Bowyer v NSW Department of Education and Training
[2010] NSWADT 152
•17 June 2010
NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Bowyer v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADT 152
DIVISION:
GENERAL DIVISION
PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Brett Bowyer and Susan Pullen
RESPONDENT
NSW Department of Education and Training
FILE NUMBERS:
091069
HEARING DATES:
17 December 2009
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:
17 December 2009
DATE OF DECISION:
17 June 2010
BEFORE:
Grotte E - Judicial Member
LEGISLATION CITED:
Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED:
CUNA Mutual Group Ltd –v- Bryant (2000) 102 FCR 270 Bernard v Manly Lawn Tennis Club Ltd [2006] NSWADT 174 NSW Teachers Federation v President Anti-Discrimination Board & Anor [2005] NSWADT 153
TEXTS CITED:
APPLICATION:
Section 103, Amendment of Complaint
MATTER FOR DECISION:
REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
Patrick Griffin, counsel
ORDERS:
1.The application to amend the complaint is refused
2.The application is listed for case conference on 4 August 2010 at 10.00am.
Reasons for Decision:
REASONS FOR DECISION
Complaint to the Anti Discrimination Board
On 4 October 2007 Brett Bowyer and Susan Pullen (the Complainants) lodged a complaint with the Anti Discrimination Board (ADB) on behalf of themselves and also on behalf of their son, (the child) against the NSW Department of Education (the Department). Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen alleged that the Department directly and indirectly discriminated against the child and themselves in the terms, conditions and manner in which it provided services to them and/or its refusal to provide them with services.
At the time of the complaint the child was a student at a school on the south coast of New South Wales (the School) and had been enrolled in a mainstream class for the previous four years. The child has cerebral palsy, which requires him to use a walker to move around the school. Despite using a walker and being mobile, the child requires some assistance to move around certain areas of the school and in carrying out certain tasks, such as getting into and out of his chair in the classroom, getting up and down to sit on the floor and for toileting. He also requires full time attention when outside in the playground as he is at risk of being knocked over by other students. If he falls, he needs assistance to stand up due to the rigid leg braces that he has to wear on his legs. The child also needs assistance with his exercise program.
The complaint was made with the assistance of a solicitor, Ms Michelle Hannon, Director of Pro Bono Services at Gilbert and Tobin, Solicitors.
The complaint made to the ADB against the Department was as follows:
(i) Failure to provide adequate support to the child. The child required a support aide while at the School but he did not always have access to the aide. Without the aide’s support the child could not fully participate in classroom activities and carry out all of his schoolwork. Funding had been provided to the School to support the child but this funding has been “pooled” for general school resources and had not been specifically allocated to support the child’s needs. It was alleged that if the aide was used for purposes other than to support the child on a full time basis, then the funding allocated to support The child was not being utilised by the School for its correct purpose.
(ii) Failure to Consult. Brett Bowyer and Susan Pullen, the child’s parents have not been meaningfully and adequately consulted and informed about the child’s progress and his needs at the School. Brett Bowyer and Susan Pullen have been denied the opportunity and ability to participate in and contribute to the decision making process to ensure the best possible education services in terms of both the educational purposes and safety are provided to the child. By refusing to provide the Complainants with the service of consultation and communication required by them to ensure the adequate needs of their child, when such needs are met in relation to children without disabilities, the Department has discriminated against them.
(iii) No Adequate and Effective Consultation with Brett Bowyer and Susan Pullen in respect of adjustments necessary for the child to enable him to participate in all of the School’s activities or in respect of adjustments necessary to enable them to fully participate in the decision-making and planning process or in respect of adjustments necessary for the child to continue to fully utilise the support funds allocated for his use. It was alleged that the School had failed to consult either the child or his parents in relation to adjustments it made regarding his seating. His seating and the height of his desk were always recommended and checked by his occupational therapist as sitting, reading and writing could be difficult for the child if his chair and desk were not suitable for his size and ability. It was alleged that on 23 February 2007 the child told his father he was having difficulty getting into his chair and that the sliders had fallen off the chair. After investigating the chair Mr Bowyer found that the school handyman had removed the sliders and reattached them to a bigger chair. The handyman had also raised the height of the child’s table. The School had not consulted the child’s occupational therapist or his parents regarding this adjustment and the new chair was too high and the sliders had been incorrectly attached backwards.
