De Tarle and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information)
[2015] AATA 770
•2 October 2015
De Tarle and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 770 (2 October 2015)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2014/4426
Re
Benoit de Tarle
APPLICANT
And
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member Date 2 October 2015 Place Sydney The Tribunal decides that the decision under review is varied as follows:
(a) documents 1-10 and 13-28 in the Schedule of Documents attached to the Primary Decision, previously determined to be partially exempt and provided to the applicant with deletions, are to be released, in full, to the applicant; and
(b) that the further documents identified in [6](b), [38] and [39] are to be released, in full, to the applicant.
......................[sgd]..............................................
Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – access to documents – whether the respondent has taken all reasonable steps to find the documents falling within the scope of the request - whether documents cannot be found or do not exist – decision varied
LEGISLATION
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ss 9A, 11B, 15, 24A, 47F, 54B, 93A
Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010 (Cth)
CASES
Hamden v Campbell (No 2) (2012) 131 ALD 19
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82
Re Bienstein and Attorney-General (Cth) (2008) 103 ALD 626
Re Cristovao and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 53 ALD 138
Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 259
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Francis and Department of Defence (2012) 59 AAR 35
Re Khorramdel and Department of Human Services [2012] AATA 707Re Langer and Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002) 68 ALD 762
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, Version 1.5, October 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
2 October 2015
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The applicant, Benoit de Tarle, seeks review of an internal review decision made by the respondent, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”), on 16 January 2014 in respect of his application for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“FOI Act”).
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW
On 16 October 2013 the applicant made a request (“the Request”) for access to the following documents:
·A copy of all documents connected to his referral to medical specialists (“category 1 documents”); and
·A copy of all documents connected to the “FMI Staff, Culture & Behaviours Development Session undertaken in June 2013”. (The applicant subsequently provided clarification that the date of the session in question was June 2012.) (“category 2 documents”).
The respondent identified 28 documents as falling within the scope of the Request. On 16 December 2013 it notified the applicant of its decision in relation to the request, (“the Primary Decision”), and released two of the documents in full. It also granted the applicant partial access to the remaining 26 documents, on the basis that full disclosure of those documents would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about a person under s 47F of the FOI Act.
On 16 January 2014, following an internal review conducted pursuant to s 54B of the FOI Act, the Primary Decision was affirmed (“the Review Decision”).
The applicant had sought review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (“OAIC”) where some case management was undertaken. The application for review now comes before this Tribunal.
The respondent has since reviewed its position and now submits that the Tribunal should vary the Review Decision and make orders that:
(a)documents 1-10 and 13-28 in the Schedule of Documents attached to the Primary Decision, previously determined to be partially exempt and provided to the applicant with deletions, are to be released, in full, to the applicant; and
(b)two further documents are to be released to the applicant by ASIC, being an email of 12 June 2012 from Peter Russell with subject “FMI Staff, Culture & Behaviours Development Session – June 22” and an agenda for the session on 22 June 2012.
The effect of this variation, it was submitted, is that all documents that have now been located by the respondent as falling within the scope of the Request are to be released.
Since this submission was made, and as noted below, further documents have been identified for release to the applicant.
REMAINING ISSUE
The applicant disputes that all of the documents that fall within the scope of the Request have been identified by the respondent. The respondent contends that it has taken all reasonable steps to find all the documents falling within the scope of the Request and is satisfied that some of the documents requested do not exist: s 24A of the FOI Act. It also contended that some of the documents sought by the applicant fall outside the scope of the Request.
The applicant made a number of assertions about ASIC’s conduct in respect of the Request and the subsequent reviews. He alleged, for example, that there was a conflict of interest on the part of the authorised internal reviewer and other decision-makers. Those matters were addressed by the OAIC, and are not relevant to this review.
