David Mahaffy and Tax Practitioners Board
[2014] AATA 17
[2014] AATA 17
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2013/5357
Re
David Mahaffy
APPLICANT
And
Tax Practitioners Board
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Date 8 January 2014 Date of written reasons 15 January 2014 Place Canberra 1. The application for a stay of the decision under review is granted, subject to further order and subject to the following conditions and orders:
1. from the date of this order while the stay is in force:
a) Mr Mahaffy does not provide tax agent services to new clients, that is, persons he had not provided such services to prior to 24 September 2013; and
b) on or before 29 January 2014, Mr Mahaffy files evidence in the form of a statutory declaration that he has given the Tax Practitioners Board (the Board) the names and contact details of each client to whom he has provided tax agent services from 1 June 2011; and
c) Mr Mahaffy conducts himself in a civil and appropriate manner in all dealings with the Board and the Tax Office, and he communicates with the Board and the Tax Office in writing only; and
d) Mr Mahaffy provides copies of all materials he files in the Tribunal to the Board through its legal representative, the Australian Government Solicitor; and
e) Mr Mahaffy complies in a timely manner with Tribunal listings and orders, including any timetable set for the filing of evidence and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions; and
f) Mr Mahaffy conducts himself in a civil and appropriate manner in his dealings with the Board, the Board’s legal representatives, officers of the Tribunal and members of the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings; and
2. there is liberty to apply on two days’ notice if the above conditions are not strictly complied with; and
3. on or before 9 AM on 22 January 2014, Mr Mahaffy is to inform the Tribunal and the Respondent whether or not he will be legally represented in these proceedings and, if so, the name and contact details of his legal representative; and
4. on or before 9 AM on 22 January 2014 Mr Mahaffy is to inform the Tribunal and the Respondent of summons he intends to issue and to lodge properly completed documents for this purpose; and
5. a telephone preliminary conference is to be listed on the earliest convenient date after 17 January 2014; and
6. the application is to be progressed to hearing with reasonable expedition and without undue delay.
............................[sgd]............................................
Mr S. Webb, Member
TAXATION – renewal of registration as a tax agent refused – application for refusal decision to be stayed – fit and proper person – bankruptcy – bad behaviour – related Court proceedings - balance of interests – desirability of securing the effectiveness of the hearing – stay granted subject to conditions
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 41
Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth), ss 20-5, 20-25
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Mahaffy [2013] FMCA 150
DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Limited v JR Mahaffy [2010] NSWCA 341
DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Limited v JR Mahaffy (NSW District Court proceeding 2007/295752)
DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 796Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb, Member
15 January 2014
David Mahaffy applied for renewal of his registration as a tax agent, but his application was refused by the Tax Practitioners Board (the Board) on grounds that he was not a fit and proper person. He applied for review of this decision and for operation of the decision to be stayed.
The Board opposed the grant of a stay.
The only issue for me to decide, presently, is whether Mr Mahaffy’s application for stay of the decision to refuse renewal of his tax agent registration should be granted.
The grant of a stay is to be decided under s 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the Act) and may be subject to conditions. As can be seen from s 41(2), the discretion to grant a stay is preconditioned by the formation of an opinion about the desirability of doing so for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application –
(2) The Tribunal may, on request being made, as prescribed, by a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal (in this section referred to as the relevant proceeding), if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is desirable to do so after taking into account the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review, make such order or orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision to which the relevant proceeding relates or a part of that decision as the Tribunal considers appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
When considering a stay application, the matters to be considered include[1] –
(a)the prospects of success;
(b)the consequence for the applicant if the stay is not granted;
(c)the public interest;
(d)the consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions, whether the stay is granted or not;
(e)whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted; and
(f)any other relevant matters, including the time the reviewable decision has been in force and the time likely to be required to prepare the application for hearing.
[1] Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798, per Downes J at [4].
Background
Mr Mahaffy told me that he has operated as a registered tax agent in Narrabri, New South Wales, for 26 years. In 1993 he was involved in litigation with the Tax Office which was resolved in his favour. He says that subsequently he has encountered difficulties with the Tax Office.