(iv) The Complainants claim that they have been excluded from involvement in discussions concerning educational services to be provided to the child, despite convening separate Learning Support Team meetings. It was alleged that the School had failed to communicate with the child’s parents properly and consult in relation to matters concerning the child’s well being at the School. Unlike other parents, they claim they have been directed not to write to the Principal or ask questions about issues relating to their son. Any letters sent by them were sent directly to the Department’s District Office. These letters were often left unanswered and when they were answered, the issues were not addressed.
(v) The Department failed to provide a clear and consistent process for the parents of a child with a disability to enable them to effectively communicate that child’s health and educational needs to the Department in circumstances where those same needs of children without disabilities were effectively communicated.
On 3 March 2006 Mr Bowyer wrote to the School Principal, Alana Lockerbie, requesting that adjustments be made in accordance with Part 3 of the Federal Disability Education Standards. Specifically, he requested that the School:
(i) provide a comprehensive and up to date explanation of the process, procedures and roles of the School region and head office in the process of integrating the child into the School;
(ii) review its procedures so that they comply with the minimum standards of inclusion in planning, review, decision-making and evaluation that are outlined in the Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare manual entitled “Standards in Action”.
(iii) that he be provided with information by way of a service agreement type document by which the School could be held accountable and by which he could be assured that the support funds provided in the child’s name were only used for what they were intended and not used for any other purpose at the expense of the child’s needs.
Mr Bowyer also alleged that the child had not been able to receive in a timely manner the level of assistance prescribed by his specialist and so his rehabilitation had been compromised. Mr Bowyer alleged that the child’s physical management exercises were not permitted by the School because they were seen as an occupational health and safety problem. The School did not consult with either the child or his parents regarding these health and safety problems and no attempt was made by the school to find a solution.
Mr Bowyer also alleged that despite the child’s poor Basic Skills test results, the School did not consult the child or his parents to prepare a suitable Individual Support Program to progress the child’s education. When the child’s aide had been used to teach literacy to other students and had not been available to support the child, Mr Bowyer had to withdraw the child from class and keep him at home. Mr Bowyer claimed to the ADB that Ms Pullen had multiple sclerosis and was reliant on Mr Bowyer to assist her with her daily activities and care. The dispute with the Department caused constant stress to her because she was worried about what was happening at the School and whether the child was getting the support he needed.
The ADB declined to accept the parts of the complaint that are alleged to have occurred prior to 1 July 2006.
On 18 April 2008 Ms Hannon sent further correspondence to the ADB clarifying the issues in respect of the complaint lodged on behalf of Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen. This letter clarified the complaint as follows:
(i) Failure to provide adequate support to the child. It was acknowledged by the Complainants that the incidents prior to 1 July 2006 were not accepted by the ADB and the Complainants acknowledged that the issues regarding The child’s access to an aide pre-date the complaint. The Complainants also acknowledged there was a meeting on 3 March 2006 but refuted that they were participants in any agreement regarding the 2006 Teacher’s Aide Timetable. The Complainants also refuted that during 2006 and 2007 Mr Bowyer requested the (a south coast Spastic Outreach Centre provide any instructions to the School for the management of these programmes as stated in the Department’s response to the ADB in respect of the complaint.
(ii) Lack of effective communication. Mr Bowyer denied Ms Lockerbie’s version of events regarding the child’s chair. Mr Bowyer claimed that the child was still upset when he raised the issue of his chair with Mr Bowyer at the end of the school day. He alleged that the child felt he had been questioned by an authority figure as to his abilities. It was alleged that Ms Lockerbie would not have needed to ask the child regarding his needs had she been aware of the recent treatment to his legs.
(iii) The complaint regarding the pooling of funds was no longer pressed because it was acknowledged that this complaint related specifically to incidents that took place in 2003.
(iv) Failure to consult on adjustments regarding the child’s seating.
(v) Failure to consult in respect of extra support regarding his Basic Skills Test results.
