99, a party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed ‘or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows’.
[13] The Respondent refers to subsection 102(5) of the ART Act in paragraph [6] of its Respondent Submissions, although it was not suggested that the Review Application had been dismissed in error. However, the requirements of subsections (5) and (7) are similar.
Further, under subsection 102(9):
If a party applies under subsection (7) and the Tribunal considers it appropriate to reinstate the application, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.
The Tribunal must consider it ‘appropriate’ to reinstate. Further, as the Review Application was dismissed and the parties notified in November 2022, more than 28 days elapsed before the Reinstatement Application was made. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider whether ‘special circumstances’ exist such that reinstatement beyond the ordinary 28‑day statutory period is to be allowed.
In Serpinli v Secretary, Department of Social Services (Serpinli),[14] O’Callaghan J said:[15]
In considering whether to reinstate an application, the Tribunal can have regard to a range of factors in determining whether it is “appropriate” to reinstate an application. These factors may vary from case to case, but include a consideration of the merits of the substantive application, and in circumstances where the application was dismissed for a failure to appear at the hearing, the explanation for it.
[14] [2019] FCA 2029.
[15] Ibid at [26].
As observed by O’Callaghan J, the Tribunal may consider a range of factors. Some of the considerations identified as relevant to applications for an extension of time may also be relevant to whether it is ‘appropriate’ to grant an application for reinstatement. In Somba and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) (Somba),[16] Deputy President Boyle observed that while matters taken into account by other courts and tribunals in other contexts may be used as a ‘general guide’, they cannot simply be adopted as applicable to reinstatement applications. Regard must be had to whether the context and purpose are comparable.[17]
[16] [2020] AATA 425 (Somba).
[17] Ibid at [27] to [29], in particular discussing the factors described in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 176 relating to extension of time for review.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
The Applicant filed submissions (the Applicant Submissions) on 24 October 2024 and further submissions (the Applicant Submissions in Reply) on 25 November 2024. Although the Applicant is legally represented, each of these documents was a single page, set out similar high‑level contentions and unfortunately did not engage in any significant way with the provisions of the ART Act or relevant authorities.
The Respondent filed a written outline of submissions (the Respondent Submissions) on 7 November 2024 which appended the outline of submissions the Respondent previously filed in anticipation of a 2022 hearing and a chronology of events. Insofar as it relates to Tribunal matters, the content of the chronology is consistent with material filed with,[18] and directions of, the Tribunal.
[18] Including the Supplementary T Documents.
Explanation for not attending the directions hearings
In his Reinstatement Application, the Applicant said that at the time of the relevant directions hearings in late 2022 he was suffering from ill health, and two members of his family had cancer diagnoses. He had carer and financial responsibilities in relation to his relatives. He had separated from his wife. He was engaged in other costly civil litigation proceedings which left him unable to pay for legal representation in his Review Application before the Tribunal. These personal challenges adversely affected his mental health which contributed to his delays in responding to Tribunal events. The Applicant Submissions referred to the explanation in his Reinstatement Application.
I accept that the documents appended to the Reinstatement Application indicate that two relatives of the Applicant have suffered serious health concerns. However, the doctor’s letter and pathology results for one individual are dated November 2021, which is a year prior to the events giving rise to the dismissal of the Review Application. Most importantly, the Applicant has not provided medical reports or other documentation evidencing his own physical or mental health circumstances in late 2022 which would support his general explanation for not appearing at either of the November 2022 directions hearings.
It is not disputed that the Applicant was involved in other litigious matters around the time that the original Review Application was on foot. Again, other than a general statement in his Reinstatement Application and Applicant Submissions that this litigation strained his financial resources, there is no evidence demonstrating how this affected his ability to attend the November 2022 directions hearings or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal about his circumstances at that time. It is noted that he was legally represented at this time.
One of the few contemporaneous documents that does exist is the email that was sent by the Applicant’s then legal representative to the Tribunal a few days after the Review Application was dismissed in November 2022, which attributed his non-attendance to ‘technical difficulties’ relating to email communications. There was no mention of health, family or financial difficulties.
The Applicant was unable to attend the interlocutory hearing due to a personal matter, and therefore could not provide his representative with instructions to elaborate on the above any further.
