DVZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights

[2019] NSWCATAD 140

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	DVZ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2019] NSWCATAD 140
Hearing dates:	12 July 2019
Date of orders:	22 July 2019
Decision date:	22 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	1. The decision of the Senior Assessor dated 21 January 2019 is affirmed.
Catchwords:	Victims rights and support – administrative review – act of violence
Legislation Cited:	Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DVZ (Applicant) Commissioner of Victims Rights (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel:   Solicitors: DVZ (Applicant in person) S Sabesan, Victims Services (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/00150667
Publication restriction:	Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – Restriction on publication of information that will identify any victims or evidence given and received in this Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.

REASON FOR DECISION

Background

1. On 30 July 2018, the Applicant lodged an Application for Victims Support pursuant to the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (VRSA), which alleged that on 4 June 2018 and over a period of time from 5 June 2018 to 24 July 2018, she was the primary victim of an act of violence, which occurred at Bondi in New South Wales. She described the alleged act of violence as “kneglegent (sic), ignorance, silenced by police” and stated:

I have been harassed (sic), threatened (sic) to be in jail, victim of oppression. Police insulted and humiliated me. I have been victim of rape, assault, scared and perpetrator stolen my iphone asked me money for it. Are crime but police didn’t charg him. They acused me.

2. The Application alleges that the Applicant suffered a psychological injury as a result of the alleged act(s) of violence and that she claimed victims support in the form of financial assistance for immediate needs (the cost of a CCTV Security Camera) and a recognition payment. It also indicates that the alleged act of violence was reported to the Police on 5 June 2018 and named the alleged offenders as Police Officers who were stationed at Waverley and St George Stations, respectively.

The evidence

3. A Police COPS Event report dated 13 August 2018, indicates that the Applicant met the Person of Interest on a dating site about 6 months previously and that they had an intimate relationship for about 3 months. The Applicant then stopped talking to him and blocked him on Facebook, but she unblocked him and resumed communication with him about 1 month ago. On 25 May 2018, he visited her at her residence and they resumed a sexual relationship. During this time, he left a bag at her residence. The Applicant stated that she told him several times to pick up his bag as she did not want him to leave property at her residence, because she became aware that he was seeing another woman and became angry. On 4 June 2018, he visited her at her residence, when he said that he wanted his bag. She told him that she did not have it and that “my friend has put it in the bin”. An argument ensued and he then went into her bedroom and picked up her iphone from her dresser and put it into his pocket. The argument continued in the living room and he allegedly struck her on the left side of her face with his right hand and then pushed her right shoulder, causing her to fall backwards. She continued to ask him for her iphone and he told her, “I will give you your phone, if you give me my bag”. She then went to the building bins at the front of the units and retrieved his back. He snatched the bag from her, but refused to return her phone, and left the residence. On 5 June 2018, she attempted to call him and ask for the return of her phone, without success, and she then contacted Police. Police attended the residence and the Applicant alleged that he had physically assaulted her and on a previous occasion, but she declined to provide a statement or have photos taken of her face.

4. On the evening of 5 June 2018, Detectives attended the Applicant’s residence. She told them that the Person of Interest had returned to her residence at 6:30pm that night. He was under the influence of alcohol and he told her that he would not return her stolen phone unless she paid him $200. She refused and called the Police. He then left the premises.

5. On the morning of 6 June 2018, Detectives again attended the Applicant’s residence, during which time she reported an alleged sexual assault that was perpetrated by the Person of Interest on 25 May 2018.

