Da Silva and Secretary, Department of Education

[2023] AATA 2064

Da Silva and Secretary, Department of Education [2023] AATA 2064 (13 July 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/8695

Re:Tatiana Barbosa Da Silva

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Education

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Brigadier AG Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

Date:13 July 2023

Place:Perth

The Applicant's application for the re-instatement of an application for review of the decision, dated 28 November 2019, to refuse to remit the Applicant’s HECS-HELP balance pursuant to s 36-20(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) is refused.

.................[Sgd]...............................................

Brigadier AG Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – reinstatement of application – application dismissed because Applicant failed to appear – whether application dismissed in error – justice of the circumstances – whether appropriate to reinstate the application – lack of any satisfactory explanation for failing to appear – prejudice – merits of substantive application – reinstatement application refused

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – s 42A

Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) – ss 36-20, s 36-21, 238-10, Ch 3

CASES

Zubair and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2905

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Justice Garry Downes AM, “FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: The Ramifications of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597” (Hartigan Memorial Lecture, Brisbane, 30 November 2005)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Brigadier AG Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

13 July 2023

INTRODUCTION  

1. The Applicant’s substantive application seeks review of the decision of the Curtin University (the University), dated 28 November 2019, confirming an earlier decision of the University to not remit the Applicant’s HECS-HELP balance pursuant to s 36-20(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act) in relation to the units of study (ACCT2002, Management Accounting and ECON1000, Introductory Economics) in Semester 1 of 2018.

2. On 28 March 2022, the Applicant failed to appear before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) and her application was dismissed pursuant to s 42A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act).

3. On 24 April 2022, the Applicant applied for her substantive application to be reinstated, which is currently before the Tribunal.

4. An interlocutory hearing was held on 11 April 2023. The Applicant did not attend the hearing. Ms Mia Donald of Sparke Helmore Lawyers represented the Respondent, and participated by telephone conference.

5. By email dated 13 February 2023, the Applicant advised that the hearing should proceed in her absence (Exhibit T4). Prior to the hearing commencement time, the Tribunal made a number of attempts to contact the Applicant, but without success.

6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal adjourned for further submissions from the parties.

   BACKGROUND

7. On 24 December 2019, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the University dated 28 November 2019, to affirm the decision to refuse to re-credit her HECS-HELP balance for two units of study pursuant to s 36- 20(1) of the Act.

8. This matter has an extensive procedural history, the substantive application was on foot for some two years and three months before being dismissed for non-appearance on 28 March 2022 pursuant to s 42A(2) of the AAT Act.

9. The Applicant’s reinstatement application has also been before the Tribunal for a significant period, having been filed on 24 April 2022 (Exhibit R2/41). Critically, it has now been over 12 months since the reinstatement application was filed. In that time, the matter has been listed for hearing on three occasions. On the first occasion, the Applicant failed to appear and was given a second chance by the Tribunal when it relisted the reinstatement   application for a hearing. On the second occasion, the Applicant sought an adjournment on the day of the hearing, providing an undetailed medical certificate in support of her adjournment request. The Tribunal again acceded to the Applicant’s request and listed the matter for a directions hearing by telephone on 1 February 2023.

10. On 31 January 2023, the Applicant sent an email (Exhibit T1) to the Tribunal attaching a medical certificate from Dr Jacinta Montgomery, dated 30 January 2023, stating that a medical condition meant that she was unfit to represent herself in the Tribunal from 30 January 2023 to 2 April 2023 inclusive. The Respondent opposed the adjournment and the matter proceeded to a directions hearing in the Applicant’s absence.

11. The Tribunal listed the matter for interlocutory hearing of the reinstatement application on 11 April 2023. In the listing notice (Exhibit T2), the Tribunal notified the Applicant that any further adjournment request without detailed medical evidence was unlikely to be granted and that a medical certificate, similar to that provided on 31 January 2023, would be insufficient. Further, the Tribunal sought the Applicant’s consent for the matter to be heard on the papers pursuant to s 34J of the AAT Act.

12. On 13 February 2023, the Applicant sent an email to the Tribunal which, amongst other things, set out her complaint against the University and requested the Tribunal afford her more time, in accordance with her medical certificate, to prepare her case. If that request was not granted, the Applicant consented to the matter being decided in her absence. On 21 February 2023, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant and Tribunal regarding s 34J of the AAT Act and reinstatement applications and submitting that the interlocutory hearing should proceed, noting that a decision could be made in the Applicant’s absence should she not attend (Exhibit T5).