The applicant also expressed concern about delays by ASIC in managing the Request. As I discussed at the directions hearing held on 22 July 2015, while the respondent may have been tardy and piecemeal in its management of the Request, the end result is that it now says the applicant can have all the documents identified as relevant to the Request which it holds that he seeks. Beyond this comment, I note only this review is concerned only with whether the respondent has taken all reasonable steps to find the documents falling within the scope of the Request and whether documents cannot be found or do not exist.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 24A of the FOI Act provides:
24A Requests may be refused if documents cannot be found, do not exist or have not been received
Document lost or non-existent
(1)An agency … may refuse a request for access to a document if:
(a) all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document; and
(b) the agency … is satisfied that the document:
(i) is in the agency’s … possession but cannot be found; or
(ii) does not exist.
…
Subsection 24A(1) has the effect that an agency may refuse a request under the FOI Act if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is satisfied that the document does not exist: Hamden v Campbell (No 2) (2012) 131 ALD 19 at [25].
GUIDELINES
Section 93A of the FOI Act provides that the OAIC may issue written guidelines for the purposes of the FOI Act and Guidelines dated October 2014 (version 1.5) were issued under that provision (“the Guidelines”). Agencies must have regard to the Guidelines in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act: ss 9A(b), 11B(5), 15(5A), 93A(2). The Guidelines are not a legislative instrument: s 93A(3).
The Guidelines summarise the key provisions of the FOI Act and outline important amendments that were made to the FOI Act by the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010. The Guidelines also contain guidance on the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the FOI Act.
Whilst I am not bound to apply policy of the kind referred to in the Guidelines I may do so and, indeed, the Tribunal will usually apply the guidelines unless there are cogent reasons in a particular case for not doing so: see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639-645; Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 259 at 267; and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82 at 86.
In Re Francis and Department of Defence (2012) 59 AAR 35 Deputy President Jarvis said, in relation to the Guidelines with respect to the FOI Act at [18]:
… the Guidelines are not binding, but they provide assistance to those who administer the FOI Act, and decision-makers, including this tribunal, should apply the Guidelines unless there is a cogent reason to do otherwise.
The Guidelines relevantly provide the following guidance in relation to s 24A of the FOI Act (footnotes omitted):
3.80 An agency or minister may refuse a request if it has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to find the document requested, and is satisfied that the document cannot be found or does not exist (s 24A(1)). An agency can also refuse a request for access if it has taken contractual measures to ensure it receives a document from a contracted service provider but has not done so after taking all reasonable steps to receive the document in accordance with the contractual measures (s 24A(2)).
3.81 The Act is silent on what constitutes ‘all reasonable steps’. Agencies should undertake a reasonable search on a flexible and common sense interpretation of the terms of the request. What constitutes a reasonable search will depend on the circumstances of each request and will be influenced by the normal business practices in the agency’s operating environment. At a minimum, an agency or minister should take comprehensive steps to locate documents, having regard to:
·the subject matter of the documents
·the current and past file management systems and the practice of destruction or removal of documents
·the record management systems in place
·the individuals within an agency who may be able to assist with the location of documents, and
·the age of the documents.
3.82 Agencies are responsible for managing and storing records in a way that facilitates finding them for the purposes of an FOI request. The steps taken to search for documents should include the use of existing technology and infrastructure to conduct an electronic search of documents, as well as making enquiries of those who may be able to help locate the documents.
3.83 Whether it is necessary for an agency to conduct a search of its backup systems for documents will depend on the circumstances. For example, if the agency is aware that its backup system merely duplicates documents that are easily retrievable from its main records system, a search of the backup system would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if an agency is aware that its backup system may contain relevant documents not otherwise available or if the applicant clearly includes backup systems in the request, a search of the backup system may be required (provided it does not involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of agency resources, see [3.99]).
3.84 The statement of reasons given to the applicant should sufficiently identify the document, explain why it cannot be found or is known not to exist or to be in the agency’s possession, describe the steps the agency took to search for the document, and note the limitations of any search. If a record is known or likely to have been destroyed under an agency’s Records Disposal Authority, or in the course of normal administrative practice, this should be explained, if possible by a reference to the date of destruction and the agency’s records management policy. A template to plan and keep track of the steps taken to search for a document will be useful, particularly when managing complex requests for many documents or in later explaining the search that was undertaken.
CONSIDERATION
In Re Cristovao and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 53 ALD 138 at [19] Deputy President McDonald said the following in relation to s 24A of the FOI Act:
(19) The requirements of s 24A of the FOI Act are twofold, namely, reasonable steps must have been taken to find the document and that the document is in the possession of the Agency but cannot be found or, alternatively, does not exist. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary provides a number of meanings for the verb to “find”, the most apt of which for present purposes is “to discover or attain by search or effort”. The Macquarie Dictionary similarly provides amongst the meanings given to the verb “to learn, attain or obtain by search or effort”. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary provides five meanings for the word “reasonable”, of which the following is, in the opinion of the tribunal, most appropriately applied:
... 4. Not going beyond the limit assigned by reason; not extravagant or excessive; moderate ME. b. Moderate in price; inexpensive 1667. 5. Of such an amount, size, number, etc., as is judged to be appropriate or suitable to the circumstances or purpose, late ME. (b. Of a fair, average, or considerable amount, size, etc – 1726.
The Macquarie Dictionary provides four meanings, including “moderate; or moderate in price ...” ...
In Re Langer and Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002) 68 ALD 762 (“Langer”) Deputy President Forgie said:
(94) Section 24A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act) requires the consideration of two matters. The first requires a consideration of whether the department has taken all reasonable steps to find the documents. If it has done that, the second requires a consideration of whether the documents are in the department’s possession but cannot be found or whether they exist…
(95) It seems to me that the first limb of s 24A requires that the department take such steps to discover the requested documents as are appropriate in the circumstances. The circumstances that are relevant in determining the steps that are appropriate include the subject matter of the documents sought, the file management systems, any destruction schedules followed in Telstra and the steps that have already been taken to locate documents within the terms of the request.
In Re Bienstein and Attorney-General (Cth) (2008) 103 ALD 626 Deputy President Forgie said at [48]:
… it seems to me that the approach I adopted in Langer and in Andrews continues to be the correct approach. Whether all reasonable steps have been taken will be assessed having regard to such matters as the nature of the documents sought in the request, whether documents of that sort are usually filed in a certain category or categories and whether documents of that sort would normally be referred to a certain division, branch or section or to more than one in an agency for action. Steps that are comprehensive and that are directed to locating documents in those places will be relevant. Where documents are proving elusive, discussions with persons who would be likely to have dealt with the subject matter at the relevant time may be relevant. It may be that those people are no longer in the relevant area of the agency or of the minister’s office but contacting them may lead to an insight into where the documents could have got to. The size of the agency or of the minister’s office may also be relevant as may evidence of any practices regarding the retention of documents or, in the case of a ministerial office, the transfer of documents to the relevant department. Finally, there may be cases in which an examination of documents already found may reveal further areas in which relevant documents may be located. These are some of the matters that may be relevant in deciding whether a minister or agency has taken all reasonable steps to find a document within the meaning of s 24A(a) of the FOI Act.
More recently, in Re Khorramdel and Department of Human Services [2012] AATA 707 the Tribunal adopted a similar approach.
The applicant contended in his email to the OAIC of 11 February 2014 that there were documents he expected would be produced in response to the Request. He specifically referred to the following documents that he considered should have been produced by ASIC:
Category 1 documents:
·Monthly Work Health and Safety Report produced by ASIC Relationship Manager (reference: Comcare report confirming existence of such a document)
·Minutes of PIP meeting from week of 11 February 2013 as well as associated emails between myself and Peter McGee regarding this meeting
·Minutes of meeting between Peter McGee and Joe Grech on 8 February 2013 (reference: email from Peter McGee to myself 8 February 2013)
·ASIC evaluation, reasons and decision to refer me to a psychiatrist
·Referral from GP to a psychiatrist
·Letter addressed by ASIC to relevant psychiatrist for appointment dated 20 Feb 2013.
Category 2 documents:
·Training package for Behaviour and Values training program (reference: Comcare investigation)
·Best-practice requirements/procedures/workbooks, etc on how the personality assessment report is intended to be used, who has access to the report, under what circumstances the report may be accessed by third parties, privacy requirements, agreements/contracts/terms and conditions, privacy policy, debriefing and evidence of debriefing... (reference: Integro).
Steps taken to find documents the subject of the Request
In a letter to the OAIC dated 27 February 2014, ASIC outlined the steps that it had taken to find documents falling within each of the categories of the Request. These were summarised by the respondent in its Outline of Submissions as follows:
Category 1 documents:
·It had identified that the management of employees within ASIC is conducted by its People and Development Relationship Managers. Peter McGee was identified as the applicant’s Relationship Manager and as the person who had requested that the applicant attend medical appointments and who was involved in managing the medical referrals.
·Mr McGee searched his email account and ASIC’s document management system known as the Enterprise Content Management (ECM) database for records relating to category 1 of the Request.
·ASIC identified that the applicant’s supervisor at the time, Joe Grech, had left ASIC, but that Mr McGee had liaised with Mr Grech regarding management of the applicant.
·ASIC’s IT area advised – erroneously, as it transpired – that emails of employees who had left ASIC were only retained for three months from the date of departure. As Mr Grech had left ASIC more than three months prior to ASIC’s search, none of his emails were believed to have been retained.
·Apart from Mr McGee and Mr Grech, ASIC was unable to identify any other ASIC officers who may have had knowledge of the applicant’s referral to medical specialists and who would be able to provide any relevant documentation.
Category 2 documents:
·Category 2 of the Request related to a one day internal training session the applicant attended during his employment with ASIC. Mr McGee also searched his email account and ASIC’s ECM database for records relating to category 2.
·Mr McGee advised that the Senior Manager who had conducted the development session referred to in category 2, Peter Russell, had left ASIC.
·ASIC’s IT area again – erroneously – confirmed that no emails were retained from Mr Russell’s email account.
·Anna Jenkins, Senior Specialist, Leadership, in the People and Development Team of ASIC, searched the ECM database but found no documents regarding the training session referred to in category 2 of the Request.
Further details about the steps that were undertaken by ASIC to identify documents relevant to the Request are set out in Ms Jenkins’ statement of 30 March 2015.
In her statement dated 30 March 2015 Ms Jenkins described searches that were conducted in respect of the emails of Mr Grech and Mr Russell when it was ascertained that, contrary to the previous advice, their emails could be accessed notwithstanding that they were no longer at ASIC. I was satisfied that the shortcoming in the previous searches regarding those emails had been rectified.
The applicant contended that the quality of ASIC’s searches “cannot be considered fully accurate”. I agree that it is unfortunate that the respondent received misleading advice in relation to retention of email records. I note, though, that once the advice was corrected the respondent undertook additional searches which produced additional documents which were then made available to the applicant.
In relation to the documents identified by the applicant on 11 February 2014 Ms Jenkins explained in her statement that they either were found not to exist after thorough searches had been undertaken, or were outside the scope of the Request.
Ms Jenkins addressed each of the applicant’s concerns.
Category 1 documents
Ms Jenkins wrote that in relation to the Monthly WHS Report produced by the ASIC Relationship Manager she had been informed that Ms Victoria Skinner, Employee Relations Manager in P&D contacted ASIC’s WHS Manager, Roland Fielding, who confirmed that both a monthly report and a quarterly report are produced by the WHS team. Mr Fielding confirmed that the monthly report lists employees with injuries that have affected their ability to perform their duties, both compensable and non-compensable as applicable for a given month. Ms Skinner was provided with copies of the reports for early 2013 and the applicant is not mentioned in these reports. She reported that there is no record in the report of employees referred to Independent Medical Experts or “medical specialists”. The quarterly report is prepared for the ASIC Commission and does not refer to employees who have been referred to medical specialists.