6. On 5 July 2018, the Applicant reported to Police that she believed that the Person of Interest had left an abusive letter in her mailbox and that a current Apprehended Violence Order (no contact) was in place. She affixed a small clipboard to her front door, which had been marked with several handwritten pieces of paper which read, “F*** off or I’ll call the cops” and other statements to the same effect. When she came home on 5 July 2018, she found the words “F*** off” written in block letters on the clipboard. Police reported, relevantly:

Police spoke with the (Applicant) who suffers from an unknown psychiatric illness, she was unable to follow conversation with police, nor accurately explain the alleged incident for which police had attended. (She) stated that the Person of Interest had attended St George police yesterday evening and spoke with police about certain Facebook posts made by (her). She was subsequently advised by St George Police to cease engaging with (him) via Facebook or any other means…

Police made further enquiries with (him) where the allegation was put to him regarding the incident. (He) vehemently denied the allegation, stating “Nah, mate, I just want to move on with my life, I’ve been no where near her”. Police have no evidence to suggest that (he) is responsible for making such markings on (her) door. No act of malicious damage has occurred. Police suspect that (she) has contacted police in response to (him) speaking with St George Police yesterday evening as some form of retaliation…”

7. However, Police did not take any action against the alleged perpetrator.

8. On 27 July 2018, the Applicant wrote a letter “To whom it may concern” about her recent dealings with Waverley Police and Bondi Police (citing the COPS Event numbers). She formally complained about police not charging the alleged perpetrator with the theft of her iphone and about the lack of investigation into the “sexual and physical assault” or “extortion”. She also alleged that:

1. On 4 June 2018, she was advised by Police that the evidence needed against the alleged perpetrator was photographs, videos or CCTV footage. She could not provide this as she did not have her iphone (he had stolen it) and the evidence that she did provide was dismissed.

2. On 5 June 2018, a Constable (name provided) attended her home. After she gave him a full account of the incidents, he asked her if she was a prostitute. She found this “insulting and humiliating” and said that this was “victim blaming, implying that the assault was my fault, and invalidating the assault”.

3. After the alleged perpetrator breached the AVO on 4 July 2018, she sent 2 letters to a detective (name provided) at Bondi Police, asking why the alleged perpetrator was not charged with anything. He advised that he didn’t want to charge him.

4. On 12 July 2018, she discovered that calls to her iphone had been “redirected to the perpetrator’s phone” when it was “on silent”. She contacted a Detective (name provided) about this and he told her to contact her phone provider to have this fixed. He also suggested that she had done this herself and he did not charge the perpetrator.

5. On 24 July 2018, she advised an Officer at Waverley Police Station (name provided) that her phone provider had removed the call forwarding setting from her iphone. She said that she had a letter from the provider to that effect, but “this was dismissed”.

9. She stated that since the assault on 4 June 2018, she had experienced “trauma, extreme anxiety, depression, nightmares, flashbacks, shame, uncontrollable shaking, nausea, headaches and suicidal ideation”. She also stated:

…My experience with the Police was they silenced me, invalidated me and humiliated me. I experienced victim blaming, and a violation of my human rights. My right as women to be heard and protected was not upheld by the Police. I experienced injustice, unfairness and exploitation by the Police.

Legislation needs to be changed to protect women against perpetrators when they breach AVOs. Currently AVO breaches are near impossible to prove, this needs to be amended so women can be protected and kept safe…

10. On 12 August 2018, the Applicant wrote a further letter “To whom it may concern”, regarding the matters set out in her letter dated 27 July 2018, and she also stated:

It is look like shut up and smothering the voice of women and it is victimization and sacrifice women of the right to say and ignoring the women’s right and depriving women of the right with this police decisions, it is unjust and unfair to me and women live in Australia to be treated like this with exploitations behaviours of the police, this is oppression injustice and cruelty against women, the police protected rapist, thief, extortionist with this weak law, and this is dictatorship and throbbing against women. I would like to make a different law to protect victim’s women, the law is very weak you need to act and change the weak law and protect women in Australia.

It is unfair and unjust for this to happen to me and I have felt great suffering from my dealings with police about this matter.

I write to urge further investigation into this matter…

11. I note that the Applicant also lodged three other Applications for Victims Support in relation to the following alleged acts of violence:

1. Committed by her neighbour over a period of time from 16 January 2017 to 6 June 2017 – a Category D recognition payment of $1,500 was approved;

2. Sexual assault committed by the same perpetrator over a period of time from 25 May 2017 to 4 June 2018 – a Category B recognition payment of $10,000 and $4,000 for immediate needs was approved; and

3. A duplicate application to (2) was dismissed.

12. On 23 November 2018, Frances Bowick, Domestic Violence Case Manager and Counsellor, reported that the Applicant commenced counselling on 20 July 2018, on a weekly basis. She stated, relevantly:

…(She) has disclosed in our sessions that the sexual assault has left her with feelings of self-doubt low self-worth and shame.