13. On 6 April 2023 at 10:21pm, the Applicant sent an email to the Tribunal stating that she could not participate at the hearing “due to sudden illness” which was beyond her control. In support of that claim, the Applicant attached a medical certificate from Dr The Vinh Ngo, dated 6 April 2023, stating that she had “flu-like symptoms” and would be unfit to represent herself in the Tribunal from 6 April 2023 to 11 April 2023 inclusive. As the Tribunal was closed for Easter between 6 April 2023 to 10 April 2023, the email and medical certificate were not seen by the Tribunal until shortly before the listed hearing on 11 April 2023. The Respondent opposed the adjournment request and the matter was heard in the Applicant’s absence.

14. The Tribunal directed that the Respondent provide any updated submissions and evidence by 2 May 2023, the Applicant provide any updated submissions and evidence by 23 May 2023, and the Respondent provide any submissions and evidence in reply by 30 May 2023. The Respondent and the Applicant provided their updated submissions as directed.

    ISSUE

15. The Tribunal must decide whether in all of the relevant circumstances it is appropriate to reinstate the Applicant’s application.

16. The Respondent submits that in this particular case, those circumstances would include whether the Applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for her non-appearance at the directions hearings on 21 March 2022 and 28 March 2022; the prospects of the Applicant succeeding in the substantive application if reinstated; and the nature of any prejudice or unfairness to the parties, the long procedural history of the matter and the Applicant’s failure to progress the reinstatement application (Transcript/7).

    MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

17. The Tribunal had before it the following material:

    (a)Applicant's Email dated 8 July 2022 in response to the Respondent's request for the medical evidence (Exhibit A1);

    (b)Applicant's Email dated 24 June 2022; reinstatement submissions (Exhibit A2);

    (c)Applicant's Submission dated 24 April 2022; request for reinstatement (Exhibit A3);

    (d)Respondent's Submissions on reinstatement application filed on 7 June 2022 (Exhibit R1);

    (e)Bundel of Documents filed on 7 June 2022 (Exhibit R2);

    (f)Applicant's email dated 31 January 2023 (attaching Medical Certificate) (Exhibit T1);

    (g)Listing Notice sent to the Applicant on 1 February 2023 (Exhibit T2);

    (h)Tribunal's Email correspondence dated 3 February 2023 (Exhibit T3);

    (i)Applicant's email dated 13 February 2023 (Exhibit T4);

    (j)Respondent's email dated 21 February 2023 (Exhibit T5);

    (k)Tribunal's Email correspondence dated 21 February 2023 (Exhibit T6);

    (l)Applicant's Email Correspondence dated 21 February 2023 (Exhibit T7);

    (m)Applicant's Email Correspondence dated 22 February 2023 (Exhibit T8);

    (n)Response from Tribunal's Legal & Policy department dated 10 March 2023 (Exhibit T9); and

    (o)The Respondent’s Further Submissions dated 1 May 2023; the Applicant’s email dated 23 May 2023 and the Respondent’s Submissions in reply dated 26 May 2023.

    LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

18. Section 42A of the AAT Act deals with discontinuance, dismissal and reinstatement of applications. In this case, the relevant subsections are as follows:

    Dismissal if party fails to appear

    (2)If a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal in respect of an application for the review of a decision (not being the person who made the decision) fails either to appear in person or to appear by a representative at a directions hearing, or an alternative dispute resolution process under Division 3, held in relation to the application, or at the hearing of the proceeding, the Tribunal may:

    (a)if the person who failed to appear is the applicant—dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision; or

    (b) in any other case—direct that the person who failed to appear shall cease to be a party to the proceeding.…

    Reinstatement of application

    (8)If the Tribunal is taken to have dismissed an application under subsection (1B), a party to the proceeding (other than the applicant) may, within the period referred to in subsection (11), apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application.

    (8A)If the Tribunal dismisses an application under subsection (2) (other than an application in respect of a proceeding in which an order has been made under subsection 41(2)), a party to the proceeding may, within the period referred to in subsection (11), apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application.

    (9)If it considers it appropriate to do so, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and give such directions as appear to it to be appropriate in the circumstances.

    (10)If it appears to the Tribunal that an application has been dismissed in error, the Tribunal may, on the application of a party to the proceeding made within the period referred to in subsection (11) or on its own initiative, reinstate the application and give such directions as appear to it to be appropriate in the circumstances.

    (11)For the purposes of subsections (8), (8A) and (10), the period is:

    (a)28 days after the party receives notification that the application has been dismissed, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

    (b)if the party requests an extension—such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows.

19. Subsections (8) to (10) of s 42A of the AAT Act provide the only power that the Tribunal has to reinstate applications are for those that have been properly dismissed.