(vi) Failure to provide a clear and consistent process for parents of a child with a disability to enable them to effectively communicate matters regarding that child’s health, safety and educational needs to the Department in circumstances where those same needs of children without disabilities can be effectively communicated. This failure amounted to discrimination. One yearly learning support team meeting was insufficient to communicate the child’s needs.
(vii) Failure to consult in respect of individual support plans and individual learning plans for the child in 2006 and 2007. Mr Bowyer refuted the allegation that he refused to attend meetings to discuss the child’s individual support and learning plans. Mr Bowyer claimed that upon receiving notification of a meeting in November 2007 regarding discussion with the child’s learning support team, he advised the School that it was costly and difficult for him to find carers so that he could attend the meetings and he claims he invited the relevant persons to his house. This was not accommodated. The meeting on 28 February 2008 with Mrs Bobbin and Mrs Freedman was not a meeting to develop the child’s individual learning plan but was a usual parent/teacher evening and it was only at Mr Bowyer’s instigation that the child’s individual learning plan was raised. Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen have sought copies of guidelines to clarify communication strategies and processes in relation to the child’s educational needs. The failure to provide these guidelines and the confusing responses they have received have resulted in them not being able to confidently participate in meetings regarding The child’s individual learning and support plans with the School. Parents with children without disabilities are availed of clear communication processes in terms of discussing their child’s educational needs. They are therefore not prevented from ensuring their child has appropriate educational plans developed for them. On this basis the complainants claim they are discriminated against the Department.
(viii) Mr Bowyer refuted the allegation that the Department instructed him to re-direct all correspondence to the District Office at Bateman’s Bay because of a statement by him regarding the initiation of legal proceedings. Mr Bowyer claimed that the School had not corresponded with him since November 2007.
(ix) The Complainants experienced further discrimination resulting from ineffective communication about the child’s needs when the child was unable to attend the 2008 swimming carnival and they indicated that wished to add this to their complaint. Mr Bowyer alleged that he was told by the child’s class teacher that there was to be a swimming carnival two days later and that the child could either go to the carnival or stay at home. Mr Bowyer claimed that he had not been consulted about this issue and how the child might participate in the carnival. Mr Bowyer claimed that he had been told that the child’s regular aides would not be available. Mr Bowyer wrote to the School and asked what options were available for the child. The day before the swimming carnival Mr Bowyer claimed he was advised that the School had made arrangements to cater for the child. Mr Bowyer faxed a letter to the School requesting details of the arrangements but because he had not received any response he kept the child at home on the day of the swimming carnival. Mr Bowyer claimed that this was another example of a failure to provide effective communication processes to ensure that the child’s needs were met.
(x) Mr Bowyer engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Department regarding guidelines surrounding learning support teams. The Department asserted that it did not accept that it had discriminated against the Complainants due to the number of issues the Complainants have had to correspond with the Department about. Mr Bowyer alleged that he and Ms Pullen had been trying to establish an effective and clear means of communication with the Department about their son’s educational needs and that this correspondence has had to entered into. Parents of children without such needs did not have the burden of entering into such correspondence, they alleged. The amount of correspondence could not be divorced from the circumstances, which required it. The Complainants therefore maintained that the failure to respond to the correspondence amounted to discrimination as it was directly linked to the ineffective communication system. The Complainants wished to resolve the issue by clearly establishing the processes and procedures regarding learning support teams and how they might participate and effectively communicate with the School.
(xi) Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen alleged there was no consultation with them regarding their requests for adjustments in accordance with the Federal Disability Education Standards even though the School Principal had originally agreed that the requested adjustments appeared to be reasonable.
(xii) Any deterioration in their relationship with the School was caused by the School’s failure to respond to his needs as an associate of a child with a disability to have effective communication and consultation strategies and the Department’s failure to adequately respond to these needs. Mr Bowyer claims that he did not refuse to attend meetings or confirm dates in January 2007 but noted at that time Ms Pullen was critically ill in hospital and he was therefore unable to commit to any dates.
The complaint as set out above was referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and received by the Tribunal on 26 June 2009.
Tribunal Proceedings
On 19 August 2009 at the Tribunal’s first case conference with the parties, the Tribunal directed Mr Bowyer to set out the current issues and the matters that comprise the complaint. It was noted that Ms Pullen, who had been suffering from multiple sclerosis, passed away in mid 2009.