In light of the lack of supporting evidence and the inconsistency with statements made shortly after the November 2022 directions hearings, it is difficult for the Tribunal to give significant weight to the Applicant’s current explanation for his previous failure to appear before the Tribunal in determining whether it is appropriate to reinstate his application.
There is no suggestion that the Applicant misunderstood his obligation to attend the Tribunal events in November 2022, or that he was wrongly advised. There is no suggestion that the Tribunal made an error in dismissing the Review Application. At the time of the dismissal the Applicant was given information by the Tribunal about how he might make and support an application for reinstatement which would have provided an additional opportunity for him to identify and evidence his personal issues. He did not take up this opportunity.
Merits of the substantive application
The purpose of an interlocutory proceeding is not to conduct a full hearing of the substantive matters. However, as identified in Serpinli, the factors which the Tribunal should consider include the merits of the underlying application.
In his Reinstatement Application, the Applicant says that he has an arguable case and is a fit and proper person to be registered. In the Applicant Submissions he further states that he believes he has good prospects of success in the Review Application and reiterates that he is a fit and proper person to hold registration as a tax agent.
The basis for these statements is, at least in part, his further contentions that:
·He entered into a deed of settlement and release with the Commissioner which was in favour of the Applicant. The tax issues were resolved, and the decision of the Commissioner was ‘overturned’.
·The information on which the Respondent based its TPB Decision is therefore not accurate. The Respondent has failed to appreciate the impact that the outcome of the tax issues would have had on its decision.
·His previous conduct was an ‘isolated lapse of judgement’.
The Applicant’s Stay Application in 2020 was successful. He was also sufficiently engaged with the Review Application in 2021 to file a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions in March 2021 and Witness Statements in September 2021.
However, it is also noted that in September 2021 and November 2021 the Tribunal made orders under section 42C of the former AAT Act to finalise the Taxation Proceedings on the basis of agreement being reached between the Commissioner and the parties to those proceedings. There is a difference of opinion between the parties as to the impact of the settlement agreement and those orders on this Reinstatement Application.
The Respondent acknowledges that the objection and Tribunal processes resulted in a reduction of the amount of tax and penalties that the Commissioner originally sought. However, the Respondent says that the amounts remaining were still substantial. As part of the submissions it filed with the Tribunal in 2022 in anticipation of a final hearing of the Review Application, the Respondent prepared a summary of underreported, tax shortfall and penalty amounts, comparing those amounts as at the time the board of the Respondent made the TPB Decision and after the orders to finalise the Taxation Proceedings. This summary identifies underreported amounts of $240,000 for the Applicant in his personal capacity, together with amounts of $450,000 for one of the related trusts remaining after the settlement. Similarly, tax shortfall amounts of $140,000 and penalties of $75,000 in aggregate were identified as still being in contention between the Applicant (and his related entities) and the Commissioner. These are not insignificant amounts.
At the hearing the Applicant’s representative said that the Applicant views the Taxation Proceedings as having been resolved in favour of the relevant taxpayers, and that the liability for tax and penalties remaining after the settlement reflected a commercial decision on his part, based on legal advice that he received, that it would be costly to continue the dispute. The Applicant’s representative also alluded to a potential argument that the trust entities involved in the Taxation Proceedings were not subject to goods and services tax as investment entities. These arguments were not explored as the Applicant made a decision based on his financial circumstances to settle with the Commissioner.

Although the theme of the Applicant’s submissions is that he was successful in his dispute with the Commissioner, and that decisions or assessments of the Commissioner had been ‘overturned’, the Applicant Submissions in Reply conclude with the statement that ‘the Applicant’s conduct was isolated lapse of judgment’. This suggests acknowledgement by the Applicant of some deficient conduct on his part, even if he does not agree with the level of seriousness asserted by the Respondent.
The Respondent pointed to the TPB Decision being based not only on allegations of underreporting of income or underpayment of tax, but also on the Applicant making a false declaration to the Respondent that he had no overdue tax lodgement obligations. This false declaration could not be ‘settled’ under an agreement between the Commissioner and the Applicant (and related entities). The Applicant did not address the overdue lodgement matters in his submissions.