20. Subsections (8) and (9) are to be read together, with the effect that the power to reinstate an application under s 42A(9) of the AAT Act is only enlivened where the application has been dismissed under s 42A(2) of the AAT Act for the applicant’s failure to appear, (or if the application was dismissed under s 42A(1B) of the AAT Act and a party other than the applicant requests reinstatement).

    CONSIDERATION

21. There is no evidence that the Applicant’s application was dismissed in error on 28 March 2022, and the Applicant makes no submissions to that effect.

    Explanation for failure to appear

22. The Applicant has not provided an adequate explanation for her failure to appear at the directions hearing before the Tribunal on 28 March 2022. While the Applicant raises issues about her household and her husband being hospitalised around that time, she has provided no probative evidence to support these assertions, nor any explanation as to why she was unable to appear at the directions hearings on 28 March 2022 by telephone, or at the very least contact the Tribunal to seek an alternative date. This weighs heavily against the Applicant in circumstances where she has now had over 12 months to gather any medical or other evidence to support her claimed explanation for failing to appear.

23. At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter on 11 April 2023, the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness to the Applicant in calling for further submissions. The resultant submission from the Applicant received on 23 May 2023 also failed to provide an adequate explanation for her failure to appear on 28 March 2022, and included a statement that she was about to submit a complaint in relation to the Tribunal’s handling of her case with perceived bias and preferential treatment toward the Respondent. The Applicant also alleges that her medical records were obtained fraudulently during the progression of her substantive application.

24. The Respondent addresses these allegations in the submissions in reply dated 26 May 2023 (paras 2.4 – 2.10). In the absence of probative evidence supporting these allegations, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s submissions that “the Applicant’s serious allegation of bias rises no higher than disagreement with the Tribunal proceedings to date”, and that the medical documents were obtained lawfully and her allegation “expresses mere disagreement with the procedural processes of the Tribunal”. These allegations do not assist the Applicant’s present application for reinstatement.  

25. Further, the repeated requests for adjournments of the hearing of the reinstatement application, without sufficiently probative medical evidence in support, shows an ongoing pattern of failing to prosecute her reinstatement application within a reasonable time. The Tribunal notes that the medical certificate provided by the Applicant to support her non-attendance at this hearing (see para 13 above) falls short of what would be reasonably expected, particularly in circumstances where the Applicant has been advised of the requirement. The Tribunal notes, as relevant to the Tribunal’s circumstances, the comments by Lucev J in the Federal Circuit Court in the matter of Zubair and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2905 at [7]:

    In relation to the medical certificate, there are judgments of the Federal Court and this Court that establish that a person alleging a medical condition and seeking to rely upon that medical condition for the grant of an indulgence, such as an adjournment, needs to provide sworn evidence to the Court concerning the medical condition.…Those authorities also make the point that any medical certificate ought to say that the person, the subject of the medical certificate is unfit and why they are unfit and in particular, why they are unfit to attend any required Court attendance.

    Prospects of the substantive application

26. Sections 36-20 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) provides that:

    36‑20 Providers to repay amounts—special circumstances

    (1)  A higher education provider must, on the *Secretary’s behalf, determine that this section applies to a person if:

    (a)the person has been enrolled as a *Commonwealth supported student with the provider in a unit of study; and

    (b)the unit would, if completed, form part of a *course of study undertaken with that provider or another higher education provider; and

    (c)the person has not completed the requirements for the unit during the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit; and

    (d)the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person (see section 36‑21); and

    (e)the person applies in writing to that provider for either or both:

    (i)     the repayment of any amounts that the person paid in relation to his or her *student contribution amount for the unit; or

    (ii)    the remission of the person’s *HECS‑HELP debt in relation to the unit; and

    (f)either:

    (i)     the application is made before the end of the application period under section 36‑22; or

    (ii)    the provider waives the requirement that the application be made before the end of that period, on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period.

    (2) If the provider determines that this section applies to a person, the provider must:

    (a)pay to the person an amount equal to the payment, or the sum of the payments, that the person made in relation to his or her *student contribution amount for the unit; and

    (b)pay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to any *HECS‑HELP assistance to which the person was entitled for the unit.

    (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the provider if:

    (a)the person enrolled in the unit as a *replacement unit; or

    (b)it is determined that section 36‑24A applies to the person; or

    (c)section 36‑24BA applies in relation to the provider in relation to the unit.

    (4)The Higher Education Provider Guidelines may, in setting out the *tuition protection requirements, specify, in relation to circumstances to which paragraph (3)(a) applies:

    (a)the amount (if any) that is to be paid to the person; and

    (b)the amount (if any) that is to be paid to the Commonwealth; and

    (c)the person (if any) who is to pay the amounts.