(She) has a greatly diminished capacity to enjoy life in the way that she used to before the sexual assault incident. (She) experiences symptoms of trauma on a daily basis…

However, she did not refer to the incidents that are the subject of the current Application.

13. On 17 December 2018, Dr Wiren wrote to Victims Services in response to a Notice for Production. He stated that he presumed that the request for information related to an alleged sexual harassment/assault that occurred in 2011, but he did not refer to the matters that are the subject of the current Application. He stated the Applicant was being treated for schizophrenia.

Decision at first instance

14. On 27 February 2019, an Assessor issued a Notice of Decision pursuant to s 43 of the VRSA and determined that the Applicant was not the victim of an act of violence on the balance of probabilities as required by s 19 of the VRSA. The Application for Victims Support was therefore dismissed. The reasons provided, relevantly:

What must be established for (DVZ) to receive victims support?

7. For (DVZ) to be considered eligible for victims support, the documentary evidence must establish that she was a victim of an act that apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, which has involved violent conduct and has resulted in injury (physical or psychological) or death (s. 19). When all of these elements are established, she is considered to be a primary victim of an act of violence.

8. It is necessary for documentary evidence to be provided together with the application for victims support (s. 39). For financial support and a recognition payment, the following documents are required:

1) a police report or report of a Government Agency; and

2) a medical, dental or counselling report verifying the primary victim has been injured as a direct result of the act of violence…

15. The Assessor discussed the available evidence, including the Police COPS Event Reports, dated 5 June 2018, 10 June 2018 and 5 July 2018 and the report from Ms Bowick and stated:

17. While I have medical information before me detailing the impact the alleged sexual assault has had on (DVZ’s) psychological health, I do not have medical evidence to suggest that the actions by police have caused any harm or injury to (DVZ’s) physical or psychological wellbeing.

Supporting documents

18. (DVZ) has provided a statement detailing the alleged insult and humiliation by police. This states that, despite evidence provided by (DVZ), the police have failed to charge an alleged offender for a range of offences (DVZ) states have been committed against her.

19. (DVZ) also stated that her experience with police ‘silence (her), invalidate (her) and humiliated (her). (Her) right as a women (sic) to be heard and protected was not upheld by the Police. (She) experienced injustice, unfairness and exploitation by Police.’ (She) also called for a change in legislation to make breaches of AVOs easier to prove…

16. The Assessor held that there has been no act or series of acts that apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence and that Police were undertaking their duties. There was also no evidence of any violent conduct by the police towards DVZ. While she may have felt that her complaints were no adequately dealt with, this does not constitute violence by Police.

17. I note that the Respondent posted a copy of the Notice of Decision to the Applicant’s solicitors under cover of a letter dated 20 March 2019. I am therefore satisfied that a copy of the decision was properly served upon her.

Internal Review

18. On 28 March 2019, the Applicant completed an Internal Review Request Form, which included the following submissions:

Hi, I believed I was a victim of crime and sexually harassed, barged, terrorized, abused, stalked, intimidated, threated, stalked and etc. But Police didn’t write any reports. They didn’t want to write a report about my problems. I have been bypassed, connived and neglected and disregarded by the police system. All of my medical reports prove my story. I have been a victim here. I was a violence occurred many years by my ex-neighbour, he made my life to be heel. I reported him to the Police but Police ignored me and they didn’t want to write a report.

All of my medical reports prove of the violence and sexual harassments and etc. I have believed that I was suffered psychological injuries by my ex-neighbour for many years and it was violence all the rimes and I was suffering very much but the police didn’t do anything and they didn’t write a report about that matter. Police should be protect people not punish the decent people. I got an AVO against my ex-neighbour but he put foreign object in my entry door 3 times and I was homeless. I reported to the police but no action. The police neglected by police system. It was lake (sic) of investigation by the Police. Police get a money to protect people not to punish people. I called the police and I went to Bondi Police Station but they didn’t write my reports.

