Grech v Combat Sports Authority of NSW
[2025] NSWCATAD 271
•6 November 2025
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Grech v Combat Sports Authority of NSW |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2025] NSWCATAD 271 |
Hearing Date(s): | 10 October 2025 |
Date of Orders: | 6 November 2025 |
Decision Date: | 6 November 2025 |
Jurisdiction: | Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division |
Before: | R Block, Senior Member |
Decision: | The decision under review is affirmed. |
Catchwords: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – combat sports - administrative review – industry participant and promoter registration - fit and proper person |
Legislation Cited: | Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 |
Cases Cited: | Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 |
Texts Cited: | Combat Sports Authority of NSW - Code of Conduct for Industry Participants and Promoters |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | James Grech (Applicant) |
Representation: | Crown Solicitor (Respondent) |
File Number(s): | 2025/00260949 |
Publication Restriction: | Nil |
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 31 March 2025, James Grech (the Applicant) made an application to the Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales (the Respondent) to be registered as an industry participant in the classes of Trainer (Amateur Boxing) Second (Amateur Boxing) classes pursuant to s 23 of the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act).
On 12 June 2025, the Respondent refused the application on the basis that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be registered under the Act due to previous contraventions of the Act as found in the Tribunal’s decision of 31 March 2025 which affirmed a previous decision of the Respondent that the Applicant was not fit and proper to be registered in any class of registration.
Upon conducting an internal review sought by the Applicant, on 7 July 2025, the Respondent affirmed their decision to refuse registration (the Decision).
The Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 8 July 2025 for an administrative review of the Decision.
Jurisdiction
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review an administratively reviewable decision pursuant to s 55 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act). The decision to refuse to register the Applicant is a reviewable decision in accordance with s 77(1)(d) of the Act.
Material before the Tribunal
The hearing was held in person on 10 October 2025, during which the Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined.
The Applicant tendered material which included (i) a clean criminal history check dated 14 May 2025 (ii) a valid first aid certificate dated 11 May 2023 (iii) a certificate as a finalist in the citizen of the year award by Shellharbour City Council (iv) evidence of fund raising for local childrens’ and families’ charities; and (v) two character references.
The Respondent tendered material which included submissions and a copy of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct, together with previous correspondence and determinations.
Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing, and no witnesses were called.
Issue for determination
The issue in these proceedings is whether the Respondent’s decision to refuse to register the Applicant on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person pursuant to s 25(2)(a) of the Act, should be affirmed.
Legislative Framework
Section 63 of the ADR Act requires that in determining the application for review, the Tribunal is to decide the "correct and preferable" decision and it "may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision".
In determining the application, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision and make a decision in its place, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.
The review is to be conducted ‘without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision’: McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521 at [530]. On review the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions vested in the Respondent.
The Tribunal must consider the material that is available before it, which may include material that postdates the reviewable decision as per YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 at [25].
The standard of proof applicable to this review by the Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. There is no burden or onus of proof on either party as per Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 (Nakad) at [28]-[34].
The Act regulates the conduct of professional and amateur combat sports in NSW. Its objects, as set out in s 3, are:
(a) to promote the health and safety of combat sport contestants,
(b) to promote the integrity of combat sport contests,
(c) to regulate combat sport contests on a harm minimisation basis,
(d) to promote the development of the combat sport industry.
Per s 20 of the Act, industry participants (defined in s 6(1) of the Act to include trainers and managers, amongst others) are prohibited from carrying out any activities as such, unless they are registered with the Respondent. Section 21 further prohibits a person from holding out that they are an industry participant unless they are registered in the applicable class.
Per s 25(1)(b) of the Act, the Respondent may register an applicant as an industry participant if they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant, and if they satisfy any further requirement per the Combat Sports Regulation 2014 (NSW) (the Regulations).
Clause 18(c) of the Regulations provides that for the purpose of s 25(1)(e) of the Act, an applicant must have undertaken first aid training.
Section 25(2)(a) of the Act provides that the Respondent must refuse to register an applicant as an industry participant if it is not satisfied of the matters specified in s 25(1) of the Act.
Background
The Applicant is a boxing coach and has been involved in boxing for the last 19 years. A former competitor, the Applicant has been a promotor, trainer and second, and opened a small family-operated business, Grechys Boxing and Fitness in 2017.
The Applicant contravened s 92(b) of the Act by providing a first aid certificate to the Respondent, which he knew to be false or misleading, in December 2021.