    (5)If a determination made under subsection (1) is made in writing, the determination is not a legislative instrument.

    (Original emphasis; notes removed.)

27. Section 36-21 of the Act provides that:

    36‑21 Special circumstances

    (1)For the purposes of paragraph 36‑20(1)(d), special circumstances apply to the person if and only if the higher education provider is satisfied that circumstances apply to the person that:

    (a)are beyond the person’s control; and

    (b)do not make their full impact on the person until on or after the *census date for the unit of study; and

    (c)make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit during the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.

    (2)The Administration Guidelines may specify circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied of a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c). A decision of a higher education provider under this section must be in accordance with any such guidelines.

    (Original emphasis; notes removed.)

28. Chapter 3 of the Administration Guidelines 2012 made under s 238-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) outlines “special circumstances” and states that:

    CHAPTER 3 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

    3.1 PURPOSE

    3.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to specify the circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person that:

    (d)are beyond the person’s control (paragraph 36-21(1)(a) of the Act);

    (e)do not make their full impact on the person until on or after the census date for the unit of study in question (paragraph 36-21(1)(b) of the Act); and

    (f)make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit of study during the period which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit (paragraph 36-21(1)(c) of the Act).

    3.5 CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND A PERSON’S CONTROL

    3.5.1 A higher education provider will be satisfied that a person’s circumstances are beyond that person’s control if a situation occurs which a reasonable person would consider is not due to the person’s action or inaction, either direct or indirect, and for which the person is not responsible.

    3.5.5 The situation referred to in paragraph 3.5.5 must be unusual, uncommon or abnormal.

    3.10 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DID NOT MAKE THEIR FULL IMPACT UNTIL ON OR AFTER THE CENSUS DATE

    3.10.1A higher education provider will be satisfied that a person’s circumstances did not make their full impact on the person until on or after the census date for a unit of study if the person’s circumstances occur:

    (a)before the census date, but worsen after that day; or

    (b)before the census date, but the full effect or magnitude does not become apparent until on or after that day; or

    (c)on or after the census date.

    3.15 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE IT IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE PERSON TO COMPLETE THE REQUIREMENTS

    3.15.1A higher education provider will be satisfied that a person’s circumstances make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit of study during the period which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit if circumstances such as the following occur:

    (a)medical circumstances. For example, where a person’s medical condition has changed to such an extent that he or she is unable to continue studying; or

    (b)family/personal circumstances. For example, death or severe medical problems within a family, or unforeseen family financial difficulties, so that it is unreasonable to expect a person to continue studies; or

    (c)employment related circumstances. For example, where a person’s employment status or arrangements have changed so that the person is unable to continue his or her studies, and this change is beyond the person’s control; or

    (d)course related circumstances. For example, where the provider has changed the unit it had offered and the person is disadvantaged by either not being able to complete the unit, or not being given credit towards other units or course.

    A person is unable to complete the requirements for a unit if the person is unable to:

    (a)undertake the necessary private study required, or attend sufficient lectures or tutorials or meet other compulsory attendance requirements in order to meet their compulsory course requirements; or

    (b)complete the required assessable work; or

    (c)sit the required examinations; or

    (d)complete any other course requirements because of their inability to meet (a), (b) and (c) above.

    (Original emphasis.)

1. The issue for determination by the Tribunal in the substantive application, is whether it is satisfied that “special circumstances” apply to the Applicant, pursuant to ss 36-20(1)(d) and 36-21 of the Act. If so, the Applicant’s HECS-HELP balance will be remitted. The other criteria in s 36-20(1) of the Act are not in issue in relation to the units. Specifically, the Tribunal must be satisfied that circumstances apply to the Applicant that were beyond her control, did not make their full impact on the Applicant until on or after the census date for the units, and made it impracticable for the Applicant to complete the requirements for the units in the period during which the Applicant was to undertake the units (26 February 2018 to 22 June 2018).

2. In a similar manner to the consideration of an application for an extension of time, it is not necessary or appropriate for the Tribunal to engage in a merits review of the Applicant’s substantive application in these interlocutory proceedings. However, it is appropriate to consider the merits of the substantive application as a factor relevant to the question of reinstatement as it may be that the stronger the apparent merits the more likely that reinstatement would be appropriate.

3. Having regard to the relevant material, including the legislation cited above, the Respondent’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 22 November 2021, the material contained in the Applicant’s email dated 23 May 2023 and the Respondent’s submissions in Exhibit R1 at [4.6] to [4.9], the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s substantive application has poor prospects of success.