On 24 September 2009 Mr Bowyer filed lengthy submissions in the Tribunal, which in essence repeated the matters set out above in paragraphs 4,5, 6, 7 and 9. In addition Mr Bowyer stated at page 10 of the submission as follows:
Understanding and involvements (sic) in the funding process is just one aspect that parent/carers of disabled students need to be involved with. Many parent/carers of disabled students have problems with the Department’s attitude towards their involvement and participation, and sadly this is problem (sic) is doubly worse if the parent/carer themselves is also disabled.
In response to many complaints from parents/carer who are disabled themselves but through attitude and lack of understanding of their needs and situation, feel left out of the education process, the Disability Council of NSW proposed a joint publication with the NSW Department of Education to educate Departmental staff as to the problems faced by these disabled parent/carers.
At page 18 of that submission Mr Bowyer claimed the NSW Department of Education “has restricted my and my wife’s ability to communicate in a manner that we feel is appropriate to the needs of my disabled wife and myself as her carer. They have put different and more onerous conditions on our ability to communicate than other parents who do have a disabled child and also are not also disabled themselves or are the carer to a disabled partner.” At page 19 of the submission Mr Bowyer alleged that “nor has the Department ever stated that it was willing or wanting to consult over my wife’s needs and my needs as an associate [of] both these disabled members of my family and [to so] in a way that was appropriate to our needs….instead of consulting over my and my wife’s requested adjustments and our – needs – as distinct from our disabled son’s needs, we must meet with them at certain times and places to discuss our son’s disability support funding – as distinct from our needs”. At page 20 of his submission Mr Boyer stated “It is obvious that the only reason that they had for restricting our ability to communicate with the school in the first place [and now with the ‘whole Department itself as well] is based on and relates to my wife’s disability and my role as her associate carer and our request for our needs to be taken into account.”
The Respondent objected to the inclusion of the allegation by Mr Bowyer that the Respondent had also discriminated against Mr Bowyer as an associate of a person with a disability being Ms Pullen and against Ms Pullen of the ground of her disability in the provisions of goods and services. The Respondent objected to this complaint on the basis that this was the first time any allegation of discrimination had been raised on the ground of Ms Pullen having a disability and on Mr Bowyer being an associate of Ms Pullen. The Respondent objected claiming that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with these allegations, because these complaints did not form part of the original complaint to the ADB and because section 87A of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA) limits the persons who may make complaints under the ADA.
A hearing was held to ascertain whether the original complaint included the complaint by Mr Bowyer that the Department discriminated against Ms Pullen on the ground of her disability and against him as an associate of Ms Pullen on the ground of her disability by failing to make necessary adjustments to enable consultation and facilitate communication.
Mr Bowyer made written submissions and also addressed the Tribunal orally as did Mr Griffin of Counsel for the Respondent.
Mr Bowyer submitted that the Department was at all material times aware of Ms Pullen’s disability and of his role as her carer and that it is evident that this complaint was always part of the original complaint. He alleged that even before his son’s enrolment at the School, the Department had been made aware of his wife’s disability and of his role as her carer as well as his son’s disability. He alleged that in 2002 he and his wife had to battle to get appropriate disability access to the School. He alleged that the Department made it clear that they would only be able to participate in one learning support team. Ms Pullen’s condition was deteriorating and making it difficult for her to participate in the processes at the School. Mr Bowyer alleged that from a meeting with Ms Lockerbie, the School Principal, on 3 March 2006, the School and the Department were aware of their wish to consult over adjustments to meet his wife’s needs and his needs as her carer/associate. Mr Bowyer alleged that on 30 October 2007 he wrote to the Assistant Principal stating that it was difficult and expensive for him to arrange for carers to look after his wife and/or to obtain specialist transport to attend meetings and requested that he might visit them to discuss their concerns. Mr Bowyer alleged that matters pertaining to his wife’s disability, their need for adjustments to be made due to her disability were raised at the ADB conciliation conference.
In the alternative, Mr Bowyer sought to amend the complaint pursuant to section 103 of the ADA, which provides:
103 Tribunal may amend complaint
(1) The Tribunal may, on the application of a party to a complaint or on its own motion, at any stage in proceedings relating to the complaint, amend the complaint.