In Re Clinnick and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Clinnick),[19] Deputy President McCabe observed that any assessment of the merits or prospects of success of an applicant’s case in the context of an application for reinstatement and extension of time may of necessity be superficial.[20] In the present matter, there is some evidence of the outcome of the Taxation Proceedings which suggests that although the Commissioner agreed to a reduction of taxation liabilities, this did not represent an ‘overturning’ of the Commissioner’s previous position in favour of the Applicant. Nor did the settlement of the Taxation Proceedings address matters of overdue taxation lodgements or false declarations to the Respondent. The Respondent has made high‑level statements that he is a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent, without any information as to how he might have dealt with the circumstances which previously gave rise to his disciplinary proceedings (even if they were isolated lapses as he claims).
[19] [2021] AATA 7.
[20] Ibid at [26].
Similar to the conclusion drawn by DP McCabe in Clinnick, it is difficult to say with certainty that the Applicant’s case is entirely hopeless. With some shift in the position relating to taxation liabilities since the TPB Decision, it is possible that a Tribunal hearing the Review Application could view this factual matter as favourable to the Applicant. However, the merits of the Applicant’s case appear very limited.
Other matters
The Respondent submitted[21] that certain additional factors identified by DP Boyle in Somba, largely drawn from the decision of Wilcox J in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment,[22] are relevant to this Reinstatement Application. The Applicant also raised issues of fairness and public interest as relevant to the Tribunal’s decision.
[21] See paragraphs [10] and [35] of the Respondent’s Submissions dated 7 November 2024, referring to Somba (n 16) at paragraph [34] where DP McCabe agreed with the expression of relevant factors identified by a party at paragraph [22(a)].
[22] (1984) 3 FCR 344.
Applicant’s conduct in progressing their application
The Respondent points to delays on the part of the Applicant in their conduct of the Review Application when it was originally before the Tribunal. The Respondent says that these delays were constant and significant, and despite the Applicant being afforded extensions of time and vacations of dates for case events, the Applicant was unable to progress their case. The Respondent contends that this should weigh against the grant of the Reinstatement Application.
The Applicant did not appear to dispute the chronology of events relating to the original Review Application prepared by the Respondent. I agree that this chronology evidences delays on the part of the Applicant, including due to changes of representative on their part during the original Tribunal review. It is acknowledged that some of this delay occurred whilst the Applicant was involved in alternative dispute resolution proceedings with the Commissioner, the outcome of which might have been relevant to the Review Application. On one occasion counsel for the Respondent was unavailable due to illness, however this only resulted in a delay of a few days.
The Review Application was originally with the Tribunal for more than two years. Overall, the delays in the progress of original Review Application were largely due to the Applicant, who at times also did not comply with directions of the Tribunal relating to dates for filing of materials. This raises doubt as to whether it is now appropriate to reinstate the Review Application.
Delay in seeking reinstatement
The Respondent also raised concerns about the two-year delay between the dismissal of the original Review Application and the lodgement of the Reinstatement Application, and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for this delay. The Applicant’s submissions refer to the health and other personal challenges generally as both the explanation for the non‑attendance at the November 2022 directions hearings and the elapse of time before the Reinstatement Application was lodged. The Applicant also says it was necessary for him to sort out the matters with the Commissioner which sat behind the TPB Decision.
As discussed above, the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of suffering health and other personal challenges at the relevant times, being the time around November 2022 when he failed to appear at the directions hearings (and his Review Application was dismissed) and the time between November 2022 and the date of his Reinstatement Application. The limited medical evidence he has provided does not relate to him. The medical reports relating to one relative are for matters occurring in 2021. The Applicant alluded to financial difficulties but provided no detail. Various Taxation Proceedings were finalised in September and November 2021 and October 2022. The Tribunal provided the Applicant with information in November 2022 about how to seek reinstatement of his matter.
In the absence of any supporting material to satisfactorily explain the delay, the extent of the delay weighs against it being appropriate to reinstate the matter.
Fairness and public interest considerations
The Applicant argued that issues of fairness and justice should be taken into account. He says that the Respondent only ever discussed a two‑year non-application period with him, whereas a three‑year period was imposed under the TPB Decision. The Applicant has suffered as a result of the Review Application not being pursued, he has special circumstances and it would be unjust if the Review Application was not reinstated.
The Applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim that a two‑year non‑application period was supposed to have applied. At the interlocutory hearing his representative said that this was discussed during a mediation. The Respondent noted that various options may be explored during mediation, but this is a confidential process and matters raised during the ADR event cannot be relied upon.
The Applicant has not provided any detail about a two‑year suspension, other than to say it was proposed in discussions between the Applicant and Respondent. If these discussions were part of a Tribunal‑ordered ADR event, then section 88 of the ART Act provides that the discussions are not admissible in a proceeding in the Tribunal, except as agreed by the parties. Otherwise, the Applicant has not provided material supporting his claims. I am therefore unable to give any weight to the Applicant’s claims that he was somehow misled into believing a two‑year only suspension was to be imposed.
The Applicant also submitted that although he is able to continue providing accountancy services, on occasions he has had engagements terminated when clients become aware of his issues with the Respondent. This has resulted in detriment to him, such as loss of income. The Applicant said that had he known the adverse effects that were to result, he would not have failed to attend the November 2022 directions hearings.
Possible loss of income and reputation are expected consequences of disciplinary proceedings and sanctions. The Applicant had the opportunity to challenge the TPB Decision but did not attend Tribunal case events and did not act on the information provided to him in 2022 about reinstatement until 2024. I do not believe this matter weighs in favour of it being appropriate to reinstate the Review Application.
The Applicant submits that it is in the public interest for his matter to be reinstated as the TPB Decision was made before providing him with an opportunity to defend himself of present evidence to the contrary.[23] The Applicant argues that the Respondent would not be prejudiced if the Review Application was reinstated.
[23] See paragraph [12] of the Applicant Submissions in Reply.
The Respondent observed that reinstatement would require resources to be applied in circumstances where the Applicant has had opportunities to be heard in this matter. The Respondent also frames this matter in terms of whether it would be in the public interest for the matter to be reinstated after two years in the absence of a compelling explanation.
If the Applicant had raised viable public interest grounds for reinstatement, the concerns of the Respondent about resources would not carry much weight. However, it is apparent that the Applicant was given the opportunity to seek review of the TPB Decision and did take up that opportunity. It was only when the Applicant failed to appear without explanation at critical Tribunal case events, and after two years before the Tribunal (which included at least one Tribunal‑directed alternative dispute resolution process) that the Tribunal directed that the Review Application be dismissed. The Applicant’s argument relating to the public interest is not convincing.
Do special circumstances exist?
A party may apply for reinstatement of an application within 28 days of receiving notice that the application is dismissed or such longer period as the Tribunal in ‘special circumstances’ allows. Over 18 months elapsed after the Review Application was dismissed before the Applicant filed the Reinstatement Application. The Applicant did not identify in his submissions any special circumstances relating to time for seeking reinstatement that were separate from the circumstances he described in support of his reinstating his Review Application ‘out of time’.
At the hearing his representative indicated that the ‘special circumstances’ in his case included the adverse effect on his employment and on his clients, the financial hardship he has endured and the resulting breakdown of his marriage.
I have considered the range of circumstances raised by the Applicant in his Reinstatement Application, the Applicant Submissions, Applicant Submissions in Reply and by his representative at the hearing in the context of both whether it is appropriate to reinstate the Review Application and whether the Tribunal should allow the Applicant to seek reinstatement outside the 28‑day period. The Tribunal made directions on 8 October 2024 listing the matter for an interlocutory hearing. The Respondent Submissions were predicated on the Reinstatement Application being heard.
In light of the time invested by both parties when the Review Application was originally before the Tribunal, and physical and mental health‑related issues being raised, the Applicant’s Reinstatement Application was heard by the Tribunal. However, having received the submissions of the parties in writing and at the interlocutory hearing, based on the factors described above I do not believe it is appropriate to reinstate the Review Application.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal refuses to reinstate proceeding number 2020/5334 which was previously dismissed by the Tribunal on 23 November 2022 under subsection 42A(2) of the AAT Act.

I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member C. Willis

……………………[sgd]……………………….
Associate
Dated: 18 December 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 2 December 2024

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms Laura Eljiz, Lourdes Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Thomas Arnold

Date(s) of hearing:	2 December 2024
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms Laura Eljiz, Lourdes Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Thomas Arnold