   Prejudice

4. With respect to the Applicant, the Respondent submits (Respondent’s Further Submissions dated 1 May 2023, paras 3.3 – 3.5):

   3.3 The Applicant claims, inter alia, that a failure to reinstate her application would be unfair as she has already paid the application fee and the Tribunal’s decision will affect her future and employment. However, she has not articulated or provided evidence of how a decision to remit or refuse to remit her HECS-HELP balance could have any material impact on her future or employment prospects. Further, the payment of administrative fees is of no note when considering the merit of reinstating an application for which the Applicant has repeatedly failed to adequately engage in the Tribunal proceedings. Notably, it has been over three years since the decision was made by Curtin University and, in this time, the Applicant’s capacity for work has not been inhibited nor has she provided any probative evidence to demonstrate that her employment has been impacted. This assertion does not establish any real prejudice to the Applicant.

   3.4The Applicant has failed in every instance to further her reinstatement application by attending any of the listed Interlocutory Hearings or the Directions Hearing. The Applicant’s conduct in these proceedings demonstrates a pattern of last minute adjournment requests, submitted either on the day of the listing or one business day prior, supported by vague and undetailed medical certificates.

   3.5The Respondent accepts that the Applicant’s last adjournment request, made on 6 April 2023, did contain some detail – being, that she had “flu-like symptoms”. However, the Applicant had ample time to prepare for the interlocutory hearing and was on notice, by both the Respondent and the Tribunal, of what kind of evidence was required in order to make an adequate request for further adjournments. Further, despite the Applicant attesting that her condition “prevented [her] from reading or looking at the computer”, the Applicant’s symptoms plainly did not inhibit her capacity to provide a detailed email to the Tribunal on 11 April 2023, in response to the Respondent’s opposition to the adjournment and only shortly prior to the commencement of the Interlocutory Hearing.

   (Footnotes removed.)

5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that refusal of reinstatement would not be prejudicial to the Applicant.

6. In the Respondent’s reinstatement submissions (Exhibit R1, para 4.11), the Respondent accepted that the Respondent would suffer no prejudice should the substantive application be reinstated, but added that the public interest in the finality of decision making would be better served by the substantive application not being reinstated. The Respondent also submitted that: “It is appropriate for the Tribunal to take into account the provisions of the AAT Act which require the fair and efficient determination of applications for review (see for example s 2A, s 18A, s 33(1)(b) and s 33(1AB)”. The Tribunal agrees this is a relevant issue in the current matter due to the interlocutory application being on foot now for 12 months without resolution.

7. Before the Tribunal, Ms Donald referred to the previous submission regarding prejudice to the Respondent mentioned in the paragraph above, and added (Transcript/8):

   …the reinstatement application has now stretched on for more than 12 months. And the Secretary’s been required to prepare for these hearings that have been listed, two of which were adjourned because the Applicant, firstly didn’t appear, and secondly asked for an adjournment. And we say that we are now bordering on that prejudice in terms of the time and cost to the tribunal and to the Secretary in responding to this reinstatement application.   

8. The Tribunal concludes that there is potential prejudice to the Secretary, and notes that even the absence of prejudice does not of itself lead to reinstatement. There is nothing before the Tribunal to dissuade it from the view that it is in the public interest that there be an end to the appeal process. The Tribunal’s broad consideration of the factor of prejudice weighs against reinstatement of the Applicant’s application.

   CONCLUSION

9. Finally, the Tribunal notes the conclusion of the then President of this Tribunal, the Honourable Garry Downes, in his Hartigan Memorial Lecture on 30 November 2005:

   The conclusion seems to be that tribunals should act with extreme caution before ever giving consideration to the question whether a matter once determined should be revisited. Such reconsideration should be confined to the simplest and most obvious cases of manifest error.

   Although the substantive matter in the Applicant’s case has not been determined, the Tribunal considers that this conclusion has some resonance in this matter when the application has been properly dismissed.

10. The Tribunal has considered the relevant circumstances represented in the material before it. The Applicant has had ample opportunity to prosecute her case, and the Tribunal finds that none of the considerations of the Applicant’s explanation for failure to appear, merits of the substantive application and prejudice are made out in favour of reinstatement.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that in all the circumstances it is not appropriate to reinstate the substantive application.

    DECISION

11. The Applicant's application for the re-instatement of an application for review of the decision, dated 28 November 2019, to refuse to remit the Applicant’s HECS-HELP balance pursuant to s 36-20(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) is refused.

I certify that the preceding 39 (thirty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier AG Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

..................[Sgd]..............................................

Associate

Dated: 13 July 2023

Date of hearing:	11 April 2023
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mia Donald
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore