Grech v Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales

[2025] NSWCATAD 73

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Grech v Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATAD 73

Hearing dates:

11 March 2025

Date of orders:

31 March 2025

Decision date:

31 March 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Smith, Senior Member

Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – combat sports - administrative review – industry participant and promoter registration - grounds for disciplinary action - fit and proper person

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW)

Combat Sports Regulation 2014 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR

Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42

Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111

Fisher v Combat Sports Authority of NSW and Anor [2022] NSWCATAP 387

Ford v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 87

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 44 FLR 41

Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10

Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10

Sullivan v Civil Aviation Authority (2014) 22 FCR 555

YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247

Texts Cited:

Combat Sports Authority of NSW - Code of Conduct for Industry Participants and Promoters

Combat Sports Authority of NSW – Policy Title: First Aid Requirements

Combat Sports Authority of NSW – Policy Title: Qualifications and Exams for Officials

Combat Sports Authority of NSW – Fit and proper person guideline

Combat Sports Authority of NSW – Fit and proper person policy

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

James Grech (Applicant)
Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (Self-Represented)

Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00386809

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for an administrative review of a decision made by the Combat Sports Authority of NSW (the Respondent) to cancel his registration in 28 industry participant and promoter classes of registration under the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) (CS Act).

2. The Respondent cancelled the Applicant’s registration on the grounds that the Applicant had contravened the CS Act on a number of occasions, including by knowingly providing a false first aid certificate as part of an application for registration, and is not a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant and promoter.

3. The Applicant’s case is that he did not know the false first aid certificate was false, he now has valid first aid accreditation, he is remorseful about what happened, and he is a fit and proper person to be registered.

4. For the reasons below, the Tribunal has decided that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

Role of the Tribunal

Jurisdiction

5. Section 77(1) of the CS Act provides that a person may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) of a decision by the Authority to take disciplinary action under Division 4 of Part 2 of the CS Act in respect of the person.

6. There is no dispute in this matter that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction in respect of the decision under review.

Administrative review

7. The task of the Tribunal is set out in s 63 of the ADR Act. It provides as follows:

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:

1. any relevant factual material,

2. 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:

1. to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or

2. to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or

3. to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or

4. 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.

8. The Tribunal is required to base its findings of fact on logically probative material: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 44 FLR 41 at [62] and [68]; and Sullivan v Civil Aviation Authority (2014) 22 FCR 555; [2014] FCAFC 93 at [5]-[8], [15]-[17]. Procedural fairness and other aspects of natural justice, of course, are to apply to these proceedings and the Tribunal has discretion to act on material which is rationally probative, but must determine in all the circumstances whether it is proper to act on that material and must act fairly towards the parties: Commission for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111; Roberts v Balancio (1987) 8 NSWLR 436.

9. The standard of proof applicable to this review by the Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. These is no burden or onus of proof on either party: see Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28]-[34]. The standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89]-[91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10]-[12]. However, these standards provide guidance for the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction, especially in relation to any character issues for consideration.

10. In conducting a review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the administrator and makes the correct and preferable decision having regard to all relevant material. The Tribunal may have regard to material that was relevant at the time of the decision as well as any further material that is relevant at the time of the hearing. The issue for determination is what is the correct and preferable decision at the time of the determination, irrespective of whether it was or was not the correct and preferable decision at the time it was originally taken: YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247, [25].

The Combat Sports Act

11. Given the various references in the evidence to terminology and provisions of the CS Act, before turning to the evidence and the Tribunal’s consideration, the relevant provisions of the CS Act are set out as below.

12. The CS Act regulates the conduct of professional and amateur combat sports in NSW. Its objects, as set out in s 3, are:

1. to promote the health and safety of combat sport contestants,

2. to promote the integrity of combat sport contests,

3. to regulate combat sport contests on a harm minimisation basis,

4. to promote the development of the combat sport industry.

13. Section 4(1) defines a ‘combat sport’ as any sport, martial art or activity (other than one excluded by the regulations) in which the primary object of each contestant in a contest, display or exhibition of that sport, art or activity is to strike, kick, hit, grapple with, throw or punch one or more other contestants.

14. Section 4(1) defines ‘Authority’ as the Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales constituted by the CS Act.

15. Section 6(1) defines ‘industry participant’ as any of the following persons (except for a promoter), whether or not they are employed or engaged on a full-time basis and whether or not they receive payment or other consideration for the activity concerned:

1. an individual who acts on behalf of a promoter to arrange combat sport contests between particular combatants (a match-maker),

2. a person who undertakes to represent the interests of a combatant in procuring the engagement of the combatant in a combat sport contest or who directs or controls the combat sport activities of any combatant (a manager),

3. an individual who supervises the training or instruction of a combatant or who accompanies a combatant into or onto the contest area to give advice or assistance during a combat sport contest (a trainer),

4. an individual who assists a combatant as advised by a trainer and who assists a trainer in the preparation of combatants (a second),

5. an individual who determines the points scored by each combatant in a combat sport contest (a judge),

6. an individual who enforces the rules relating to a combat sport during the combat sport contest (a referee),

7. an individual who regulates the number and length of rounds, and the interval between rounds, of a combat sport contest (a timekeeper),

8. any other individual of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

16. Section 4(1) defines a ‘promoter’ of a combat sport contest as the person who has effective control of the promotion of the contest.

17. Section 20(1) prohibits an individual from carrying out an activity as an industry participant unless the individual is registered as an industry participant of the registration class applicable to that activity. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 80 penalty units or six months imprisonment or both for a person whose registration for the applicable registration class has been cancelled. For any other case, the maximum penalty is 50 penalty units or imprisonment for six months or both.

18. Section 21 prohibits a person from holding out that the person is an industry participant for the purposes of a combat sport contest unless the person is registered as an industry participant of the registration class applicable to that contest and the person is carrying out or proposing to carry out activities as an industry participant in relation to that contest. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for six months or both.

19. Section 23 provides that an individual may apply to the Authority to be registered as an industry participant or promoter for a specified registration class or classes. The application must:

1. be in the approved form, and

2. specify the class or classes for which registration is sought, and

3. be accompanied by any other information required by the Authority.

20. Section 25(1) provides that the Authority may register an application as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class if the Authority is satisfied of the following:

1. that the application is made in accordance with this Division and any application fee has been paid,

2. that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter of that class,

3. that the applicant is not less than the minimum age prescribed by this Act, the regulations or the rules as the minimum age required for registration as an industry participant or promoter of that class,

4. if the applicant is subject to a registration pre-condition, that the applicant has complied with the registration pre-condition,

5. as to any other matter prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

21. Clause 18(c) of the Combat Sports Regulation 2014 (NSW) (CS Regulation) provides that for the purpose of s 25(1)(e) of the CS Act, the following is prescribed as a matter that the Authority must be satisfied of before registering an application for registration as an industry participant or promoter: that the applicant has undertaken first aid training as and where required by the Authority.

22. Section 25(2)(a) provides that the Authority must refuse to register an applicant as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class if it is not satisfied of the matters specified in s 25(1) of the CS Act.

23. Together, ss 25(1)(b)and 25(2) operate such that the Authority (and the Tribunal, when standing in the shoes of the Authority in an administrative review) must be positively satisfied that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class before the power to register an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class can be exercised.

24. Section 30(1) provides the grounds on which disciplinary action may be taken against a registered combatant, industry participant or promoter as follows:

1. the person has contravened, or the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to contravene, a provision of this Act, the regulations or the rules,

2. the person has contravened a law of another State or a Territory and the contravention would, if it had occurred in New South Wales, be a contravention of this Act, the regulations or the rules,

3. the person has contravened, or the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to contravene, a condition of the person’s registration or of a permit under this Act held by the person,

4. the person is not a fit and proper person to be registered,

5. the Authority is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to be or remain registered.

25. Section 33(1) specifies that the Authority (and the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Authority in an administrative review) may take disciplinary action against a registered combatant, industry participant or promoter if the Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds on which the action may be taken and the person has not, within the period specified in the show cause notice, shown sufficient reasons why the action should not be taken.

26. Section 33(2) provides that the following actions are disciplinary actions:

1. cancellation of registration,

2. suspension of registration,

3. reducing the period of registration or imposing or varying a condition on registration,

4. giving a written warning.

27. Section 33(3) provides that the Authority may take disciplinary action against a person whether or not the person has been convicted of an offence for a contravention of this Act or the regulations or the law concerned.

28. Section 92 provides that a person must not provide any information or produce any document that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular, in connection with any of the following:

1. a request, notice or direction under this Act or the regulations by the Authority, the Commissioner of Police or a combat sport inspector,

2. an application under this Act,

3. a medical examination or medical record books under this Act,

4. a serological clearance.

29. The maximum penalty for a contravention of s 92 is 200 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 100 penalty units in the case of an individual.

Material before the Tribunal

30. The hearing was held in person on 11 March 2025, during which the Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by the solicitor for the Respondent. No other witnesses were called by either party. Both parties made oral submissions.

31. The following material was tendered in the Applicant’s case:

1. Administrative review application form filed on 17 October 2024

2. Unsigned letter by the Applicant addressed to the Tribunal filed on 11 November 2024 attaching:

1. Copy of a Speech delivered in the House of Representatives referring to his boxing business

2. Copy of a Certificate dated 30 June 2011 and issued by Wollongong First Aid certifying that the Applicant had been assessed and deemed competent in the use of a Pocket Mask

3. Copy of a Statement of Attainment dated 11 May 2023 and issued by Wollongong First Aid stating that the Applicant had attained:

1. HLTAID009 Provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation

2. HLTAID010 Provide basic emergency life support

3. HLTAID011 Provide First Aid

4. Copy of a Certificate of Appreciation dated June 2023 issued by a High School to the Grechys Boxing and Fitness for supporting their students with disability

3. Unsigned letter by the Applicant addressed to the Tribunal attaching the same documents as the Applicant’s letter to the Tribunal dated 11 November 2024 as well as:

1. Photographs associated with fundraising efforts of Grechys Boxing and Fitness

2. Photographs of school aged children and adults (including people with disability) associated with Grechys Boxing and Fitness

3. Printed list of 111 Ezypay credit payments and Direct credit payments dated between 6 September 2023 and 12 November 2023 credited to the Applicant.

4. Email sent from the Applicant to the solicitor for the Respondent on 13 November 2024, attaching a photograph of the boxing ring and spectator area for the Toe The Line Contest held on 10 November 2024.

5. Bundle of documents comprising of 22 separate documents some of which had already been filed. Some of the documents that had not already been filed included:

1. The Applicant’s submissions

2. Two Statutory Declarations by persons present at the Toe The Line Contest held on 10 November 2024

3. Copy of 2025 Citizen of the Year Nomination

4. Copy of the Top 4 Finalist Award for 2025 Citizen of the Year

5. Copy of a plaque presented by the a Community Foundation for outstanding fundraising efforts

6. Copy of Appreciation Award from a High School for providing free fortnightly boxing sessions for the children with a disability.

32. The following material was tendered in the Respondent’s case:

1. Statement of a Regulatory Officer and Combat Sports Inspector employed by the Office of Sport, filed on 14 November 2024

2. Bundle of s 58 documents filed on 10 January 2025

3. Affidavit of a Compliance and Enforcement Officer and Combat Sports Inspector employed by the Office of Sport, filed on 7 February 2025, including an Exhibit

4. Submissions of the Respondent.

Background and procedural history

33. The Applicant is a boxing coach and has been involved in boxing for the last 19 years. The Applicant has progressed from a competitor to a coach, amateur promoter, matchmaker, referee, judge, timekeeper and more recently a charity boxing promoter.

34. The Applicant opened Grechys Boxing and Fitness in 2017, which is a small family business operated by himself, his wife, his brother and his parents. The Applicant also works part-time as a Council Ranger.

35. The Respondent’s material included a history of registration for the Applicant, as contained in the Respondent’s electronic recording system, as at 4 February 2025, which is set out in the following table:

Role	Licence Type	Expiry Date	Licence Status	Association Start Date
Licensee	Industry Participant Registration	8 May 2026	Cancelled	31 March 2022
Licensee	Industry Participant Registration	26 July 2019	Expired	26 July 2016
Licensee	Industry Participant Registration	4 December 2020	Expired	4 December 2017
Licensee	Combatant Registration	4 March 2023	Expired	4 March 2020

36. On 8 March 2024, the Applicant’s brother lodged a first aid certificate as part of an application for registration as an industry participant in a number of classes. It came to the Respondent’s attention that the certificate was identical to a first aid certificate the Applicant had submitted with an application for registration on 3 December 2021, except for the name on the certificate.

37. The Respondent completed an investigation and found that the Applicant had produced a false first aid certificate on 3 December 2021.

38. On 28 June 2024, the Respondent issued the Applicant with a notice to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under s 33 of the CS Act due to various examples of the Respondent showing a contumelious disregard for the CS Act by contravening it on numerous occasions, and Respondent’s view that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be registered under the CS Act.

36. On 16 October 2024, the Respondent made the decision under review and cancelled all the Applicant’s registration in all 28 classes of registration pursuant to s 33 of the CS Act.

37. On 17 October 2024, the Applicant filed with the Tribunal an application for administrative review of the decision under review.

38. On 12 November 2024, the Applicant filed an application for a stay of the original decision pending appeal. Although this was the incorrect form to file, this application was treated as an application for a stay of the decision under review.

39. On 14 November 2024, after an interim hearing of the Applicant’s application for a stay, the Tribunal made an order staying, pending further order, the decision under review but only in respect of the Respondent’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s industry participation registration in the following classes of industry participation: Trainer Amateur Boxing, Second Amateur Boxing and Promoter Amateur Boxing.

40. On 14 November 2024, the Tribunal also made an order, pursuant to s 65(1) of the ADR Act remitting the decision under review to the Respondent for reconsideration.

41. On 5 December 2024, the Applicant was notified by the Respondent of the outcome of the reconsideration of the decision under review. The Respondent remained of the opinion that there are grounds on which disciplinary action may be taken against the Applicant, and the Applicant had not shown sufficient reasons as to why disciplinary action should not be taken. For these reasons, the Respondent made the same determination to take disciplinary action against the Applicant pursuant to s 33(2) of the CS Act and cancel, as of 4 December 2024, all 28 classes of the Applicant’s industry participant and promoter registration.

42. Since the stay was granted by the Tribunal on 14 November 2024 and up until the hearing held on 11 March 2025, the Applicant has continued to operate as a trainer, second and promoter in the Amateur Boxing class, despite the Respondent’s reconsideration of the decision, notified to the Application on 5 December 2024. When this point was raised with the parties by the Tribunal during the hearing, both parties confirmed that it was their understanding that this was permitted. The Respondent did not raise this as an issue at any time prior to the hearing.

43. The Tribunal notes that in respect of the Applicant’s registration as a trainer and second that he was granted on 31 March 2022, these registrations would have expired on 31 March 2025. Had the decision under review not been made, the Applicant’s promoter, manager and matchmaker registrations were to expire on 8 May 2026. The Tribunal did raise with the Applicant during the hearing whether he sought to press his administrative review application in respect of the decision under review as it concerned his registration as a trainer and second on the grounds of utility. The Applicant confirmed that he sought to continue with his administrative review application in its entirety, and no application was made by the Respondent about this issue.

Issues to be determined

47. The decision under review is a decision to take disciplinary action against the Applicant under Div 4 of Pt 2 of the CS Act.

48. In considering what is the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal is to determine:

1. Whether a ground for disciplinary action has been made out, noting that the following two grounds are relied on by the Respondent:

1. The Applicant has contravened a provision of the CS Act (ss 92(b), 30(1)(a)), and

2. The Applicant is not a fit and proper person to be registered (s 30(1)(d))

2. If a ground for disciplinary action has been made out, whether the Applicant has shown sufficient reasons for why disciplinary action should not be taken

3. If a ground for disciplinary action has been made out and there are not sufficient reasons for why disciplinary action should not be taken, what disciplinary action should be taken.

The evidence before the Tribunal and findings of fact

Alleged contraventions of the CS Act

December 2020 – March 2022

49. The Applicant was not registered as an industry participant in the Manager, Matchmaker, Promoter, Second or Trainer classes in any combat sport between 4 December 2020 and 31 March 2022.

50. The Applicant’s own material indicates that he attended the following boxing events with no issues or complaints as a Promoter/Matchmaker/Trainer:

1. 10 April 2021 – ADAPT Boxing Tournament (The Applicant acknowledged that at this event he was unregistered and three fines were issued)

2. 10 June 2021 – Neutral Corner Pro Am

3. 27 November 2021 – GHP Sparring Da

4. 5 December 2021 – PCYC Tournament

5. 24 February 2022 – Campbelltown PCYC Sparring Day

51. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant contravened ss 20(1) and 20(2) of the CS Act by carrying out activities as an industry participant and promoter when the Applicant was not registered between 4 December 2020 and 31 March 2022 on at least these five occasions identified by the Applicant.

10 April 2021

52. On 10 April 2021, while the Applicant was not registered as a trainer or second in any class, the Applicant was observed by a Combat Sports Inspector participating as a trainer during an amateur boxing contest at the Illawarra Sports Stadium.

53. An investigation of this incident was subsequently conducted by the Respondent with an investigation report completed on 29 June 2021. The investigation concluded that the Applicant had committed offences under the CS Act. It was recommended that three penalty notices be issued to the Applicant in relation to these offences:

1. Failing to comply with a direction not to act as an industry participant in relation to a combat sports contest, contrary to s 62(6)(b) of the CS Act

2. Carrying out an activity as an industry participant when not registered in the registration class applicable to that activity, contrary to s 20(1) of the CS Act, and

3. Working in a combatant’s corner during an amateur combat sports contest without being registered as a trainer for the class applicable to that contest, contrary to cl 44 (1) of CS Regulation.

54. The investigation report noted that the Applicant owned and operated a business which carried out an activity for which he was required to be registered as an industry participant. It was noted that the Applicant was still operating a boxing training business and was not registered in the requisite industry participant registration classes.

55. The Applicant was issued with the three penalty notices and appeared before Wollongong Local Court on 17 February 2022. The Applicant pleaded guilty to the three offences the subject of the penalty notices. The transcript of the Local Court proceedings which was included in the Respondent’s material, confirmed that the Applicant pleaded guilty to all three offences. Although not clearly apparent from the transcript of the Local Court proceedings, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that following the Applicant pleading guilty to the three offences, the charges were dismissed pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

56. The Applicant made a complaint to the Respondent about the actions of two Combat Sport Inspectors who were appointed for the contest on 10 April 2021. Inquiries conducted by the Respondent into the complaint found that both Combat Sport Inspectors acted in accordance with their powers under the CS Act.

57. It was noted in the investigation report that at all times when the Combat Sports Inspector completing the investigation was speaking with the Applicant, the Applicant had been rude, abusive, threatening, and had accused the Combat Sports Inspector of sexual offences and of being a paedophile.

58. Noting the Applicant’s plea of guilty to all three offences and having considered the evidence of the investigation, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant contravened ss 62(6)(b) and 20(1) of the CS Act and cl 44(1) of the CS Regulation on 10 April 2021.

3 December 2021

59. On 3 December 2021, the Applicant applied online for registration as an industry participant in four registration classes – Trainer Amateur Boxing, Trainer Professional Boxing, Second Amateur Boxing and Second Professional Boxing. A copy of the Combat Sports Industry Participant Application was included in the Respondent’s material. As part of this online application, the Applicant uploaded a first aid certificate (Statement of Attainment) that was purportedly issued by TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute on 31 October 2020. The certificate is herein referred to as the ‘false certificate’.

60. The false certificate indicates that the Applicant attained HLTAID003 – Provide First Aid and the unit of competency achievement date is recorded as 31 October 2020. The Document Reference Number for the false certificate entered by the Applicant when making the application online, according to the Respondent’s print out of the online application, was 916826800100207.

61. A copy of the false certificate was included in Respondent’s material. The certificate number is not as clear as the certificate number on the copy of the Applicant’s first aid certificate issued by the same Institute and dated 21 May 2016, which the Applicant submitted to the Respondent as part of his application for registration that was granted on 4 December 2017. All digits on the false certificate can be made out except for the second digit 6, which could be read as either 6 or 5. The solicitor for the Respondent confirmed during the hearing that this was the most legible copy of the document available to the Respondent. The Tribunal had the benefit of observing both the hard copy and the soft copy of the document, after requesting that a soft copy of the document be emailed by the solicitor for the Respondent to the Registry.

62. A copy of the false certificate was not included in any of the material filed by the Applicant. The Applicant was asked by the Tribunal during the hearing to enquire of his wife as to whether the original copy of the false certificate was kept at their home. After this request was made by the Tribunal and there was a short break in the hearing, the Applicant gave oral evidence during the hearing that his wife had conducted a search after he phoned her during the break and the original copy of the false certificate could not be located at their home.

63. On 1 August 2023 and 8 March 2024, the Applicant’s brother provided a first aid certificate to accompany applications for registration as an industry participant. A check of records held by the Respondent indicated that the first aid certificate provided by the Applicant’s brother was the same as the first aid certificate submitted by the Applicant on 3 December 2021, except for the name of the recipient.

64. The Respondent consequently commenced an investigation to determine if the Applicant had committed an offence under s 92(b) of CS Act by producing to the Respondent a first aid certificate which he knew was false or misleading in a material particular in connection with applications to be registered in industry participant classes.

65. On 17 April 2024, the Applicant attended the Office of Sport at Sydney Olympic Park and consented to participate in an electronically recorded interview. According to the transcript of the interview which was included in the Respondent’s material:

1. The Applicant could not recall having made the application online on 3 December 2021 for registration as it was “four years ago”. The Applicant said that “It was a long time ago for me to say I definitely did it”.

2. When asked to read the document number on the false certificate, the Applicant read the digits as: 216026800700210 (the Applicant identified the second digit 6 as a 6).

3. When asked about the false certificate and if there was anything he remembered about the document, the Applicant stated: “Yes. So I was looking for a First Aid refresher course, and I found online a lady in Campbelltown that does it, and she said she does them one-on-one as long as I made a booking and paid up in advance. I went there, paid her the - I think back then it was $150. I walked into her house and she had the dummies and all these other exams I had to do, and I did it, and this is the certificate she provided me”.

4. When then asked if he uploaded the false certificate as part of his application for registration on 3 December 2021, the Applicant said that he did not recall “as it was four years ago”.

5. The Applicant said that he remembered that the name of the trainer was Victoria, but did not remember her last name.

6. When asked if she told the Applicant she was part of TAFE NSW, the Applicant stated, “Yes. She said she was fully qualified and registered and she does these on a weekly basis”.

7. The Applicant could not recall the address in Campbelltown as he was not familiar with the area. He said he remembered driving past a skate park and then there was a roundabout.

8. The Applicant said that Victoria gave it (the false certificate) to him “then and there” – she printed it out. The Applicant stated that he saw her print it out. The Applicant said that she gave it to him and said “Here’s your certificate. You can use this for...”

9. The Applicant said that he thought it was a real certificate.

10. When asked if he was given a receipt, the Applicant stated “No, I didn’t get a receipt. It was just a cash payment. I’m pretty sure it was $150. And that’s it. I did the compression thing on the dummy. I was sitting there for a good 10 minutes because she had to make sure I wasn’t getting too tired so I could perform it properly. I had to do the mouth-to-mouth. I had to do the bandage. I had to do a written exam. I was there for a good hour-and-a-half, two hours nearly, I think”.

11. The Applicant said that he didn’t think that she gave him a receipt, as he probably would have kept the receipt, and he didn’t have it.

12. When asked how he booked for the course, the Applicant stated that he just rang her.

13. When asked if he could provide her contact details, the Applicant stated that he did not have them anymore, and “I mean, it was four years ago”.

14. When asked how he got her contact details, the Applicant said he just searched online. The Applicant said it would have been a google search or on gumtree.

15. The Applicant did not think that it was strange that a TAFE NSW course was being delivered at a person’s residence. The Applicant stated that he didn’t think anything of it, he just thought “OK, you’re doing a cash job on the side”. I do cash jobs on the side all the time. Many people do, so I just thought “OK, I’ll do it”.

16. The Applicant stated that he had “done it before at another place, but it was in Fairy Meadow”. The Applicant spoke about going to a house of a man in Fairy Meadow who was a former paramedic to do the test to get the Laerdal mask. The Applicant said that the man gave him a certificate and he provided that to NSW Police and passed. The Applicant stated, “So that’s why I was like, “Oh, I can just search online and get a one-on-one thing, get it done, see you later”. The Applicant stated “Obviously at that time, I didn’t know it was fake. And that’s why I uploaded it. That’s why we’re here today. So I do apologise if it is fake, but I didn’t know”.

17. When asked if there was anything else that the Applicant wanted to say that had not been asked or he thought the Respondent should know, the Applicant stated “No. I think that’s it. I think I’ve told you everything”.

18. The Applicant stated that his main employment was his gym and he was the owner of Grechys Boxing and Fitness. The Applicant said that he had been in business for six-and-a-half years. The Applicant said that he doesn’t have any employees, he just had two people that come and volunteer and help out, one of which was his brother.

66. As part of the investigation, the Respondent enquired with TAFE NSW about the false certificate. TAFE NSW confirmed that:

1. The false certificate was not consistent with TAFE NSW student records.

2. The certificate number 916826800100207 on the false certificate had been the certificate number issued by TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute to the Applicant’s wife on 31 October 2018.

3. TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute ceased to be registered with the Australian Skills Quality Authority on 31 December 2018. A copy of the entity’s registration history, which confirms this, was obtained by the Respondent and included the Respondent’s material.

4. It would be a contravention of TAFE NSW policies to deliver a course from a residential location, take cash payments for a training course, and issue a TAFE NSW training certificate in the circumstances described by the Applicant during the interview held on 17 April 2024.

5. TAFE NSW had not received any complaints about off-campus teaching activities involving first aid training. This was confirmed by a Corruption Prevention Specialist from TAFE NSW’s Integrity Unit.

67. The Respondent obtained the Unit of competency details for HLTAID003 – Provide First Aid, which confirmed that on 16 October 2020, HLTAID003 – Provide First Aid was superseded by HLTAID011 – Provide First Aid.

68. On 25 June 2024, an investigation report was completed by the Respondent which raised doubt about following in the Applicant’s version of events:

1. The first aid certificate purportedly given to the Applicant at the completion of the ‘scam’ first aid course was originally issued to the Applicant’s wife on 31 October 2018. The only credible scenario is that the Applicant altered a certificate which had originally been given to his wife, unaware that the registered training organisation and the unit of competency on the certificate were both out of date.

2. The scam to which the Applicant claims to be a victim of is particularly elaborate and complex. Taking bookings and conducting practical courses, including using first aid equipment and issuing fraudulent certificates for individuals to earn $150 each time is improbable particularly considering there were government websites which would have allowed people to easily detect that this was a scam, such as training.gov.au and usi.gov.au.

3. The Applicant was unable to offer any corroborating evidence. The Applicant’s recollection of the course was unclear. All contemporary or verifiable details either cannot be recalled or have been lost, including any details which could be checked, such as the course address or the name or contact details of the trainer.

4. TAFE NSW advised that they have not received any complaints from people who were affected by a scam similar to the one described by the Applicant.

5. Two first aid certificates were provided by the Applicant’s brother, on two occasions, with different dates of issue on 8 March 2024 and 1 August 2023, in connection with industry participant registration applications. These certificates and the certificate provided by the Applicant had the same certificate number and were identical except for names of the recipient of the certificate. The Applicant’s brother, during phone conversations, indicated that his brother had helped him with his application and that the wrong file had been accidentally uploaded. It was unclear if the Applicant’s brother was referring to the Applicant when he said this. There was no other reasonable explanation for the same certificate being altered on three occasions by the Applicant and his brother, other than the Applicant’s wife’s original certificate was intentionally altered to avoid the requirement to provide an authentic first aid certificate.

69. The Respondent’s investigation found that on 3 December 2021, the Applicant contravened s 92(b) of the CS Act by providing a first aid certificate in connection with an application to be registered as an industry participant under the CS Act, which was false or misleading in a material particular in that the details of the document had been altered.

70. Under cross-examination during the hearing, the Applicant stated that his brother was present at the first aid training that the Applicant said he attended with Victoria in Campbelltown on 31 October 2020. This was the first time that the Applicant had mentioned that his brother was present at the first aid training. Up until that point the Applicant had used first person (‘I’) in reference to the training (not 'we') and referred to the training as ‘one-on-one’ training, not as having any other person present.

69. When the Tribunal asked the Applicant why he had not provided a statement from his brother to corroborate the Applicant’s version of events, the Applicant stated that he didn’t want to get his brother in trouble. The Applicant also said that he and his brother were “not on speaking terms”.

70. When asked why he had not mentioned his brother during the interview on 17 April 2024, the Applicant said he was not asked a question about that by the interviewer. The Applicant gave the analogy of not saying anything about a dog unless he was asked about a dog because he would only give an answer about something if he was asked a question about that thing.

71. In relation to the first aid training that the Applicant maintains he attended on 31 October 2020, under cross-examination during the hearing, the Applicant stated that:

1. He was not able to recall the suburb in the Campbelltown area that the training was held at. When asked if his brother, who he said attended with him, recalled where the training was, the Applicant said that he (the Applicant) drove.

2. He did not consider it odd that the trainer was conducting the training in a home in Campbelltown when connected with TAFE NSW Illawarra as Campbelltown was outside the Illawarra area. When asked if he saw anything in the home from TAFE NSW, he said that “she told me she worked for TAFE”.

3. When asked by the Tribunal about whether he had searched his phone for any record of having called Victoria to book the training around the time that the training was said to be held, the Applicant confirmed he had not conducted searches of his phone records.

4. When asked if he had conducted any other searches to locate Victoria at Campbelltown he said that he had done internet searches using the words “Victoria”, “first aid” and “Campbelltown” but had not found anything.

5. He confirmed did not obtain a receipt for the training from Victoria, but acknowledged, when it was suggested to him by the Tribunal, that it was an expense that he could have claimed as a business expense. The Applicant said that he was “not good” in terms of “the whole tax thing”.

6. He denied the proposition put by the solicitor for the Respondent that he had knowingly submitted a false first aid certificate to the Respondent.

7. He rejected the proposition put by the solicitor for the Respondent that he had lied about attending the training with Victoria in Campbelltown and continues to lie about it.

8. He denied the proposition put by the solicitor for the Respondent that he had intentionally uploaded a blurry version of the document in terms of the certificate number being blurry.

9. When asked how Victoria could have added his wife’s 2018 first aid certificate number to the false certificate, the Applicant stated that Victoria could have accessed the TAFE records and altered the certificate herself.

10. When asked by the Tribunal whether there were any other first aid certificates he had obtained since 2011 besides the certificates that had been filed with the Tribunal (from 2011 (Wollongong First Aid – use of a Pocket Mask), 2016 (TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute - HLTAID003 Provide First Aid), 2020 (false certificate) and 2023 (Wollongong First Aid – HLTAID009 Provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation, HLTAID010 Provide basic emergency life support and HLTAID011 Provide First Aid)), he said he was not sure.

11. He said he and his wife had a “big folder of certificates” at home. This, however did not contain the false certificate which the Applicant stated his wife was not able to locate at home after he asked her to locate it during a short break in the hearing.

12. He conceded that he was not properly first aid trained between March 2022 and May 2023, the period in which he participated as a trainer and second without any valid first aid accreditation.

13. When the proposition was put to him by the solicitor for the Respondent that he was prepared to cut corners, the Applicant conceded that he was prepared to cut corners and he had deep regret for that and had paid for those actions.

14. When asked about the provision of the false certificate to other organisations (in reference to his earlier written statement that he had used this certificate with other organisations) the Applicant stated that he had given the false certificate to his current employer for his work as a Ranger. When the Applicant was asked if he had informed his employer that it was a false certificate as soon as he had become aware of this, the Applicant said that he had not done so as he didn’t want to lose his job. The Applicant was then not able to recall any other organisations that he had given the false certificate to.

74. On 14 April 2024, the Applicant provided the Respondent with a different first aid certificate issued by Wollongong First Aid dated 11 May 2023. The Respondent assessed this certificate to be genuine. The Applicant included a copy of this certificate in his material and labelled it as “Copy of current authentic first aid certificate”. The Applicant was asked, while under cross-examination during the hearing, why he had obtained another first aid certificate prior to the expiry of the false certificate (on the understanding that a first aid certificate should be renewed every three years). The Applicant gave evidence that he had been able to attend a first aid course through his current work which was free.

75. The Applicant has maintained throughout the investigation by the Respondent and throughout these proceedings that he did attend and participate in first aid training on 31 October 2020 run by Victoria in her home in Campbelltown, that he was given a printed certificate by Victoria on the spot after the training and that he did not know the certificate was false. The Tribunal has observed however that the Applicant:

1. Cannot recall where the training was to any degree of particularity, even the specific suburb that the training was held in.

2. Cannot recall the full name of the trainer.

3. Has not been able to produce any contact details such as a phone number for the trainer and has not conducted a search of his phone records for the phone number.

4. Has not produced any records of the phone call he states he made to the trainer to book the training.

5. Did not receive or request any receipt from the trainer for the training or provide any evidence of the cash payment of $150 he states he paid for the training.

6. Cannot offer a valid explanation for why the certificate reference number on the false certificate is the same as the number on his wife’s 2018 first aid certificate or his brother’s first aid certificate also purportedly issued on 31 October 2020 by the same organisation.

7. Was not full and frank in his interview with the Respondent’s officers on 17 April 2024, and did not disclose that his brother attended the training with him during the Respondent’s investigation interview on 17 April 2024. This is notwithstanding that the Applicant was given the opportunity during the interview to provide any further information that had not been covered or asked about. The Applicant did not disclose this in any of his evidence filed with the Tribunal and only gave this evidence under cross-examination during the hearing on 11 March 2025.

8. Did not produce any evidence from his brother, such as a statement, to corroborate the Applicant’s version of events, and when asked why this was so, stated that he did not want to get his brother in trouble and they were not on speaking terms. This is despite the Applicant identifying a number of times and as recently as 17 January 2025 in his submission, that he operates a small family business with the assistance of his brother.

9. Has not been able to produce the original copy of the certificate, despite having retained copies of first aid certificates from earlier than 2020.

10. Did not observe anything odd or suspicious about either the nature of the training (first aid training conducted by a person said to be employed by TAFE NSW Illawarra from a home in Campbelltown for cash payment) or the nature of the certificate, when he had received valid first aid certificates in the past which included the name and contact details of the trainer on the certificate.

76. The following matters also make it difficult for the Tribunal to accept the Applicant’s version of events as probable:

1. The improbability that ‘Victoria’ could have added the Applicant’s wife’s certificate number from two years earlier to the certificate that was printed on the spot and which the Applicant said he observed.

2. The improbability of both the Applicant and his brother not being able to recall any other identifying details about the trainer or where the training was held.

3. The improbability of an employee of TAFE NSW Illawarra or otherwise an imposter conducting first aid training from a home in Campbelltown, well outside the Illawarra area, without any reports or complaints having been made to the TAFE NSW or the TAFE NSW’s Integrity Unit about first aid training being conducted off campus and false first aid certificates being issued. The circumstances of the training as recalled by the Applicant are a contravention of TAFE NSW policies.

4. The fact that TAFE NSW – Illawarra Institute ceased to be registered with the Australian Skills Quality Authority on 31 December 2018.

5. The Applicant’s brother, in his request for review to Revenue NSW for the fine imposed for his offence of providing a false first aid certificate to the Respondent, stated that the training was conducted by an ex-paramedic. There was no mention by the Applicant’s brother in this document that the training was conducted by an employee of TAFE NSW.

6. The circumstances in which the application for registration was made by the Applicant on 3 December 2021, in view of the impending contest on 5 December 2021 at PCYC Hawkesbury, during which the Applicant contravened s 20(1) of the CS Act by carrying activities as a trainer while unregistered.

7. The elaborate nature of the Applicant’s recall of the actual training, including what Victoria said to him, in contrast to not being able to recall other pertinent details which would allow the Respondent to conduct further investigation. The Applicant also notably could not recall the online lodgement of the application for registration on 3 December 2021.

77. It is clear to the Tribunal that the certificate submitted by the Applicant to the Respondent on 3 December 2021 as part of his application for registration as an industry participant was false. The false certificate:

1. Had an invalid reference number which was matched to the Applicant’s wife from first aid training she had undertaken in 2018 with TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute.

2. Was not issued by a Registered Training Organisation.

3. Was verified by TAFE NSW as not being consistent with TAFE NSW student records.

4. Related to a unit of competency that had been superseded. At the date of issue of the certificate, HLTAID003 – Provide First Aid was superseded by HLTAID011 – Provide First Aid.

78. What is in dispute is whether the Applicant knew that the document was false or misleading in a material particular at the time of making his application or any time before the Respondent ascertained that the false certificate was in fact false.

79. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s evidence in relation to how the false certificate was obtained or that he did not know that the certificate was false as at or before 3 December 2021. The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s evidence about the obtaining of the false certificate is not credible and inherently improbable.

80. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s account is self-serving and wholly incapable of being tested or independently corroborated. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds this submission persuasive.

81. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that it is improbable in the extreme that on 31 October 2020 the Applicant attended a first aid course run by a training organisation, that had ceased to be registered almost two years earlier. The Tribunal also accepts the Respondent’s submission it is equally improbable that at the conclusion of that course the Applicant was issued with a certificate bearing the same reference number as one issued to his wife two years earlier.

82. It follows that the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that it is more probable than not that the Applicant created the false certificate himself, and likely the false certificate used by his brother, using his wife’s valid 2018 first aid certificate. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that it is more probable than not that the Applicant knowingly provided a false first aid certificate to the Respondent in connection with this application for registration on 3 December 2021.

83. The Tribunal finds that by knowingly producing the false first aid certificate to the Respondent when applying for registration on 3 December 2021, the Applicant contravened s 92(b) of the CS Act.

5 December 2021

84. On 5 December 2021, while the Applicant was not registered as a trainer or second in any class, the Applicant was observed by a Sports Combat Inspector carrying out activities as a trainer during a combat sports contest at PCYC Hawkesbury.

85. On 6 December 2021, the Applicant made a complaint about the Sports Combat Inspector who had observed him on 5 December 2021 at PCYC Hawkesbury. The Applicant made a complaint that he had been bullied and singled out on that occasion by the Sports Combat Inspector. The Respondent conducted an investigation in response to this complaint, which concluded on 24 February 2022 and did not substantiate any of the Applicant’s complaints.

86. A copy of the report of this investigation was included in the Respondent’s material and sets out the series of events between 3 December 2021 and 5 December 2021.

87. The investigation report indicates that the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent at 9:30am on 3 December 2021 stating: “I have a combatant competing at Sunday’s show in Hawkesbury and once again the system is not allowed [sic] me to register as a trainer/corner. I have tried calling with no success. Can someone please contact me back thank you”.

88. An officer of the Respondent phoned the Applicant on 3 December 2021 and provided advice about how to register through the new Combat Sports Registration system.

89. At about 1:21pm on 3 December 2021, the Applicant applied for registration in the Trainer Amateur Boxing, Second Amateur Boxing, Trainer Professional Boxing and Second Professional Boxing classes. The system provided an automated response to the Applicant that the application had been lodged and would be considered by the Respondent.

90. At 3:50pm on 3 December 2021, the application was assessed by an officer of the Respondent and found not to be in accordance with s 25(1) of the CS Act. That is, the application was not accompanied by three forms of certified and acceptable identification documents and a completed Trainers and Seconds Examination. Later on 3 December 2021, the officer of the Respondent who had assessed the application advised the Applicant via email of the deficiencies in the application.

91. At 4:25pm on 3 December 2021, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent stating “I just received an email stating that my documents are not certified and my exam wasn’t uploaded, however they are certified and I did upload my completed exam. I’m having a lot of trouble with this website. Is there another way I can finish my application?”.

92. At 5:38pm on 3 December 2021, the Applicant was advised by the Respondent via email that the examination paper he had uploaded was blank and the Medicare card he provided was not current.

93. At 4:57pm on 4 December 2021, as the Applicant had not rectified the deficiencies in his application for registration, the Sports Combat Inspector who was attending the contest on 5 December 2021 at PCYC Hawkesbury sent an email to the Applicant reminding him that his application was incomplete and warning him that he would commit offences under the CS Act if he carried out the activities of a trainer or second at the contest or worked in the corner. The Respondent received an automatic reply to this email from the Applicant at 7:28pm on 4 December 2021. There was no indication or record of the email sent to the Applicant at 4:57pm on 4 December 2021 via the email had been using to communicate with the Respondent not being received.

94. Included in the Applicant’s material is a statement written by the Applicant in which he stated that he doesn’t have any recollection of attending the tournament in Hawkesbury. However, while under cross-examination during the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he did attend the contest at PCYC Hawkesbury on 5 December 2021.

95. In relation to what occurred between 3 December 2021 and 5 December 2021, under cross-examination, the Applicant stated that:

1. He thought he was registered as at 5 December 2021 as he had submitted an application online and paid the fee for registration.

2. He also thought he was registered as at 5 December 2021 as “no one told me I was not registered until I was in the corner”.

3. When he was asked about the previous three applications for registration that he had made since 2016, the Applicant recalled that he had made an application online including uploading documents such as photograph ID, birth certificate and medical documents, that he had received an email a few days later from the Respondent confirming he was registered and he had then received a card with photograph ID in the mail a few weeks after that.

4. When asked, given the Applicant’s previous experience with registration, how he could think that he was registered just by applying online and paying a fee, the Applicant stated that “nobody told me” and that if he had received an email saying he was not registered or his application was “still pending”, then he would not have cornered on 5 December 2021.

96. It appears that no disciplinary action was taken by the Respondent at the time in respect of the Applicant’s conduct at the PCYC Hawkesbury on 5 December 2021.

97. Given the Applicant’s three previous experiences of the process of applying registration, and the clear warning from the Respondent to the Tribunal before the contest on 5 December 2021, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s explanation he believed he was registered after lodging his online application for registration and paying the application fee on 3 December 2021.

98. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant contravened the CS Act by carrying on activities as a trainer while unregistered on 5 December 2021. That is, the Respondent contravened s 20(1) of the CS Act on 5 December 2021.

10 November 2024

99. According to a Statement of a Regulatory Officer and Combat Sports Inspector filed on 14 November 2024, she:

1. Arrived at a combat sport contest at Penrith Valley Sports Centre on 10 November 2024.

2. Had previously dealt with the Applicant before when she performed the role of Compliance and Enforcement Officer with the Office of Sport.

3. Recognised the Applicant and saw him at the venue in the company of a male boxer who was a combatant at the contest. She observed the Applicant to walk towards the contest area while displaying a lanyard issued by the Respondent with an identification card attached to it. The identification card displayed a photograph and name matching that of the Applicant. Also detailed on the identification card was an industry participant registration number that was attributed to the Applicant’s registration granted on 31 March 2022 and cancelled by the Respondent on 16 October 2024.

4. Observed the Applicant walk towards the contest area and approach the Boxing NSW Supervisor in order to obtain a wrist band for the purpose of identifying a suitably qualified and authorised industry participant to perform activities of a Trainer/Second at the contest.

1. Told the Boxing NSW Supervisor who the Applicant was and that he was not registered, as he had had his registration cancelled because of disciplinary action. She told the Supervisor not to give the Applicant a wrist band.

2. Discussed the situation over the phone with a Compliance and Enforcement Officer of the Respondent, including her observation of the Applicant having his identification card around his neck, which would cause anyone to assume he was registered.

3. She then spoke to the Boxing NSW Supervisor who offered to get the Applicant’s identification card off him.

4. She observed the Boxing NSW Supervisor approach the Applicant and return to her, handing her the Applicant’s identification card.

5. Observed the Applicant exit the contest area to the outer region of the complex where a short time later she observed the Applicant accompany the male boxer he had been in the company of to the protective equipment table while carrying a bucket and having the Combat Sports of NSW lanyard with a Boxing NSW identification displayed. She observed the Applicant assist the male boxer in selecting and fitting boxing gloves and protective headgear.

6. She then observed the Applicant approach the contest area and sit within the contest area while the exhibition contest occurred between the male boxer the Applicant had been seen to assist and another male boxer. At the conclusion of the bout, she observed the Applicant congratulate both combatants and then exit the contest area some time later.

7. Believed that if she had not raised the issue that the Applicant was not registered with the Respondent, the Applicant would have carried out activities which included providing advice and assistance to a combatant during a combat sports contest in contravention of the legislative requirements.

100. Included in the Applicant’s material is a written statement by two other people who were present at the contest who attest that the Applicant was not sitting in the contest area and did not go near the ring.

101. The Applicant does admit to having worn his Combat Sports Identification Card at the contest, which he said was not confiscated until after the contest involving the male boxer he was seen with. The Applicant has provided a photograph of himself wearing the Lanyard and Identification Card, which appears to be taken with the combatant after the contest.

102. The Regulatory Officer/Combat Sports Inspector and the two persons present at the contest who signed statements were not called by either party for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted this during the hearing and indicated to the parties that the filed material about this incident would be weighed up by the Tribunal without the benefit of it having been tested by cross-examination.

103. The Tribunal is unable to determine whether the Applicant was carrying out activities as a trainer while not registered on 10 November 2024 given the conflicting evidence of persons present at the contest, apart from the Applicant, who were not called for cross-examination.

104. The Applicant has himself provided photographic evidence confirming that he was wearing the Combat Sports Authority lanyard and identification card displaying his photograph, name and industry participant registration number at the contest.

105. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s conduct at the contest on 10 November 2024 is in contravention of s 21(1) of the CS Act, insofar as the Applicant was holding out that he was an industry participant for the purposes of a combat sport contest while his registration was cancelled.

Applicant’s involvement in contravention of CS Act by his brother

106. On 1 August 2023 and 8 March 2024, the Applicant’s brother provided a first aid certificate to accompany applications for registration as an industry participant. A check of records held by the Respondent indicated that the first aid certificate provided by the Applicant’s brother was the same as the first aid certificate submitted by the Applicant on 3 December 2021, except for the name of the recipient.

107. A copy of the first aid certificate submitted to the Respondent by the Applicant’s brother was included in the Respondent’s material. The Applicant’s brother’s first aid certificate was purportedly issued by TAFE NSW Illawarra Institute on 31 October 2020. The certificate number looks the same as the certificate number of the false certificate issued on the same date by the same Registered Training Organisation: 916826800100207. Similar to the false certificate, all digits for the certificate number can be made out except for the second digit 6, which could be read as either 6 or 5.

108. Included in the Respondent’s material was a Request for Review form lodged with Revenue NSW by the Applicant’s brother, dated 18 June 2024. The ‘date of offence’ is noted as 8 March 2024 with penalty notice number 3250066537. The Applicant’s brother submitted the following in support of the request for review:

I have received this fine in my name however I am not the person responsible for this. I advised the officer that the person who uploaded the document was my brother James Grech who has accepted responsibility for this however the fine still was issued to myself. This is extremely frustrating as the document (first aid certificate) was issued by a former paramedic and I was told the document was real when I completed the first aid course. Can something please be done about this. James can be contacted on…[phone and email provided].

109. The offence by the Applicant’s brother appears to be the submission of a false first aid certificate on 8 March 2024.

110. The Respondent’s investigation report of 25 June 2024 in relation to the Applicant’s alleged contravention of the CS Act noted that the Applicant is implicated in offences against the CS Act committed by his brother.

111. The Applicant gave evidence at the hearing that both he and his brother attended what he believed was valid first aid training on 31 October 2020 and he did not know that the first aid certificate, that he states he received from that training, was not valid.

112. Given the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the false certificate, the fact that the false certificate was identical to the Applicant’s brother’s certificate apart from the name of the recipient, and the Applicant’s brother’s statement that the Applicant uploaded his certificate and had accepted responsibility for it, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant was implicated in contraventions of the CS Act by his brother, by the submission of a false first aid certificate on 1 August 2023 and 8 March 2024.

Importance of valid first aid accreditation in combat sports registration

113. In addition to the alleged contraventions of the CS Act, the Respondent’s material and cross-examination of the Applicant during the hearing highlighted the requirement for and importance of valid first aid accreditation for registration of certain classes in combat sports.

114. The Respondent submitted that a trainer is the person responsible for monitoring the combatant’s physical condition and identifying when the combatant may be unable to continue because of exhaustion, or is unable to defend themselves, so that they can ask that the contest can be stopped. Trainers are also responsible for providing first aid to a combatant who has been injured both during contests and outside of contests (e.g. during training), before further medical assistance can be provided by an attending medical professional. A trainer also advises a combatant on other aspects of health and welfare, including the combatant’s level of hydration, weight cutting and use of diuretics.

115. The Respondent submitted that a second is a person who assists a trainer in the preparation of combatants, and although typically with less experience, they assist in performing the same functions as a trainer as referred to above.

116. The Respondent referred the Tribunal to the Respondent’s Qualification and Exams for Officials policy document on the Respondent’s website that sets out the requirements imposed by the Respondent on various classes of registration under cl 18 of the CS Regulation. This document indicates that first aid is one of requirements for applications for registration as a trainer or second. The document also indicates that persons registering with the Respondent are required to provide evidence of their qualifications for the class of registration for which they are seeking registration.

117. The Respondent has also published a First Aid Requirements policy document, created/revised/approved as of December 2014, which indicates that as part of determining the suitability of a person to be registered with the Authority in a specific role, the staff member assessing the application will undertake a check to ensure that the first aid requirements for that role have been met. The name (name on the first aid certificate is the same as that of the person seeking registration), currency (the certificate provided is current and not expired) and validity (the certificate was issued by an organisation known to provide first aid training) are to be checked. For trainers, the risk level is identified as ‘high’ and the qualification required is to Provide First Aid. For seconds, the risk level is ‘Medium’ and the qualification required is ‘Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation’. Combat Sports First Aid is recommended, but not required, as an additional qualification for trainers and seconds.

118. One of the conditions of registration for industry and participants and promoters, in accordance with the Respondent’s published Registration requirements for industry participants and promoters is that the registered participant or promoter must abide by the Industry Participants and Promoters Code of Conduct published by the Respondent. One of the provisions of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct for Industry Participants and Promoters is that industry participants and promoters will always place the health and safety of combatants as their first priority and follow medical advice and suspensions when given by doctors.

119. The Respondent submitted that the requirement for current first aid accreditation is required because trainers and seconds are responsible for directly looking after the health and physical condition of combatants who are engaged in physically dangerous combat sports with the potential to cause serious injury or death. The Respondent submitted that a trainer or second who does not have up to date first aid training cannot provide an adequate level of care to a combatant who has sustained an injury during a contest or during training, or who is showing signs of being unable to defend themselves during a contest. The Respondent submitted that the inability to provide that care places the combatant at a much more significant risk of serious harm, as the signs of medical assistance being required could be missed.

120. A promoter, matchmaker and manager are not required by law to have a valid first aid certificate as a condition of registration. The Respondent submitted that given their role and responsibilities, which includes compliance with the CS Act, CS Regulation, and the rules and conditions of registration, these classes of registration require integrity, honesty and a demonstrated ability to comply with the law.

121. The Tribunal accepts these submissions and further, is of the view that current first aid accreditation, where required for registration, is critical in a combat sport such as boxing, as it provides knowledge and skills which may potentially save lives or prevent serious harm.

Applicant’s case

122. In the Applicant’s submissions he asks for a “reduced penalty” such that the licences that affect his small family business be allowed to continue:

• Amateur Boxing Trainer/Second

• Amateur Boxing Promoter/Manager/Matchmaker

• Pro Boxing Trainer/Second

• Pro Boxing Promoter/Manager/Matchmaker

123. The Applicant’s case is that the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision under review as he is remorseful for the recent events and his actions, so he can continue to operate his small family business, he did not know the false certificate was not authentic, and he has since updated his first aid certificate with an approved provider and cooperated with the Respondent.

Respondent’s case

124. The Respondent submits that that the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to affirm the decision under review.

125. The Respondent submits that the evidence establishes that the Applicant knowingly submitted a false first aid certificate in order to secure registration as a boxing trainer and second, which enabled him to carry out activities as a trainer and second for over a year without valid first aid accreditation, placing combatants he trained at an increased risk of serious harm. The Respondent submits that this followed at least two earlier occasions on which the Applicant carried out activities as a trainer whilst unregistered.

126. Based on these matters, the Respondent submits that a ground for taking disciplinary action has been made out due to the Applicant’s contraventions of the CS Act and that he is not a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter in the relevant classes of registration. The Respondent submits that the appropriate form of disciplinary action, given the seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct, is the wholesale cancellation of the Applicant’s registration.

Applying the law to the facts

127. Turning back to the issues for determination, the Tribunal is to determine:

1. Whether a ground for disciplinary action has been made out:

1. Whether the Applicant contravened the CS Act, CS Regulation or rules, or is likely to contravene the CS Act, CS Regulation or rules and/or

2. Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter in the relevant classes of registration

2. If a ground for disciplinary action has been made out, whether the Applicant has shown sufficient reasons for why disciplinary action should not be taken

3. If a ground for disciplinary action has been made out and there is not sufficient reasons for why disciplinary action should not be taken, what disciplinary action should be taken.

Whether the Applicant has contravened the CS Act, CS Regulation or the rules or is likely to commit such a contravention

128. The ground for disciplinary action in s 30(1)(a) can involve the Tribunal being satisfied that the person has contravened the CS Act, CS Regulation or the rules (with or without conviction) or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to contravene a provision of the CS Act, the CS Regulation or the rules.

129. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has contravened the CS Act on multiple occasions.

130. Past conduct of the Applicant is a significant guide in assessing future conduct: see Ford v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 87 at [59].

131. The Tribunal finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe, given the Applicant’s past and recent conduct of contraventions of the CS Act, that the Applicant is likely to continue to contravene the CS Act, CS Regulation or the rules in the future.

132. Given that the Tribunal has found that a ground for disciplinary action has been made out, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider and establish another ground in s 30(1) of the CS Act to then proceed to determine whether disciplinary action should be taken and in what form.

133. However, if there are multiple grounds to warrant disciplinary action being taken, then this is a relevant consideration in determining the severity of the disciplinary action to be taken. For this reason, the Tribunal has also considered the additional s 30(1) ground asserted by the Respondent - that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to be registered.

Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered

134. The CS Act contains no definition of what is a ‘fit and proper person’. A number of cases however have given consideration to the term which are of assistance.

135. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, the High Court, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said, at [380] and [388]:

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgement. In that process, the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration.

136. In Fisher v Combat Sports Authority of NSW and Anor [2022] NSWCATAP 387, the Appeal Panel said at [50]:

In our view, the objective of maintaining public confidence in the combat sports industry is a relevant factor in deciding whether or not an applicant is a ‘fit and proper person’: see, for example, Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35]; New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] 52 NSWLR 279 at [20].

137. The Appeal Panel also said at [66]:

The assessment of whether a person is a ‘fit and proper person’ is an assessment of that person’s fitness and proprietary. It is an assessment of the individual’s suitability to participate in the relevant profession, industry, or field of endeavour. That does not mean that the test of whether a person is ‘fit and proper’ collapses into a test of what is in the ‘public interest’, as the Tribunal appears to have done at [32]. Whether or not the respondent would receive a personal benefit from being registered is an irrelevant consideration as to whether or not he is ‘fit and proper person’.

138. Further, at [80] to [84] the Appeal Panel said:

It does appear to us that this error of principle led the Tribunal erroneously to consider or take into account the fact that the evidence supported the proposition that granting the respondent registration to engage in combat sports activities under the CS Act would assist his mental health and continued rehabilitation. It is well established that any hardship that would be occasioned by a decision not to grant a licence is not relevant to the assessment of a person’s fitness and proprietary: see Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 at [73]; Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 at [47].

In our view, the converse also follows, namely, that when an individual has applied for a licence or for registration that is necessary for participation in a certain field, any personal advantage that would be occasioned by the decision cannot be relevant to the assessment of the person’s fitness and proprietary.

The fit and proper person test is, fundamentally, directed to the character and reputation of the applicant. Whether or not the applicant would receive benefits to his mental health and rehabilitation from competing in amateur boxing cannot be relevant to that test. However, it does appear that the Tribunal, erroneously, did consider such personal benefits to be relevant.

In our view, it is erroneous to contemplate personal benefits the applicant may receive by obtaining registration and then on ‘public interest’ grounds allow this factor to outweigh what otherwise may be the applicant’s lack of fitness or proprietary to ultimately come to a conclusion as to whether the applicant is a ‘fit and proper person’ to be registered as a combatant for the purposes of s 13(1)(b) of the CS Act.

As stated, whether or not the applicant would receive benefits to his mental health and rehabilitation by competing in amateur boxing cannot be relevant. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal erred in its application of the term ‘fit and proper’ within the meaning of this s 13(1)(b) of the CS Act and we uphold these grounds of appeal.

139. In Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 Walters J said (at p 76):

In my opinion what is meant by that expression is that the Applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities devolving upon him as the holder of a particular licence ... but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public ... as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails.

140. The Respondent’s material included the Respondent’s Fit and proper person guideline (5 April 2023). The Respondent has also published the Fit and proper person policy (5 April 2023) which is available on its website. The Respondent submitted that this procedure/policy is primarily based on caselaw.

141. The Respondent’s Fit and proper person policy, states that, in terms of what the fit and proper test is:

1. The decision as to whether a person is a fit and proper person will depend on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The concept of "fit and proper" requires consideration of the conduct of the person and whether improper conduct has occurred or is likely to occur and whether the community have confidence that improper conduct will not occur.

2. The concept of a fit and proper person is not narrowly construed or confined, nor does it remain constant over time. The assessment of the factors listed above is made in a general or an overall sense, with all aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered.

3. All identified factors will be considered both individually and collectively on their merit to inform the assessment of an applicant’s overall status as being a fit and proper person to be registered.

142. The Respondent’s Fit and proper person policy states that assessing a person’s status as a fit and proper person involves considering their overall suitability to carry out a proposed activity having regard to the express objectives of the CS Act, at s 3. When assessing whether a person is a fit and proper person, the Respondent and Office of Sport staff (under delegation) will have regard to all relevant factors which can include, but are not limited to:

1. the particular registration class(es) applied for

2. the applicant’s knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of being a registered participant in the particular registration class sought

3. the particular conduct of the applicant in question

4. the applicant’s character since committing the offence

5. singular or repetitive patterns of unacceptable behaviours or offending

6. the seriousness of previous unacceptable behaviours or offending (including resultant harms and penalties) and their connection to the type of registration sought by the applicant

7. whether the offence or improper behaviour occurred in the course of their registered activity

8. risk of reoffending (including reformed behaviours and insight into unacceptable behaviour or offending)

9. mitigating circumstances

10. time elapsed since the applicant committed the offence

11. the nature of combat sports

12. the objects of the Act in, including but not limited to, promoting the integrity of combat sport contests and maintaining public confidence in the combat sports industry.

143. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s submission that this policy/procedure is largely consistent with the cases and is of assistance in considering the fitness and propriety of the Applicant in the context of combat sports.

144. The Tribunal is not to have regard to the Applicant’s mental state or potential benefits to his mental state if registered in assessing his fitness and propriety to be registered as an industry participant and promoter in combat sports, noting that he has claimed that boxing has helped with his mental health.

145. The Tribunal considers the following matters to be relevant in assessing whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant and promoter in combat sports.

Ability to uphold and promote the objects of the CS Act

146. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is able to uphold and promote the objects of the CS Act in terms of promoting the health and safety of combat sport contestants, promoting the integrity of the combat sports contests and promoting the development of the combat sports industry.

147. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that, assessed as a whole, the Applicant’s conduct is extremely serious as it involves dishonesty and a pattern of non-compliance with the CS Act, including in ways that have endangered the health and safety of combatants and undermined the driving objectives of the CS Act.

148. The Applicant’s actions have demonstrated a lack of integrity and dishonesty. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant’s dishonesty is an especially egregious matter in this case and ought to satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant is not possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to be entrusted with registration as a trainer or second, or as a promoter, manager or matchmaker given the high degree of influence and responsibility over a combat sports contest that these roles entail.

149. To interpret ‘fit and proper person’ to allow registration of a person who has contravened the CS Act, CS Regulation and rules on multiple occasions, placed combatants at risk of serious harm and undermined the objects of the Act, would undermine public confidence in the combat sports industry. This would frustrate the object of promoting the development of the combat sports industry.

Knowledge of duties associated with registration

150. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that he is a fit and proper person as he has extensive knowledge of his duties and responsibilities as a registered industry participant, given his continued contraventions of the CS Act as well as the evidence that he gave that he believed he was registered simply by submitting an application online and paying the registration fee.

Nature and seriousness of conduct

151. The Applicant’s multiple contraventions of the CS Act over a significant period of time, including the provision of the false certificate and conducting activities that require registration while unregistered does, in the Tribunal’s view, amount to a contumelious disregard for the CS Act and Respondent’s role in regulating combat sports in accordance with eh CS Act.

152. The Applicant has committed a number of serious offences. He has not offered credible explanations as to why he committed the offences. The Applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the registration requirements under the CS Act, including to provide a current first aid certificate. Valid first aid certification is one of the only safety related requirements of the industry participant registration application process. Having had regard to the evidence of the requirement for and importance of valid first aid accreditation in combat sports registration, the Tribunal is of the view that providing a false first aid certificate and not having current valid first aid accreditation in connection with industry participant registration is a very serious matter, as it can place combatants at risk of death, serious injury or harm.

Applicant’s conduct and character since the conduct

153. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has contravened the CS Act, CS Regulation and the rules, and is likely to continue to do so. The latest contravention of the CS Act has occurring since the commencement of these proceedings.

154. The Applicant submits that he is a fit and proper person because he has cooperated with the Respondent in its most recent investigation of the Applicant. The Tribunal does not accept this submission, given that the Applicant was not full and frank in disclosing that his brother was present at the first aid training he states he attended in Campbelltown with Victoria on 31 October 2020. The very limited information that the Applicant has provided about this training that the Applicant continues to maintain he attended, has meant that the Respondent has not been able to conduct a thorough investigation.

155. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has made an apology for his ‘mistake’ and deeply regrets his ‘actions’. The Applicant’s apology, however, does not overcome the significance of the Applicant’s continued contravention of the CS Act since the submission of the false certificate, seen in the incident of 5 December 2021, 10 November 2024, his apparent withholding of evidence (that his brother was present with him at the training on 31 October 2020) that prevented the Respondent from conducting a thorough investigation of the false certificate, and his failure to notify his current employer that he had also submitted a false document to them.

156. Despite the Applicant stating in his submission to the Tribunal that he has “shown great remorse by apologising many times”, this does not displace the consequences or seriousness of his conduct and the serious risk he has posed to the health and safety of combatants. The Applicant’s fundraising efforts and free classes he provides for his local community also do not displace these serious matters.

157. The Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant has shown a concerning lack of insight and acceptance of responsibility for any of these contraventions of the CS Act. The Applicant has rather blamed the Respondent and made unsubstantiated allegations and complaints against the Respondent’s officers implementing the CS Act. The Applicant seems to have adopted an approach of only providing information if asked, questioning why other people who he believes are contravening the CS Act do not receive similar consequences (while not making any formal reports of contraventions of the CS Act to the Respondent) and justifying contraventions of the CS Act on communication issues he has had with the Respondent, which were often urgent due to the late timing of his applications before contests.

Risk of reoffending

158. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that he is a fit and proper person as his “risk of reoffending is zero”, given the Applicant’s continued contraventions of the CS Act since at least December 2020 up until as recently as 10 November 2024 after these proceedings commenced.

159. The Applicant’s lack of insight and acceptable of responsibility for his multiple contraventions of the CS Act increase the risk that he is likely to engage in similar conduct in the future.

Assessment of fitness and propriety

160. For the reasons noted above in relation to the assessment of fitness and propriety in respect of the Applicant, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to be registered in any class of registration under the CS Act.

Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient reasons why disciplinary action should not be taken

161. The various responses of the Applicant to his contraventions of the CS Act over a period of nearly four years does not give the Tribunal any comfort or confidence that the Applicant will not engage, or there is a low risk that he will not engage, in similar conduct in the future. The Applicant’s explanations for his conduct demonstrate a lack of insight and accountability and shift blame to the Respondent. Notably, the Applicant continues to maintain an improbable and unbelievable version of events in relation to the false certificate.

162. The matters that the Applicant has raised as to his personal situation and mental health are not relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment of the Applicant’s fitness and propriety and are not otherwise sufficient reasons for not taking disciplinary action against the Applicant given the two established s 30 grounds.

163. While the efforts of the Applicant’s boxing business to fundraise and offer free classes to school aged children in the community is commendable, these efforts do not displace the consequences and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct.

164. The Applicant has not shown sufficient reasons for why disciplinary action should not be taken.

Disciplinary action

165. If there are multiple grounds to warrant disciplinary action being taken, then this is a relevant consideration in determining the severity of the disciplinary action to be taken.

166. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has contravened and is likely to contravene the CS Act, CS Regulation or the rules, and that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold registration under the CS Act.

167. The application of s 25(2)(1) of the CS Act is that if an applicant is not a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant or promoter of a specified registration class, then the applicant must be refused registration as an industry participant or promoter of that specific registration class.

168. The Tribunal is therefore of the view, in accordance with s 25(2)(1) of the CS Act, that there is no scope for the Applicant to retain registration as an industry participant or promoter and the appropriate disciplinary action to take is the cancellation of the Applicant’s registration in all 28 classes of industry participant and promoter registration. The Tribunal is of the view that other forms of disciplinary action in s 33(2) of the CS Act, such as suspension of registration, reduction in the period of registration, imposing or varying a condition on registration, or giving a written warning are not appropriate given they all involve the Applicant remaining registered, and given the seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct.

169. The Tribunal notes that the previous decisions of the Respondent to not take disciplinary action against the Applicant in respect of his registration, despite the Applicant’s breaches of the CS Act, did not cause the Applicant to stop engaging in such conduct.

170. While the Applicant has asked for a “reduced penalty” in seeking registration as a Trainer/Second and Promoter/Manager/Matchmaker in Amateur Boxing and Pro Boxing, for the Tribunal to consider this, the Tribunal would have to be satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold registration in these classes of registration. The Tribunal is not so satisfied and therefore cannot consider the Applicant’s request for a “reduced penalty”.

Conclusion

171. Having found that the Applicant has contravened and is likely to contravene the CS Act, CS Regulation or the rules, that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold registration under the CS Act, and that there are no sufficient reasons for why action should not be taken, the Tribunal is of the view that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review. That is, pursuant to s 33(2)(a) of the CS Act, the Applicant’s industry participant and promoter registration in the following 28 classes of industry participant and promoter registration is cancelled:

1. Manager Amateur in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA, and OMA

2. Manager Professional in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA and OMA

3. Matchmaker Amateur in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA and OMA

4. Matchmaker Professional in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA and OMA

5. Promoter Amateur in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA and OMA

6. Promoter Professional in Boxing, Kick Boxing, MMA and OMA

7. Second Amateur Boxing

8. Second Professional Boxing

9. Trainer Amateur Boxing

10. Trainer Professional Boxing.

Order

172. The decision under review 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: 31 March 2025