The Applicant was further found to have contravened ss 20(1) and/or 20(2) of the Act by (i) participating as a trainer during a combat sports contest whilst unregistered, on 10 April 2021 (Illawarra Stadium, Berkeley) and 5 December 2021 (PCYC Hawkesbury); and (ii) carrying out activities as a Trainer-Amateur Boxing whilst unregistered by supervising the training or instruction of combatants in his capacity as owner of Grechys Boxing and Fitness during the period 4 December 2020-31 March 2022.
The Respondent cancelled the Applicant’s registration due to the Applicant’s contraventions of the Act, and on the basis that they considered that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be registered as an industry participant.
The Applicant sought a review of that decision, which was affirmed by the Tribunal on 31 March 2025: Grech v Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATAD 73. The Applicant then lodged a fresh registration application with the Respondent that same day, seeking registration as a Trainer and Second. That application was refused by the Respondent, a decision which was subsequently affirmed upon internal review (the Decision). That Decision is the subject of these proceedings.
Applicant’s case
The Applicant submits the correct and preferable decision was for the Respondent to grant his fresh application for registration as a Trainer and Second. His grounds for this review include the following:
(a)That he had already provided a valid first aid certificate to the Respondent.
(b)That he was advised by an officer of the Respondent that if he held a valid first aid certificate AND provided a clean police check, he would be entitled to be registered.
(c)That he accepted responsibility for his previous actions, and was extremely remorseful and committed to never contravening the Act again.
(d)That he has suffered, and continues to suffer, adverse personal and financial consequences through the Respondent’s refusal to grant the registration sought.
(e)That he is a respected and active contributor to his local community, raising significant funds for sick children and families, and providing free programs for students with additional needs.
(f)That he has not received any complaints or negative industry feedback, and is committed to responsible practice and adherence to all applicable regulations.
(g)That he has not been provided with any pathway or timeline for resolution, leaving him in limbo.
(h)That four years have elapsed since his contravention, and his positive changes and subsequent rehabilitation should be taken into account.
At the hearing, the Applicant acknowledged that he had been slow to take ownership and accountability of his past infractions, and expressed deep remorse and shame.
It appears that the Applicant genuinely understood that all that was needed to regain his registration was a current first aid certificate and a clean police check, even though the Respondent submitted that was an incorrect interpretation of the Applicant’s conversation with the Respondent’s officer.
The Applicant repeatedly referenced his lodgement of the false first aid certificate as ‘the incident’ despite being reminded that his registration was terminated and then refused, due to a pattern of non-compliance and multiple contraventions, in addition to that false first aid certificate.
The Applicant conflated his circumstances to the matter of Ryan Waters, however the Respondent submitted that the facts of that matter differed significantly in terms of Mr Waters’ remorse and accountability, together with the fact that 18 months elapsed until his registration was reinstated.
The Applicant provided a list naming fourteen referees, however only provided two written references, and admitted that the referees had not been apprised of his contraventions prior to the provision of such references. The Tribunal noted that for a reference to have significant impact, the referee would need to address the conduct of the Applicant in the context of their knowledge and experience of his character generally. The Applicant submitted that he was too ashamed and embarrassed to tell his referees what he had done.
The Applicant submitted that he has been rehabilitated in the sense that he is fully aware of his obligations under the Act and is committed to never ‘cutting corners’ again.
Respondent’s case
The Respondent submitted that they made the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances, and that their Decision should be affirmed by the Tribunal, for the reasons briefly outlined as follows:
(a)The Applicant engaged in a sustained pattern of non-compliance with the Act, which endangered the health and safety of combatants, and undermined the objectives of the Act.
(b)The Applicant evinced contumelious disregard for the requirements of the Act.
(c)The Applicant has produced no evidence to demonstrate any attempt at rehabilitation or reform to his character since March 2025, such as to justify his re-registration after such a short period of time.
(d)Whilst the false first aid certificate was lodged in 2021, the contravention was not identified and investigated until 2024. At this time, additional instances of non-compliance were identified in respect of the Applicant’s participation in events unregistered, culminating in the termination of the Applicant’s registration in October 2024.
(e)The Tribunal, upon review of that termination decision, found that the Applicant’s conduct was extremely serious and involved dishonesty and a pattern of non-compliance with the Act, showing that the Applicant was not possessed of sufficient moral rectitude and integrity to hold registration pursuant to the Act.
(f)The Tribunal further found that his displays of remorse, fundraising and other worthy community contributions, did not displace the seriousness of his conduct or the risk he had posed to combatants.
(g)The Applicant did not accept responsibility for his actions, and continued to push a false narrative regarding his previous contraventions, until more recently.
At the hearing, the Respondent submitted that this was not an instance of one contravention or an isolated incident four years earlier, but a pattern of conduct that supported a finding that the Applicant lacked integrity and was not a fit and proper person. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s language, even throughout the hearing, suggests that he has not taken responsibility for the non-compliant conduct, outside of the false first aid certificate.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had been dishonest throughout their previous investigation, and made unsubstantiated complaints and allegations against their officers. The Respondent noted that having a current first aid certificate and a clean police check were required, but did not serve alone as minimum or automatic entry requirements for the grant of registration.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had persisted with a false account up until March 2025, and had consistently shown a willingness to circumvent the requirements of the Act where compliance was not convenient. The Respondent contended that the Applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest this pattern of behaviour would cease.
The Respondent made submissions prior to, and during the hearing, that the Applicant appears to have been involved, as recently as August 2025, in promoting a boxing event at his gym without registration, as his name and number were recorded on the Boxing Australia (NSW) website as the relevant contact. The Applicant submitted that his wife was the registered promoter and he did not know why his name and number were used as the contact for that event. The Respondent elected not to press that matter further.
The Respondent could not provide a timeline or pathway for when the Applicant might be eligible for registration, however submitted that lodging an application the very day the Tribunal affirmed the previous decision against him, was clearly too soon.
The Respondent submitted that if the Applicant is found by the Tribunal to be fit and proper, the public interest is still not served by his re-registration in the absence of any compelling rehabilitation.
Consideration
Health, safety and harm minimisation
As per s 3(a) and (c) of the Act, two of the overriding objectives of the Act are to ensure the health and safety of combatants, and to regulate combat sports contests on a harm minimisation basis. The requirement to hold a current and valid first aid certificate is directly relevant to ensuring that a trainer and/or a second is properly equipped to monitor and make decisions regarding the contemporaneous health and safety, and harm minimisation of combatants.
It is a matter of fact that the Applicant provided the Respondent with a false first aid certificate in 2021, but has since provided the Respondent with a valid first aid certificate, and had previously held a number of valid first aid certificates.
It is also a matter of fact that the Applicant has accumulated 19 years of experience in a variety of capacities, including as a combatant, trainer, corner and boxing gym operator.
Accordingly, I do not consider that the re-registration of the Applicant would conflict with the s 3(a) and (c) objectives, and I find that the Applicant has the requisite knowledge and training to reasonably facilitate the health and safety, and harm minimisation, of combatants.
Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered
The key issue in these proceedings is whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person such that he can be registered as a Trainer and/or Second.
Section 25(1)(b) of the Act provides for the Respondent to exercise a discretion in deciding whether to register an applicant if they are a fit and proper person to be registered. Section 25(2) of the Act provides that the Respondent “must refuse to register an applicant” if they are not satisfied of the matters in s 25(1) of the Act. This ties in with the objectives expressed in s 3 of the Act, notably s 3(b) to promote the integrity of combat sports contests.
The Act does not provide a definition of what is a ‘fit and proper person’. A number of cases however have given consideration to the term, and provide useful guidance.
In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that "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 ultimately a value judgement as to the weight given to the competing factors under consideration. As per Nakad at [32] “to be satisfied that a person is a 'fit and proper' person to engage in certain activities is an 'evaluative conclusion' or opinion based on primary facts”.
There is no onus of proof in merits review cases as noted in Bushell v Repatriation Commission [1992] HCA 47. As per Nakad at [34] “The Tribunal must decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to any relevant factual material”.
In Combat Sports Authority of NSW v Fisher [2022] NSWCATAP 387 (Fisher) at [50], the Appeal Panel noted “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’”. The Respondent submits that the Applicant should not be found to be a fit and proper person, but in the event the Tribunal determines otherwise, the Applicant’s registration should still be refused on the basis that it would undermine public confidence in the combat sports industry.
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.”
The Respondent’s material included the Respondent’s Code of Conduct, as well as a copy of their Fit and proper person guideline (5 April 2023) (the Guideline).
The decision as to whether a person is a fit and proper person “involves considering their overall suitability to carry out a proposed activity” as per section 5 of that Guideline. Factors which will be relevant include the person’s particular conduct, any positive considerations, the applicant’s knowledge of the rules applicable to the registration sought, as well as the overarching objectives of promoting the integrity and maintaining public confidence in the industry.
Section 6 of the Guideline includes additional factors which will be relevant, such as whether the applicant is an honest person, has a pattern of offending behaviour, has committed an offence in the course of their registered activity, and/or has a history of non-compliance.
Mitigating factors, per s 7 of the Guideline, include a demonstration of remorse and insight and elapsed time, as well as other factors.