(2) A complaint may be amended to include additional complaints and anything else that was not included in the complaint as investigated by the President.
(3) An amendment may be made subject to such conditions as the Tribunal thinks fit.The Respondent conceded that it was aware of Ms Pullen’s disability at all material times, but it also submitted that this complaint was a new complaint that did not form part of the original complaint to the ADB nor was it implicit in the original complaint. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainants had access to high level legal advice and this matter was raised in the letters of complaint to the ADB from Gilbert & Tobin, Solicitors. Ms Hannon set out the complaint extensively and in a detailed way. The first occasion in which the new complaint was raised in a clear and unequivocal way was in Mr Bowyer’s submissions to the Tribunal dated 24 September 2009. Therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this new complaint.
The Respondent submitted that the application to amend the complaint should be refused. There is a clear prejudice to the Respondent. Ms Pullen is now deceased and the Respondent has no opportunity to cross-examine Ms Pullen and the Tribunal is also deprived of having evidence from her. The only evidence would be from Mr Bowyer, speaking on her behalf and this is objected to by the Respondent.
The Respondent also submitted that a question arises as to whether a complaint can be lodged on behalf of a deceased person after their death or whether a deceased person can be “a relative or associate” for the purposes of the ADA so as to provide a proper basis for a discrimination claim.
It was submitted by the Respondent that a claim under the ADA cannot be made on behalf of a deceased person after the death of that individual (CUNA Mutual Group Ltd –v- Bryant (2000) 102 FCR 270. The NSW ADA does not permit a complaint to be made on behalf of a person who has died in respect of acts of discrimination occurring before the death of the individual. Section 87 of the ADA provides that “person/s” may make complaints of their own behalf or on behalf of other person/s. A “person” is not defined by the ADA but it is submitted that it must be a living person. This interpretation is consistent with “person” being any being whom the law attributes a capability of interests and therefore rights, of acts and of duties. “Persons” are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes – it is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that a deceased individual is not possessed of rights and duties and therefore is not a “person” and accordingly, a complaint cannot be lodged on their behalf pursuant to section 87 of the ADA. It was similarly submitted that the ADA ought not be construed as disclosing an intention that an aggrieved person may, after the death of their relative or associate, bring a complaint either on behalf of that relative or associate or on their own behalf as a relative or associate of the deceased person.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Was this complaint part of the original complaint?
Having reviewed all of the relevant material the Tribunal is satisfied that this is a new complaint, which was not either explicitly or implicitly part of the original complaint made to the ADB and referred to the Tribunal apart from the one reference to requesting that meetings be held at his home in October 2007 because Ms Pullen was critically ill and in hospital. Mr Bowyer submitted to the Tribunal that Ms Hannon of Gilbert & Tobin did not properly and completely set out the matters about which he and Ms Pullen wished to complain to the ADB. He submitted that he had concerns about her understanding of the complaint.
The Tribunal notes that the original complaint was lodged in October 2007 and was detailed, lengthy and comprehensive. Ms Hannon would have been acting under instructions and it is noted that the complaint form to which was attached the detailed letter from Ms Hannon was signed by both Ms Pullen and Mr Bowyer on 4 October 2007, indicating that they were aware of the content set out their complaint to the ADB and were prepared to sign it. Additionally, on 18 April 2008 Ms Hannon wrote a detailed and lengthy response setting out the complaints being pursued by Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen at that time. The original complaint did not include a complaint that the Department discriminated against Ms Pullen on the ground of her disability in the provision of goods and services and against Mr Bowyer as an associate of Ms Pullen. The focus of the original complaint had always been the alleged discrimination against Mr Bowyer and Ms Pullen as carers of a child with a disability in the provision of goods and services. The original complaint was concerned with the alleged lack of consultation regarding the needs of the child and ineffective communication between Mr Bowyer, Ms Pullen and the Department/School. The only reference to Ms Pullen’s disability and the failure to make adjustments to accommodate her disability occurs in October 2007 when Mr Bowyer requests that meetings be held at his home because his wife being critically ill at that time. I am satisfied that this complaint formed part of the original complaint but not a broad allegation such as is being made now.
Any matters that may have been raised in a conciliation conference at the ADB are confidential in nature and at the time of the referral to the Tribunal, the complaint was not amended to include any of those matters that may have been raised at the conciliation conference. The Tribunal is not satisfied therefore that this complaint formed part of the original complaint.
Having found that this complaint did not form part of the original complaint and cannot therefore be dealt with by the Tribunal, unless the leave is granted for the complaint to be amended, the question arises whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant leave for the complaint to be amended.
Section 103 of the AD Act provides that:
1)The Tribunal may, on the application of a party to a complaint or on its own motion, at any stage in proceedings relating to the complaint, amend the complaint.
2)A complaint may be amended to include additional complaints and anything else that was not included in the complaint as investigated by the President.
3)An amendment may be made subject to such conditions as the Tribunal thinks fit.Section 103 was considered by the Tribunal in Bernard v Manly Lawn Tennis Club Ltd [2006] NSWADT 174 (8 June 2006). In that case the Tribunal said that section 103 gives the Tribunal ‘a wide discretion to amend a complaint’. Smyth JM set out several factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion to amend a complaint and stated as follows:
When interpreting legislation a purposive approach is required: s 33 Interpretation Act 1987. [NSW Teachers Federation v President Anti-Discrimination Board & Anor [2005] NSWADT 153 at 9]. The Act is remedial legislation and the objects include the promotion of equality of opportunity and rendering unlawful certain kinds of conduct.
Section 103 is drafted broadly and gives the Tribunal a wide discretion to amend a complaint referred by the Board President to deal with extra matters that were not investigated by the Board President as part of that complaint. The words “additional complaints” allow for extra complaints to be added even though those complaints have not been lodged with the Board President, investigated by the Board President or been conciliated by the Board President. This Tribunal offers mediation so that where complaints are amended the parties have the opportunity to go to mediation if they both consent.
The section appears to have been introduced to assist in the efficiency of proceedings. Prior to the amendment the Tribunal could only deal with the complaint that was referred by the Board President. If additional complaints or new matters were raised that were not within the complaint as referred, the Tribunal could not deal with those matters unless the Applicant had lodged a complaint about them with the Board President and that complaint was referred by the Board President. That situation led to delay and increased costs for parties. That was particularly so when the facts connected with any additional matter or complaint were closely linked to the complaint already before the Tribunal.
The section is not restricted in time and is applicable to complaints or allegations of unlawful conduct arising at any time either before or after lodgement of complaints with the Board President. Accordingly an Applicant can seek to add an additional complaint regarding conduct that post dates the lodgement of the complaint that is before the Tribunal.
Section 103(3) of the Act gives the Tribunal a power to make amendments subject to conditions the Tribunal thinks fit.
Relevant factors to consider when determining whether to exercise the discretion to amend a complaint include:
the relationship between the amendment sought and the complaint that has already been referred to the Tribunal;
the prospects of the complaint being substantiated;
whether the same or a similar complaint has been made in another jurisdiction;
how long ago the alleged unlawful conduct is said to have taken place;
whether the application was brought in a timely manner after it arose; and
prejudice to any party.The Tribunal has considered these matters and is of the view that there is a clear prejudice to the Respondent in defending the allegations. Sadly, Ms Pullen has passed away and that fact means that there is no opportunity for the Tribunal to hear from her as to what adjustments she would have thought reasonable that were not accommodated and how this might have impacted on her and equally, there is no opportunity for the Respondent to test her evidence. In addition, the original complaint was made in October 2007 and it is not until two years later and after Ms Pullen has passed away that this new complaint is raised by Mr Bowyer. Although there is a relationship between this new complaint and the original complaint, this new complaint has not been raised in a timely manner and there is a clear prejudice to the Respondent, which in my view, precludes the exercise of the discretion in Mr Bowyer’s favour. The Tribunal notes that these matters could have been raised prior to the referral to the Tribunal when Ms Hannon detailed a comprehensive list of the matters the subject of the complaint.
The application to amend the complaint is refused.
The application is listed for case conference on 4 August 2010 at 10.00am.
8