It appears that Mr Mahaffy was involved in litigation with his brother over several years arising from disputation about the conduct of business and related financial matters. A costs order was made by Judge McLoughlin SC – DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Limited v JR Mahaffy (NSW District Court proceeding 2007/295752)[2]. Mr Mahaffy made allegations of bias against the Judge. An appeal against the costs order was dismissed by the NSW Court of Appeal - DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Limited v JR Mahaffy [2010] NSWCA 341. Judge McLoughlin SC rejected the allegations made against him by Mr Mahaffy and referred the matter to the Board[3]. Mr Mahaffy is facing six contempt charges resulting from his subsequent conduct and behaviour. These are due to be dealt with by the NSW Supreme Court on 24 April 2014.
[2] T6.
[3] T13.
An ancillary matter relating to superannuation guarantee obligations arose in respect of Mr Mahaffy and his brother. This was determined on review by the Tribunal against Mr Mahaffy – see DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 796 (the DB Mahaffy case). Mr Mahaffy did not appeal this decision. In the course of these proceedings, Mr Mahaffy’s behaviour was noted to be less than satisfactory.
Mr Mahaffy was involved in litigation with the Australia and New Zealand Bank. On 4 March 2013, in the ANZ v Mahaffy case, a sequestration order was made against him, rendering him bankrupt. Mr Mahaffy did not attend the final hearing of this matter. He told me that he attempted to appeal the judgement soon thereafter, but was ruled out of time. On his unchallenged evidence, he then sought legal advice from Mr Garry Jauncey of Latham Chambers in Sydney, a barrister providing him with pro bono advice and representation. But there were delays and Mr Mahaffy fell ill. In the result, he filed an application for extension of time to lodge an appeal on 8 November 2013. The matter is presently listed in the Federal Court of Australia on 11 February 2014.
There is evidence that Mr Mahaffy has behaved badly in dealings with officers of the Board and the Tax Office – see T14 to T29.
On 24 September 2013, the Board decided to reject Mr Mahaffy’s application for renewal of his registration as a tax agent, finding that he is not a fit and proper person to hold registration under s 20-25 and s 20-5 of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (the TSA Act).
The Board decided that Mr Mahaffy was not of good fame, integrity and character as he –
(g)engaged in inappropriate conduct with the judicial system, the Tribunal, the Board and the Australian Tax Office;
(h)continued to act in such manner despite warnings to cease;
(i)failed to ensure that his company tax returns and activity statements were lodged in a timely manner;
(j)lacked awareness of the significance and consequences of his conduct and he failed to accept responsibility for his actions; and
(k)is an undischarged bankrupt.
The Board concluded that –
Overall, [Mr Mahaffy’s] conduct is such that it undermines the standards expected of a registered tax agent and it would be detrimental for [him] to continue to be registered as a tax agent[4].
[4] T4, folio 21
On 18 October 2013, Mr Mahaffy applied for review of the Board’s decision, and he applied for the decision to be stayed.
The stay application came on for hearing before me on 8 November 2013. Detailed submissions were filed on behalf of the Board that morning. Also prior to the hearing, Mr Mahaffy filed copies of documents he intended to lodge in the Federal Court of Australia for the purposes of commencing an appeal against a sequestration order made on 4 March 2013 in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Mahaffy[5] (the ANZ v Mahaffy case). At the hearing, Mr Mahaffy informed me that he was not well and that he had not had time to properly consider the extensive submissions filed by the Respondent. I directed Mr Mahaffy to file copies of documents lodged in the Federal Court and medical evidence of his ill-health, and stood the hearing over to 20 November 2013.
[5] [2013] FMCA 150. See T37.
Immediately after the hearing, Mr Mahaffy filed Federal Court documents pertaining to an application for grant of an extension of time and a brief letter by Dr Michael Ling, a general practitioner. Dr Ling’s letter is in the following terms –
This is to state that [Mr Mahaffy] is suffering from several quite serious medical conditions including ischemic heart disease, unstable diabetes and Cirrhosis of the liver.