In relation to minutes of a performance management meeting from the week of 11 February 2013 and associated emails, a thorough search was conducted for any records. A dedicated folder had been established for Mr de Tarle in the ECM. She was informed that each file in this folder was carefully searched by Mr McGee for minutes of a performance management meeting held in the week commencing 11 February 2013 and associated emails. Mr McGee also did additional searches of his emails in the Lotus Notes system in case a document had not been filed in the ECM. No records of minutes of a PIP meeting from the week of 11 February 2013 and associated emails were found.
In general terms, Ms Jenkins said that the folder in the ECM dedicated to Mr de Tarle had been carefully examined.
In relation to minutes of a meeting between Mr McGee and Mr Grech on 8 February 2013, a thorough search was conducted for all records. She had been informed by Mr McGee that each file in the folder dedicated to Mr de Tarle was carefully searched by Mr McGee for the minutes of a meeting between Mr McGee and Mr Grech. Mr McGee also did additional searches of his emails in the Lotus Notes system in case a document had not been filed in the ECM, but none could be found.
In relation to an ASIC evaluation, reasons and decision to refer Mr de Tarle to a psychiatrist a thorough search was conducted for any records. She was informed that each file in the folder dedicated to Mr de Tarle was carefully searched by Mr McGee for documents in relation to the ASIC evaluation, reasons and decision to refer Mr de Tarle to a psychiatrist. Mr McGee also did additional searches of his emails in the Lotus Notes system in case a document had not been filed in the ECM. Documents in relation to referral to a psychiatrist were previously provided in response to Mr de Tarle’s initial request. However, no further documents in relation to an ASIC evaluation, reasons and decision to refer Mr de Tarle to a psychiatrist were found.
In relation to referrals from a GP to a psychiatrist, Ms Jenkins stated that a GP referral is only necessary where a Medicare rebate for services is required. ASIC does not require a GP referral as ASIC pays the full consultation fee for medical appointments for staff. As described above, a thorough search was conducted for all records. She was informed that each file in the folder dedicated to Mr de Tarle was carefully searched by Mr McGee. No referrals from a GP to a psychiatrist were found.
In relation to a letter addressed from ASIC to a relevant psychiatrist for an appointment dated 20 February 2013, she was informed that a phone call was made by Mr McGee to the reception of the medical provider to set up the appointment. An email confirming this appointment was sent to Mr de Tarle and provided to him as part of his Request. Therefore, there are no further documents in relation this request. Further, Mr de Tarle indicated by return email on the day he was advised of the appointment with the psychiatrist that he was unable to attend. Therefore correspondence to the specialist was not prepared. When Mr de Tarle’s Request was received some months later, a thorough search was conducted for all records. She was informed that each file in the folder dedicated to Mr de Tarle was carefully searched by Mr McGee and no letter addressed from ASIC to the relevant psychiatrist was found. Additional searches were also undertaken of Mr McGee’s emails and calendar entries in Lotus Notes. An extract of searches conducted was not printed.
Ms Jenkins noted, somewhat unhelpfully, that extracts of the searches conducted and referred to in paragraphs 30-34 above were not printed.
Further contentions by the applicant
The applicant, in his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions further contended that ASIC should have provided, in response to of the Request in respect of category 1 documents, an email which he believes was forwarded by IMO, a company apparently engaged to conduct a medical examination of the applicant, to Mr McGee on or about 24 April 2013. He wrote that documents provided by IMO show that ASIC employee Ajay Vijayan as being involved in his referral to a medical specialist. He referred to an email dated 6 March 2013 from Mr McGee to another person, which was copied to Mr Vijayan. Further documents were located in respect of Mr Vijayan and were provided to the applicant.
In relation to the email from the applicant to IMO dated 24 April 2013 the respondent revised its position and provided that document and other related material to the applicant on 29 July 2015.
I am satisfied, in accordance with the test outlined in Langer and adopted in subsequent cases, on the basis of Ms Jenkins’ statement that a thorough search has now been conducted by the respondent to identify and locate the documents within the scope of the Request, and that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist.