In assessing the Applicant’s fresh registration application and reviewing the refusal thereof, the Respondent relied on the fact that the Applicant had not yet had an opportunity to rehabilitate, no time had elapsed since the Tribunal’s determination, and the Applicant had not yet displayed sufficient remorse or insight into his conduct.
As at the time of hearing the Applicant’s application, it was clear that the Applicant has since gained some insight into his conduct, and is extremely remorseful about his past dishonesty.
Conversely, it was also apparent that the Applicant considered sufficient time had elapsed because he was counting it from the time of the first aid certificate offence perpetrated in 2021, rather than the time where he was investigated and sanctioned, in 2024.
Further, the Applicant had to be continually reminded throughout the hearing, that this was not one isolated incident (the first aid certificate) as he persisted in characterising the matter, but rather a pattern of non-compliance involving several breaches (training combatants whilst unregistered) of the registration provisions. The Applicant expressed regret that he had ‘cut corners’ when it was inconvenient to comply with the Act, whilst the Respondent expressed concern that the impulsive nature of these infractions suggests a likelihood of recurrence.
This was made plain in the Tribunal’s decision of 31 March 2025. At the hearing before me, the Applicant said he had not read that decision, a fact which indicates an unwillingness on his part to fully take on board his past contraventions.
Unlike the Applicant’s interactions with the Respondent with regard to the previous investigation and proceedings, the Applicant presented as honest and accountable in these proceedings. He acknowledged that his infractions did not emanate from ignorance of the applicable legal and regulatory requirements or any inexperience, but rather a lack of commitment to compliance with his obligations. He further acknowledged that he had not apprised his referees of his previous infractions, due to shame and embarrassment, and accepted that those references would therefore not carry the weight he had hoped.
In terms of positive considerations, I find that the Applicant has displayed genuine contrition, insight and ownership of some of his past conduct, and understands the consequences of any future non-compliance. This does suggest there has been some rehabilitative progress, in the months since the Tribunal last gave consideration to the Applicant’s suitability for registration.
The Applicant is in this position because he exhibited an impulsive and possibly disdainful disregard for compliance with requirements which were known and understood. There was an inference from the matters raised, though not pressed, by the Respondent, that the Applicant may still be acting to circumvent the strict limitations of his unregistered status through his continuing proximity to his family gym. I make no findings in this regard.
I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant should have allowed more time to elapse between the events of 2024 and the Tribunal’s subsequent determination against him, and his fresh application. This was explained by the Applicant’s desperation to return to his business, and his belief (mistaken or otherwise) that his registration would be successful upon presentation of a current first aid certificate and a clean police check.
There is a sense from the Applicant’s submissions that he considers registration to be a right or entitlement, however it should rather be considered a privilege. The objects of the Act, and the underlying Guidelines, place great importance on the honesty and integrity of participants in the industry. Accordingly, the Respondent has a discretion to weigh up competing factors in their determination of a person’s suitability for participation in the industry.
There remains compelling support for the previous decisions of the Respondent and the Tribunal, based on the combination of the Applicant’s past conduct, as well as his previous dishonesty and lack of accountability in relation thereto.
At [80] of Fisher, the Appeal Panel stated: “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”. Similarly, in Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 at [73], the Tribunal noted “that financial disadvantage or hardship is not relevant to the assessment of a person’s fitness and propriety.”
Whilst the consequences and hardship he has suffered as a result of his past conduct are not, and cannot be, factors in my decision, I do believe they comprise factors in his rehabilitation, and his commitment to future compliance.
Conclusion
There were a number of competing factors informing this decision, as summarised in the following paragraphs.
I find that the Applicant’s remorse, honesty and accountability during the course of these proceedings demonstrate some measure of rehabilitation and commitment to future compliance. I further find that his charity work and contribution to his local community demonstrate positive aspects to his character.
However, I find that these matters are, on balance, outweighed by (i) the lack of time which has elapsed since the Applicant embraced an honest and remorseful approach to his past conduct (ii) the Applicant’s demonstrated and persistent lack of insight into, or acknowledgement of, the relevance and materiality of his past history of non-compliance, separate to the falsified first aid certificate; and (iii) the serious nature of the Applicant’s pervasive lack of integrity in relation to his obligations under the Act, Regulations and Code of Conduct, displayed throughout the period 2021-2024.
The Applicant’s failure to disclose his past infractions to his referees means that I am unable to ascribe significant weight to the two references provided.
Whilst I consider that there is little to no risk that the Applicant would submit another falsified first aid certificate, I do not feel confident drawing that conclusion about the Applicant’s likelihood of future non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, Regulations or Code of Conduct generally, at this point in time.
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 as a Trainer or Second under the Act, and therefore the Tribunal is of the view that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.
Orders
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
0
6
3