His medical condition is unstable at present and is requiring specialist medical treatments.
He is unable to attend any court proceedings for the next six months or so because of his medical conditions.
On 19 November 2013, Mr Mahaffy filed a letter requesting information of various kinds and making a number of assertions and submissions, the flavour of which can be seen in the closing paragraph –
Concluding a stay should be given to me until this case is properly heard and defended as it has been a personal vendetta by the ATO to get rid of me after the 1993 court case where the ATO spent in the vicinity of $600,000. The ATO have investigated my firm and audited my firm many times and have found nothing. Many accountants including my brother were left alone after numerous complaints were lodged by many of clients and the tribunal did nothing. I pose no threat to the ATO as I have stated not lodged false returns and the AAT case will be depended and cleared.
On 20 November 2013, at the outset of the resumed hearing, while awaiting the attendance of the Respondent’s representative, Mr Nick Gouliaditis of the Australian Government Solicitor, Mr Mahaffy informed me that he was suffering from chest pain and that he had been advised by his treating doctor to proceed immediately to hospital. He told me that he had he had recently undergone surgery in which two stents had been inserted and he was under the care of a cardiologist. In the result I released Mr Mahaffy from the need to appear in the hearing so that he could attend the local hospital. When Mr Gouliaditis appeared after a delay, I informed him of Mr Mahaffy’s circumstance and discussed the possibility of progressing the stay application without a hearing. Mr Gouliaditis agreed to seek instructions about options that may be acceptable to the Board.
Subsequently, on 21 November 2013 Mr Gouliaditis filed a letter stating that –
The hearing of the stay application has been adjourned twice. To avoid the cost of a further hearing, our client is prepared to modify its previous opposition to the grant of a stay, so long as the stay is subject to appropriate conditions.
Proposed conditions were set out in subsequent paragraphs.
On 10 December 2013, Mr Mahaffy provided a response to the Board’s proposed conditions, stating –
I will not adhere by any of the conditions that the AGS nick Gouliaditis has put forward.
That being so, the stay application was set down to be dealt with on 8 January 2014.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mahaffy retreated from his earlier position, such that he agreed to accept two out of four of the conditions proposed by the Board. He confirmed that he would conduct himself in a civil and appropriate manner in all dealings with the Board and the Tax Office, including communicating only in writing, and that he would provide the Board’s legal representatives with copies of all documents he filed in the Tribunal. He cavilled with the proposition that he write to each of his clients informing them of the reviewable decision, attaching a copy of the Board’s decision.
He informed me that his Federal Court application is listed to be heard in February 2014 and other proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court concerning a number of contempt charges against him are listed to be heard on 24 April 2014.
Prospects of success
At this early stage in the proceedings the parties have not had opportunity to obtain and place before the Tribunal all the relevant materials on which they will ultimately rely. Documents have been filed under s 37 of the Act and additional documents have been filed for the purposes of this hearing, particularly documents attached to the Board’s submissions filed on 8 November 2013. These documents illuminate the issues in dispute.
There are three key issues that go to the central question of whether Mr Mahaffy is a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent – bankruptcy, bad behaviour and improper conduct as a tax agent.
As to the first issue, Mr Mahaffy is belatedly attempting to appeal against the sequestration order made against him on 4 March 2013. The application he made on 8 November 2013 for an extension of time for that purpose is presently before the Federal Court. Whether or not those matters will be resolved in his favour I cannot say. But for present purposes I am prepared to accept that the prospect is reasonably open, as he contends.
As to the second issue concerning bad behaviour, the Board says that Mr Mahaffy has behaved badly, even contemptuously, in previous court and tribunal proceedings and in dealings with officers of the Board (and its predecessor in NSW) and the Tax Office, raising unsubstantiated allegations, making violent threats and using abusive and disrespectful language.
As I have said, Mr Mahaffy faces six charges of contempt that are due to be dealt with by the NSW Supreme Court on 24 April 2014. Whether or not the charges will be made out remains to be determined by the Court. Once again, for present purposes I am prepared to accept that Mr Mahaffy may have some reasonable prospect of successfully defending the charges he faces.
