Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) - [2025] ARTA 2030

Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2030 (29 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Maria Cavallaro
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0375

Applicant/s:  Alliance Accounting & Business Consultants Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0376
Applicant/s:  Tradie Troopers Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0377

Tribunal:Senior Member M Harrowell
Place:Sydney
Date:29 September 2025

Decision:
(a)The application for an order to anonymise the name of the parties in these reasons and in the reasons for the decision determining each of the review applications dated 17 January 2025 made by each of the applicants is refused.

....................[SGD]....................................................
Senior Member Mark Harrowell
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 – suppression of parties’ names – principles applicable – s 70 Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of information – s 71 Requirements for Tribunal orders about hearings, publication and disclosure – circumstances of the parties to the proceedings and other persons connected to the proceedings – principles applicable
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (repealed)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)- ss 70, 71
Cases
Azzopardi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social Services Second Review) [2019] AATA 105
Carter and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 632
Hanieh and Tax Practitioners Board [2024] AATA 3251
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales [1991] 26 NSWLR 131
M&A Corporate Accountants Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2021] AATA 4523
Secondary Materials
Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION

These reasons relate to applicants’ application for an order under s 70 of the Administrative Tribunal Review Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) to anonymise their names.
INTRODUCTION
In an email dated 26 May 2025, the lawyers for the applicants made the following application (some detail being unnecessary to reproduce):
We wish to make an application for the suppression of the applicants’ names and we have been informed by the Registry that the appropriate way to do this is by email to the Tribunal and copying the respondent to the email.
The Applicants kindly request that their names be suppressed in the decision when the Tribunal publishes its decision on these matters after the hearing.
The reason that the Applicants make this request is outlined as follows:
1These matters concern issues in relation to whether the First Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a registration as a tax agent as in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct (“the Code”) found within the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (“the TASA”).
2As part of this matter, the First Applicant has disclosed evidence in relation to:
(a)Traumatic events which she has experienced in her personal life including the misappropriation of funds by a close friend, the death of her friend and a family member and events relating to a domestic relationship and.
(b)Mental health issues that she experienced…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedur... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 2030
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Cavallaro and the Tax Practitioners Board, with the dispute concerning the suppression of parties’ names in proceedings under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to restrict the publication or disclosure of information that could reveal the identity of parties or witnesses in a proceeding, and if so, what principles should guide the Tribunal in exercising this power. Specifically, the case required the court to interpret and apply sections 70 and 71 of the ART Act, which address the Tribunal's power to restrict publication or disclosure of information and the requirements for making such orders, respectively.

The court found that the power to restrict publication or disclosure of information is indeed provided under s 70 of the ART Act, but it must be exercised in accordance with the requirements set out in s 71. Section 71(2) mandates that the Tribunal consider several factors before making an order, including the principle of public hearings, the availability of evidence to the public and parties, and the confidential nature of the information. The court also noted that while the principles of public hearings and the availability of evidence remain, the Tribunal must also consider any reasons in favor of making an order, such as the circumstances of the parties and potential harm if the order is not made. The respondent's submission concerning regulations 25E and 25L was withdrawn during the hearing, which influenced the court's consideration of the principles and requirements applicable in this context.

The court concluded that the Tribunal has the authority to restrict publication or disclosure of information under the ART Act, provided it follows the statutory requirements and considerations. The decision emphasized the importance of balancing the principles of transparency and confidentiality, ensuring that any order to suppress information is justified by specific circumstances of the parties and the potential harm of disclosure. The court did not make specific orders in this case but clarified the legal framework for future proceedings involving similar issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

However, I note the submission concerning regs 25E and 25L was withdrawn by the respondent at the hearing on 2 June 2025.CONSIDERATION The power to make an order to anonymised the name of a party is found in s 70 of the ART Act. This section provides:70 Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of informationInformation about parties, witnesses and others (1) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of: (a) information tending to reveal the identity of: (i) a party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or (ii) any person related to or otherwise associated with any party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or (b) information otherwise concerning a party, witness or other person mentioned in paragraph (a).Note 1: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.Note 2: Breach of a non‑publication or non‑disclosure order is an offence (see section 119). Section 71(2) sets out the following relevant considerations in making such an order:71 Requirements for Tribunal orders about hearings, publication and disclosure…Considerations (2) In considering whether to make an order under subsection 69(3) or section 70 in relation to a proceeding, the Tribunal must have regard to the following:(a) the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings in the Tribunal are held in public;(b) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public;(c) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents given to the Tribunal are made available to all the parties to the proceeding;(d) any reasons in favour of making an order, including the following:(i) in any case—the circumstances of the parties to the proceeding and other persons connected to the proceeding;(ii) in any case—the harm (if any) that is likely to occur to a person if the order is not made;(iii) in relation to an order under section 70—the confidential nature (if any) of the information;(e) any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant. Previously, s 35(5) of the AAT Act specified the following consideration to be taken into account in considering whether to make an order for a private hearing, norm publication or nondisclosure order under s 35 of that Act:(5) In considering whether to give directions under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the Tribunal is to take as the basis of its consideration the principle that it is desirable: (a) that hearings of proceedings before the Tribunal should be held in public; and (b) that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents received in evidence by the Tribunal should be made available to the public and to all the parties; and (c) that the contents of documents lodged with the Tribunal should be made available to all the parties. However (and without being required to seek the views of the parties), the Tribunal is to pay due regard to any reasons in favour of giving such a direction, including, for the purposes of subsection (3) or (4), the confidential nature (if applicable) of the information.