I have been insulted, accused and sacrificed by the police many years. The police ignoration is legal in this country. The police ignoration is exist in this country. I have believed in human rights and I have been neckligent, ignored and victim of oppression and humiliate by the police many years.

The police shut up the voice of human special (women). I am a victim of humans of the rights. The police smothering people on the throat by their act. This is a lack of law and it is medieval. I was threaten to be in jail by the police officer. What was my crime to be in jail?

19. The Applicant lodged the following further evidence was lodged with the request for internal review:

1. Letter “To whom it may concern” dated 5 May 2017 from Dr Tom Moss, General Practitioner, which indicated:

This lady has been attending this clinic since 12/12/05 (?). She is very disturbed at present because of an abusive neighbour who has been harassing her. Several times he has blocked laundry back yard door and she has been unable to go to her building of residence. She has now developed a phobia and is afraid of people. She needs to move into a house as she cannot live in an apartment.

2. Letter “To whom it may concern” from Alex Nagle, Community Services Worker, The Wayside Chapel, dated 11 May 2017, which indicated, relevantly:

…I have known (DVZ) in my role as a Community Services Worker for more than four months. During this time, (she) has engaged our service with problems regarding her neighbour. (She) resides at a social housing property at (address provided).

I have assisted (her) to compose letters and statements regarding the reported harassment by her neighbour. We have discussed in detail the issues affecting her and the effect they are having on her health and happiness. More recently, (she) has attended our legal services clinic, as her efforts to have the issue resolved through the Department of Housing NSW have been unsatisfactory.

In the time I have been assisting (her), she has presented in states of emotional distress. Through talking with her it is clear that the problems with her neighbour are the dominating issue in (her) life. I believe that this ongoing issue is detrimental to (her) health, and I write this letter in support of action to resolve this neighbourly dispute. (She) is soon to see a psychologist to help cope with the situation…

3. Letter “To whom it may concern” dated 17 May 2017 from Dr Rose Cantali, Consulting Psychologist, which indicated:

(DVZ) is currently attending regular psychological treatment for anxiety and depression related to years of ongoing harassment by her neighbour. Following recounts and evidence presented by her on ongoing harassment, I am very concerned for her mental health. In particular, I am concerned about her coping styles and how she may respond if her neighbour continues to push her buttons. (She) has divulged different ways of stopping her neighbour’s abuse of her that are concerning to me such as using physical means. I am aware that she has contacted housing and the Police about her situation. Following an assessment of her I am of the opinion that she is very volatile. I am recommending that she be removed from her current home and provided alternative accommodation.

Due to her psychological condition, (DVZ) will require a house rather than an apartment as she struggles having too many people around her and more likely trigger psychological symptoms…

4. Letter to “The Housing Department” from Dr Philip Wiren dated 29 May 2017, which supported an application for a Priority Housing transfer due to conflict with a neighbour and also indicated that DVZ suffers from “long term mental health difficulties”.

5. Letter “To whom it may concern” dated 18 September 2019 from Dr Rose Cantali, Consulting Psychologist, which indicated:

(DVZ) has recently transferred into new housing premises. At the time, she was appreciative of having the opportunity to be granted a transfer at the above address. However, recently she was sexually abused and physically assaulted in her new home on 25th May 2018, this abuse traumatised her and was reported to the police. According to (DVZ), the perpetrator continued to come to her home and would leave abusive messages at the front door. Since then she has experienced significant trauma and symptoms consistent to Acute Stress Disorder. She is frightened of going home. She reports having problems sleeping and is significantly distressed most of the time.

(DVZ) attends regular psychological therapy for her condition and is vulnerable to individuals who are likely to empower and persuade her. Her emotional state makes her at risk. I strongly recommend that she be provided with housing in a complex that is not specifically for “housing commission”. This would help reduce those risks and provide a safe place for her.

20. However, I note that none of this further evidence related to the alleged act(s) of violence that are the subject of the current Application.

21. On 27 February 2019, a Senior Assessor issued a Notice of Review Decision under s 49 of VRSA. The Senior Assessor determined that the available evidence does not establish that the Applicant was the primary victim of an act of violence, as defined by the Act, and dismissed the Application. The reasons for decision provide, relevantly:

12. (DVZ) has described the allegation in detail in a typed statement. (She) outlined how she had reported a number of physical and sexual assaults to the police, as well as the theft of her phone and a breach of an AVO. (She) submitted that the police had failed to investigate the crimes she had reported to them.

13. (DVZ) stated that she planned to lodge a formal complaint against the police about their inaction.

14. The allegations that (DVZ) has made against the police – namely that they neglected, ignored and silenced her, and failed to investigate the crimes she reported, do not meet the definition of an “act of violence”, as there is no indication that the police committed a criminal offence involving conduct against (DVZ).

15. I note that (DVZ) submits that she reported physical and sexual assaults to the police, alleged to have been committed by another person or people; however, there is no evidence that any police officer has themselves committed an offence of violence against (DVZ).

16. It is not my role to investigate whether or not the police acted as (DVZ) has alleged. Even if there was clear evidence before me that the police had acted in a neglectful and dismissive way towards (her), this conduct would not establish that the police committed a criminal offence involving violent conduct against her.

17. Having considered the available material, I have found that the incidents described by (DVZ) do not establish that the police have committed an “act of violence” against her. (She) is therefore not eligible for victims support.

22. I note that a copy of the Review Decision was sent to the Applicant under cover of a letter dated 1 May 2019. I am satisfied that the Applicant was properly served with a copy of that decision.

Application for administrative review

23. On 21 May 2019, the Applicant applied for administrative review of the Senior Assessor’s decision. I am satisfied that the Application was filed within time.

24. This Tribunal’s powers in relation to an application for administrative review are governed by s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (‘the ADR Act’), which provides:

(1)  In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:

(a)  any relevant factual material,

(b)  any applicable written or unwritten law.

(2)  For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision.

(3)  In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:

(a)  to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or

(b)  to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or

(c)  to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or

(d)  to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.

25. The Application came before Senior Member McAteer for Directions on 14 June 2019, when the Applicant appeared in person and Ms S Sabesan appeared for the respondent. The documents provided by the respondent under s 58 of the ADR Act were comprehensive and complete. The Senior Member noted that neither party intended to file any further evidence and he directed the Respondent to file and serve any written submissions on or before 5 July 2019. He listed the matter for hearing on 12 July 2019.

26. On 12 July 2019, the Applicant again appeared in person and Ms Sabesan appeared for the Respondent. The Applicant sought to rely upon further evidence, namely:

1. A report from Dr Moss “To whom it may concern” dated 17 June 2019, which indicated:

This lady has been a patient of mine since 12 12 05.

She suffers from depression, anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks, suicidal ideation, headaches and nausea. She has been psychologically harassed by police actions since s017.

2. A further handwritten “statement”, which is unsigned and undated, but which she wrote “yesterday”.

27. The Respondent did not object to the tender of these documents and they were admitted into evidence in the Applicant’s case. However, in my view, the further “statement” is in the nature of submissions and I have considered on that basis only.

28. In oral submissions, the Applicant alleged that the police failed in the duty of care that they owed to her, because she reported the many incidents to them and they did nothing and they humiliated her. She said that she complained to the Ombudsman, but was told that this was not a matter for the Ombudsman to deal with, and she also complained to the head of the Police, who did nothing.

29. I drew the Applicant’s attention to a letter to her from NSW Police dated 24 March 2017, which was found at page 131 of the Respondent’s s 58 documents, which responded to her complaint regarding police conduct on 16 January 2017 and 7 February 2017. However, she replied that she did not consider that this was a response to her complaint because “they didn’t change the system and I wanted the system changed”.

30. I asked the Applicant what she understood to be the meaning of “violence”. She replied to the effect “to fight, to argue, to not be polite to someone” and said that on 5 June 2018, the police officer was not polite to her when he asked her if she was a prostitute. She considered this to be violent as well as insulting and humiliating.