There is evidence that Mr Mahaffy behaved in an inappropriate and disrespectful manner in previous proceedings before the Tribunal in the DB Mahaffy case. Behaviour of this kind weighs against Mr Mahaffy’s prospect of success.
The evidence that Mr Mahaffy has behaved badly in dealings with officers of the Board and the Tax Office remains to be tested at hearing. Abusive, offensive and harassing behaviour of the kind alleged in documents at T14 to T29 weighs very heavily against Mr Mahaffy’s prospects of success – behaviour of that kind, if proved, is not consistent with the behaviour expected of a registered tax agent.
As to the third issue, concerning improper or inappropriate conduct in practice as a tax agent, the Board points to several matters that weigh against Mr Mahaffy’s prospects of success. These include –
(l)Judge McLoughlin’s finding that Mr Mahaffy improperly directed moneys payable to his company, DB Mahaffy & Associates Pty Ltd (the Company), to his personal account in order to thwart a costs order against him – this is subject of the contempt proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court.
(m)Mr Mahaffy allegedly failed to meet his superannuation guarantee obligations, as affirmed by the Tribunal in the DB Mahaffy case – Mr Mahaffy disputes this obligation on grounds that it relates to illegal activities carried out by others. He told me that he intends appealing the Tribunal’s decision. But he has not done so, and he is now well out of time.
(n)Mr Mahaffy failed to lodge his personal and company tax returns in a timely manner. Mr Mahaffy says that all of his returns are up to date, but then informed me that he would be lodging his company returns shortly.
(o)Mr Mahaffy failed to properly inform the Board in a timely manner that the Company was de-registered by Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and he proceeded to seek renewal of its tax agent registration when it was de-registered by ASIC. Mr Mahaffy says that the de-registration was the result of an administrative error by ASIC concerning the payment of a small outstanding fee, which he rectified when he became aware of it – this should not be held against him.
(p)Mr Mahaffy failed to notify the Board in a timely manner of his bankruptcy following the sequestration order on 4 March 2013 and, furthermore, that he provided false information about this in his application for tax agent registration renewal in July 2013. Mr Mahaffy maintains that there are mitigating circumstances such that this should not be determinative of his fitness for registration.
If proved contrary to Mr Mahaffy’s assertions, each of these matters would weigh against Mr Mahaffy’s prospects of success. But, presently, they remain to be tested.
In sum on this point, there are serious questions about the merits of Mr Mahaffy’s application - his prospects of success are not strong. But it is conceivable that he may be able to address each of the points raised against him. I am not persuaded that his case is so weak or devoid of reasonable prospects that a stay should not be granted. Nevertheless, the weakness of his case is one factor that must be weighed in the balance.
Consequence for Mr Mahaffy
Mr Mahaffy says that that he will be forced out of business if a stay is not granted. Narrabri, so his argument goes, is a small town where, if he is forced to cease providing tax agent services to his clients, even for a time, he will not be able to recover. Furthermore, Mr Mahaffy says that closure of his business will reduce his ability to earn income, and this will mean that he cannot afford necessary treatment for the various ailments that afflict him.
Even though there is but scant evidence to support Mr Mahaffy’s assertions, I accept that his business and his income are likely to be adversely affected.
Public interest
There are three important points of public interest in this case. First, the public, and tax payers in particular, are entitled to protection from persons who are not fit and proper to provide tax agent services. Second, there is a public interest in maintaining appropriate standards of conduct and behaviour in the provision of tax agent services. And third, there is a strong public interest in the administration of justice, such that a person against whom findings of bad behaviour and improper or inappropriate conduct are made has a reasonable opportunity to seek redress without undue adverse consequence.
On the one hand, the taxpaying public is entitled to the protection offered by the Board’s decision that Mr Mahaffy is not a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent. On the other hand, the administration of justice requires that Mr Mahaffy should be given a reasonable opportunity to test the basis on which this decision rests. While his case is not strong, the merits of the decision concerning whether he is a fit and proper person for the purposes of registration under the TAS Act have not yet been fully tested and determined.
I was informed at the hearing that the Board received one complaint against Mr Mahaffy in respect of his failure to release documents to a client. Mr Mahaffy explained that the complainant was a client of his brother, who operated a business in Wee Waa, and that he was not in a position to provide any documents to the complainant. When questioned about other complaints, Mr Mahaffy informed me that there had been one other complaint made against him in 26 years of practice as a tax agent, but this complaint was made by a client who owed him money and it was dismissed by the Tax Office. This was not contested by the Board and no evidence was adduced that Mr Mahaffy has lodged insufficient, incorrect or false returns on behalf of his clients.
In view of these considerations, these points of public interest weigh in the balance, both for and against the grant of a stay.
Consequence for the respondent
The consequence for the Board of granting a stay is that officers of the Board may have to deal with Mr Mahaffy while it remains operative prior to determination of his application for review. There is a risk that Mr Mahaffy may repeat his previous bad behaviour in such dealings.
This weighs against the grant of a stay.
Effectiveness of the hearing
Mr Mahaffy says that if a stay is not granted, he will be forced out of business and his health is likely to be adversely affected by the consequential reduction in his financial circumstances, affecting his capacity to pay for necessary treatment.
I accept that if operation of the decision under review is not stayed, Mr Mahaffy will not be in a position to continue his business as a tax agent and, being located in a small country town, he may struggle to recover even if he succeeds in his application for review on all counts.
It appears to me, therefore, that the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the review will be reduced if a stay is not granted. This weighs in favour of a stay being granted.
Other relevant matters
There are three other matters of some relevance to consider. Firstly, Mr Mahaffy has at least three hundred clients whose interests will be affected if a stay is not granted. This is especially so for the 40 to 50 clients for whom he has work on foot. These people and business will be forced to seek a different tax agent and, in all likelihood, they will incur additional costs.
Secondly, the period from 24 September 2013 to the commencement of the stay proceedings and presently is not great. And I am satisfied that this matter may be progressed to a hearing in a similarly short period, subject only to the finalisation of the court proceedings to which I have referred. Orders to ensure the efficient progress of Mr Mahaffy’s application may be made.
Thirdly, Mr Mahaffy suffers from ongoing and serious health problems. This has already affected the timely progress of his application. He has asked for his application to be progressed as expeditiously as is reasonable.
Conclusion
Mr Mahaffy’s previous bad behaviour and improper conduct weighs heavily against the grant of a stay. His credit hangs by a thread. There are important and competing public interests concerning the protection of tax payers and the administration of justice. The interests of Mr Mahaffy’s clients, and the low level of complaints against him, weigh in favour of a stay being granted for the duration of proceedings in the Tribunal, whereby the basis of the findings against him will be tested. The consequences of a stay not being granted are likely to be serious for Mr Mahaffy in the conduct of his business and in his ability to earn income. The grant of a stay will secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of his application, but this may have adverse consequences for the Board and the Tax Office in their ongoing dealings with Mr Mahaffy, and for members of the taxpaying public employing him as a tax agent, if his previous bad behaviour is repeated.
Weighing all of these matters in the balance, I have formed the opinion that it is desirable to grant a stay subject to conditions, and to issue orders to ensure the timely progress of Mr Mahaffy’s application to a hearing.
It is possible, in the circumstances, that the public interest may be adequately addressed by the imposition of conditions, such as some of those proposed by the Board, precluding Mr Mahaffy from providing tax agent services to any new clients and requiring his strict compliance with standards of conduct and behaviour. Furthermore, the risk of repeated bad behaviour may adequately be addressed by rendering the stay subject to Mr Mahaffy’s strict compliance with appropriate standards of behaviour, and requiring him to communicate with the Board and the Tax Office only in writing. I reject Mr Mahaffy’s submission that he should be allowed to take on new clients. In the circumstances that is not appropriate. In my opinion it is desirable that the grant of a stay is conditional on Mr Mahaffy not taking on new clients and, furthermore, that it is conditioned to provide a mechanism to ensure that he does not. For this reason, I will order a further condition requiring Mr Mahaffy to file evidence, in the form of a statutory declaration, that he has provided the names of all of his clients from 1 June 2011 to the Board within 14 days.