Category 2 documents
In the Request the applicant had asked to be provided with a copy of all documents connected to the FMI Staff, Culture and Behaviours Development Session undertaken in June 2012. In his email to the OAIC of 11 February 2014 the applicant referred to documents he expected would be produced in response to the Request which included a training package for Behaviour and Values training program.
On 27 February 2014 the ASIC authorised decision maker informed the OAIC that this category of documents related to a one day internal training session the applicant attended during his employment with ASIC.
In her statement Ms Jenkins wrote in relation to Mr de Tarle’s request for the training package for the “Behaviour and Values” training program, that she was informed that the “Behaviours and Values” training program is a separate program to the session that Mr de Tarle attended in June 2012, he having attended a “Culture & Behaviours” development session in June 2012. Therefore, because these training programs are different no searches for these documents were necessary as the documents requested did not fall within the scope of the Request.
The Tribunal sought clarification from the applicant that it was documents in respect to the “Culture & Behaviours” session rather than the “Behaviour and Values” session that were the subject of his Request. The applicant confirmed he was not concerned with documents associated with the “Behaviour and Values” session.
In relation to Mr de Tarle’s request for best practice requirements/procedures/workbooks etc on how the personality assessment report is intended to be used, who has access to the report, under what circumstances the report may be accessed by third parties, privacy requirement, agreements/contracts/terms and conditions, privacy policy, debriefing and evidence of debriefing, Ms Jenkins wrote that she conducted searches for these documents. She searched the ECM and found that no records relating to that particular session had been retained. She also checked her emails in Lotus Notes and located several email exchanges between herself and Mr de Tarle. Copies of these documents were provided to Mr de Tarle by the primary decision maker on 16 December 2013 in response to his Request dated 16 October 2013.
From the schedule of documents provided to the applicant it appears that only a small amount of material was supplied to him in relation to the “Culture & Behaviours” development session he attended in June 2012.
The applicant, in his submissions referred to the program being intended to assist in addressing bullying and harassment at ASIC. He wrote that, in preparation for the session, staff were asked to undertake a confidential psychological assessment intended to produce a detailed report on a participant’s personality and behaviour. He provided a copy of correspondence which referred to the need to ensure complete confidentiality and participants were advised not to provide to anyone with the access code for the assessment results. In correspondence which the applicant provided attached to his submissions, Integro, who designed the course, confirmed that such assessments results are confidential, the property of the participant, and that specific permission would be required from the participant should a third-party request access.
It appears from the information provided that the course was externally developed and delivered by ASIC staff who are no longer employed by ASIC and whose emails, according to Ms Jenkins, have been the subject of independent searches.
I note that the applicant specifically invited my attention to s 11B of the FOI Act alleging the respondent did not identify or provide access to documents as requested to avoid embarrassment. However, this provision concerns exemptions from access but in this case the respondent is not relying on an exemption not to provide documents. ASIC says that there are no further documents within the scope of the request.
I am satisfied, in accordance with the test outlined in Langer and adopted in subsequent cases, on the basis of Ms Jenkins’ statement that a thorough search has now been conducted by the respondent to identify and locate the documents within the scope of the Request, and that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist.
CONCLUSION
While, in some respects the course of this matter may have been unsatisfactory I accept that all documents that have been identified by the respondent as falling within the Request have been released (or that ASIC is prepared to release them).
DECISION
The Tribunal decides that the decision under review is varied as follows:
(a)documents 1-10 and 13-28 in the Schedule of Documents attached to the Primary Decision, previously determined to be partially exempt and provided to the applicant with deletions, are to be released, in full, to the applicant; and
(b)that the further documents identified in [6](b), [38] and [39] are to be released, in full, to the applicant.
I certify that the preceding 52 (fifty -two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member .....................[sgd]...........................................
Dated 2 October 2015
Date of hearing Hearing on the papers Date final submissions received 5 August 2015 Applicant Self-represented Counsel for the Respondent Ms T Phillips
6
3
2