31. I also asked the Applicant whether she had obtained any medical evidence that specifically referred to the matters that are the subject of the current Application. She replied to the effect, “It’s all there”.

32. The Respondent relied upon written submissions filed on 4 July 2019, which provided, relevantly:

…Lack of violent conduct

17. The respondent submits that police action of failing to follow up on the crimes she had reported to not constitute an offence. Furthermore, the actions of neglecting and silencing her do not constitute violent conduct. Police, in undertaking their duties, may determine whether to investigate a crime reported to them. There is no evidence to suggest that any offence was committed as per section 19 of the Act.

18. Whilst the applicant may feel that her complaints were not adequately dealt with, this does not constitute an act of violence. Of course, the applicant may raise this complaint with the appropriate body regarding the Police’s decision not to investigate her allegations.

Conclusion

19. Because the delegate had no option but to dismiss the application for recognition payment, that decision is the “correct and preferable” decision. It is correct in the sense that the applicant has not established an act of violence as per section 19 of the Act. It is preferable in the sense that, in the light of the lack of evidence to demonstrate violent conduct, there was and is no other option under the Act other than to refuse the approval of a recognition payment.

20. The respondent submits that the Tribunal ought to affirm the decision of the respondent made on 1 May 2019 and dismiss this application for administrative review.

Consideration

Act of Violence

33. Section 23 (1) of the Act provides that a primary victim of an act of violence is eligible for the support under the scheme described in s 26 of the VRSA.

34. “Act of violence” is defined in s 19 of the VRSA as follows (relevantly):

(1)  In this Act, act of violence means an act or series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons:

(a)  that has apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, and

(b)  that has involved violent conduct against one or more persons, and

(c)  that has resulted in injury or death to one or more of those persons.

(2)  For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to an offence in subsection (1) extends to conduct of a person that would constitute an offence were it not for the fact that the person cannot, or might not, be held to be criminally responsible for the conduct because of the person’s age or mental illness or impairment…

(3)  For the purposes of this section, violent conduct extends to sexual assault and domestic violence.

(4)  Except as provided by subsections (5) and (6), a series of related acts is two or more acts that are related because:

(a)  they were committed against the same person, and

(b)  in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Commissioner:

(i)  they were committed at approximately the same time, or

(ii)  they were committed over a period of time by the same person or group of persons, or

(iii)  they were, for any other reason, related to each other.

(5)  An act is not related to another act if, in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Commissioner, having regard to the particular circumstances of those acts, they ought not to be treated as related acts.

…

(7)  For the purposes of this Act, a series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons, constitutes a single act of violence.

35. The onus is on the Applicant to prove her allegations of an act of violence by the Police on the balance of probabilities.

36. While the available evidence clearly indicates that the Applicant feels aggrieved by the actions of NSW Police in deciding not to charge the alleged offender with any offences in relation to the incidents that she reported to them in June and July 2018, there is no evidence that their actions apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence against her.

37. I accept the Respondent’s submission that it is a matter for NSW Police to decide whether or not to investigate a matter that is reported to them and whether or not to lay any charge(s) against an alleged perpetrator. If the Applicant feels aggrieved by Police inaction, she may complain to an appropriate body about this, but that grievance alone does not establish an act of violence for the purposes of s 19 of the VRSA. There is no evidence that the Police committed any offence against her in making these decisions.

38. There is no medical evidence before me that establishes that the Applicant suffered any psychological injury as a direct result of the act(s) of violence alleged in the Application. Rather, the available evidence indicates that she suffers from Schizophrenia and that she suffered a psychological injury as a result of other acts of violence that occurred in 2017 and 2018, which have been the subject of approvals of victims support.

39. Based upon a consideration of all of the available evidence in this matter, I am not satisfied that DVZ was the primary victim of an act of violence on the balance of probabilities.

Determination

40. Pursuant to s 63 (3) (a) of the ADR Act, the decision of the Assessor dated 1 May 2019 is affirmed.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 22 July 2019