I do not accept the Board’s submission that Mr Mahaffy should be required to notify each of his clients of the Board’s decision, providing each with a copy of the decision. In view of the very low level of complaint against Mr Mahaffy by his existing clients, I do not consider that this is necessary. Members of the public and Mr Mahaffy’s existing clients are able to access decisions on the public record and information about these proceedings if they choose to do so. Weighing the competing interests in this case, I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to go further for the purposes of conditioning the stay in the manner proposed.
I accept the Board’s submission regarding the requirement for Mr Mahaffy to behave in a civil and appropriate manner in all dealings with the Tax Office and the Board, and that his communications with those entities should only be in writing. Mr Mahaffy agreed to this condition. To this I would add that Mr Mahaffy is to behave properly, in a civil and appropriate manner, in all of his dealings with the Board, with legal representatives of the Board, and with officers and members of the Tribunal in the conduct of these proceedings. Furthermore, as it is desirable for Mr Mahaffy’s application to proceed to hearing as soon as is reasonably possible, his timely compliance with Tribunal requests, listings and orders, including in respect of filing evidence and other documents, is required. In light of the background and the issues in dispute, strict compliance with these conditions by Mr Mahaffy is required.
Mr Mahaffy agreed to provide copies of documents he lodges in the Tribunal to the Board’s legal representative – the Australian Government Solicitor.
The grant of a stay in these circumstances should not be misconstrued by Mr Mahaffy or anyone else as condoning or, in some way, sanctioning, bad behaviour or inappropriate conduct by a tax agent – it does not. Behaviour and conduct of the kind alleged is not consistent with what is expected and required of a tax agent. Nonetheless, when the competing interests and considerations are weighed in the balance, in my opinion it is desirable to grant a stay subject to the conditions I have set out in order to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of Mr Mahaffy’s application for review.
Decision
The application for a stay of the decision under review is granted, subject to further order and subject to the following conditions and orders:
1. from the date of this order while the stay is in force:
a) Mr Mahaffy does not provide tax agent services to new clients, that is, persons he had not provided such services to prior to 24 September 2013; and
b) on or before 29 January 2014, Mr Mahaffy files evidence in the form of a statutory declaration that he has given the Board the names and contact details of each client to whom he has provided tax agent services from 1 June 2011; and
c) Mr Mahaffy conducts himself in a civil and appropriate manner in all dealings with the Board and the Tax Office, and he communicates with the Board and the Tax Office in writing only; and
d) Mr Mahaffy provides copies of all materials he files in the Tribunal to the Board through its legal representative, the Australian Government Solicitor; and
e) Mr Mahaffy complies in a timely manner with Tribunal listings and orders, including any timetable set for the filing of evidence and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions; and
f) Mr Mahaffy conducts himself in a civil and appropriate manner in his dealings with the Respondent, the Respondent’s legal representatives, officers of the Tribunal and members of the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings; and
2. there is liberty to apply on two days’ notice if the above conditions are not strictly complied with; and
3. on or before 9 AM on 22 January 2014, Mr Mahaffy is to inform the Tribunal and the Respondent whether or not he will be legally represented in these proceedings and, if so, the name and contact details of his legal representative; and
4. on or before 9 AM on 22 January 2014 Mr Mahaffy is to inform the Tribunal and the Respondent of summons he intends to issue and to lodge properly completed documents for this purpose; and
5. a telephone preliminary conference is to be listed on the earliest convenient date after 17 January 2014; and
6. the application is to be progressed to hearing with reasonable expedition and without undue delay.
I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of ..........................[sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated 15 January 2014
Date(s) of hearing 8 and 20 November 2013 and 8 January 2014 Date final submissions received 8 January 2014 Applicant Self-represented Advocate for the Respondent Nick Gouliaditis and Louise Buchanan Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
0
4
0