Kenjad Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kenjad Trust and Secretary, Department of Social Services
[2022] AATA 2999
•14 September 2022
Kenjad Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kenjad Trust and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 2999 (14 September 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Numbers: 2021/1287, 2021/1288, 2021/1289, 2021/1290
Re:Kenjad Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kenjad Trust
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:14 September 2022
Place:Sydney
In each of the matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288, 2021/1289 and 2021/1290, the reviewable decision is affirmed.
....................................[sgd]....................................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
National Rental Affordability Scheme — breach of NRAS Regulations — decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)
National Rental Affordability SchemeAct 2008 (Cth)
CASES
D’Arro v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCA 90
SECONDARY MATERIALS
National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2020 (the Regulations)
Explanatory Statement, National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
14 September 2022
Introduction
In each of the matters 2021/1887, 2021/1888, 2021/1089 and 2021/1099, the reviewable decision was that the Applicant, Kenjad Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kenjad Trust, has committed an individual breach under subsection 24(1) of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) on a number of grounds.
Outline of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS)
The following brief outline of the NRAS is distilled from the information on the NRAS web-site to which the Applicant referred, and from the statement of Ms Jessica Tenn, Assistant Director, Program Monitoring and Compliance, Housing and Homelessness Program Delivery, Department of Social Services.
The NRAS seeks to address the shortage of affordable rental housing by providing a substantial annual tax-free incentive, called the NRAS incentive, to the business sector and community organisations who build and rent dwellings to low and moderate income households, at a rate that is at least 20 per cent below the prevailing market price.
The incentive comprises an Australian Government contribution per dwelling, paid as a refundable tax offset or payment, and a State or Territory Government contribution, in direct or in-kind financial support. The NRAS offers annual incentives for up to 10 years (the incentive period).
Approved participants are eligible to receive the NRAS incentive for each approved dwelling where the conditions of allocation for the dwelling are met including that they are rented to eligible low and moderate income households at a rate that is at least 20 per cent below market value rent. Approved participants are usually property developers, not for profit organisations and community housing providers.
The NRAS aims to encourage large-scale investment in affordable housing (usually 100 or more houses). It is not directly available to small-scale, private, individual investors in the rental property market. These investors can become involved by investing in entities that participate directly in the scheme, for example, through a superannuation fund or property trust or through purchasing individual properties from an approved participant.
Approved participants are responsible for managing NRAS dwellings and ensuring the dwellings are compliant with the Regulations. Approved participants are also responsible for passing on incentives, rental payments, and State and Territory contributions to investors.
The Applicant is an NRAS Approved Participant. Each of the decisions under review relates to a property owned by an investor who entered into an agreement with the Applicant in 2011 or 2014 for the Applicant to manage the property in accordance with the NRAS.
The evidence
There was extensive documentary evidence before the Tribunal, including correspondence between the Applicant and each of the investors, between each of the investors and the Respondent and between the Applicant and Respondent, as well as other information including downloads from the NRAS web-site. Each of the property owners or a representative provided a written statement.
Mr Geoffrey Landrey represented the Applicant. He had communicated with the Respondent on behalf of the Applicant in relation to each matter, provided various written submission documents, and gave oral evidence. Ms Jessica Tenn provided statements dated 28 May 2021, 23 July 2021 and 22 October 2021, and gave oral evidence.
Both parties provided a number of documents setting out their arguments before and after the hearing. The Schedule to the Respondent’s Outline of Written submissions dated 22 October 2021 set out a comprehensive summary of the rent obligations, incentives and communications relied on in respect of each investor as grounds for the individual breaches. Part E of the Schedule which related to the investor in matter 2021/1290 was replaced by a table included in the Respondent’s Amendments to Outline of Written Submissions, the Schedule and SFIC, dated 1 November 2021.
The issues
By the time of the hearing, the issues relied upon by the Applicant were:
(a) In matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288 and 2021/1289, was the dwelling in each case no longer in the scheme because the agreement between the Applicant and the investor had ended and therefore the Secretary of the Department had no jurisdiction to determine a breach under the Regulations?
(b) Did the Regulations operate with the effect that conduct that occurred before the Regulations came into force on 1 April 2020 could found a breach under the Regulations?
(c) Was it a fatal flaw in the Respondent’s argument that payment of the incentive was to the Applicant and not to the investor?
If the Applicant is successful in respect of (a), issues (b) and (c) will only apply to matter 2021/1290.
The Act and the Regulations
Provisions of the Act
The following definitions are found in section 4 of the National Rental Affordability SchemeAct 2008 (Cth):
“allocation”, in relation to an incentive period, means an allotment to an approved participant of an entitlement to receive an incentive for a rental dwelling in relation to an NRAS year that falls within the incentive period if conditions are satisfied in relation to the rental dwelling.
“incentive period” means a 10 year period that starts on or after 1 July 2008.
“investor”, in relation to a rental dwelling covered by an allocation, means a person:
(a) who is the legal or beneficial owner of the rental dwelling; and
(b) who is not an approved participant in relation to the rental dwelling.
“rental dwelling” means a dwelling for which rent is payable and includes… (specifies types of dwelling)
Sections 5 to 8 of the Act provide for the Regulations to prescribe the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Sub-section 6(f) and 6(g) of the Act provide that the NRAS may provide for the protection of investors and the rights of investors.
The Secretary of the Department (the Respondent) is relevantly the regulator of the NRAS. The term ‘the Respondent’ in this decision includes officers of the Department carrying out duties in relation to the NRAS.
Provisions in the Regulations
The Regulations came into force on 1 April 2020 except sections 75 and 78. The previous regulations in force under the Act will be referred to as the 2008 Regulations.
Section 5 of the Regulations contains the following definitions:
approved participant, for a rental dwelling covered by an allocation, means the holder of the allocation for the dwelling.
approved participants code of conduct has the meaning given by subsection 27(1).
compliance breach has the meaning given by subsection 24(3).
individual breach has the meaning given by subsection 24(1).
eligible tenant has the meaning given by subsections 41(2) and (3).
Relevantly, subsection 41(3) provides that eligible tenants cease to be eligible tenants if they cease to be tenants of a rental dwelling covered by an allocation, or their combined gross income exceeds a specific percentage measure in two consecutive eligibility years or a person joins the household whose income exceeds a certain limit. Section 11 provides that no incentive is available for any period during which the dwelling is rented to a tenant who is not an eligible tenant.
Part 2 of the Regulations provides for allocations. Division 4 of Part 2 provides for transfer or revocation of an allocation not because of breach. That includes transfer by the Secretary of an allocation to another rental dwelling on the application of the approved participant, transfer to another person on the application of an approval participant, or of provisional allocation on the Secretary’s own initiative, and revocation on application by the approved participant.
Division 5 addresses transfer or revocation because of breach. Subdivision A provides for determinations of breaches and includes the following.
Section 24 of the Regulation provides:
(1) The Secretary may, in writing, determine that the approved participant for a rental dwelling covered by an allocation has committed an individual breach if the Secretary is satisfied that the approved participant:
(a) is the subject of an insolvency event; or
(b) has breached the approved participants code of conduct in relation to the dwelling; or
(c) has committed a compliance breach in relation to the dwelling.
Note: A decision under this subsection is reviewable by the AAT (see section 71).
(2) The approved participant breaches the approved participants code of conduct if the approved participant fails to comply with the code.
(3) The approved participant commits a compliance breach if:
(a) the approved participant fails to comply with the Act or this instrument (other than the approved participants code of conduct); or
(b) the approved participant contravenes a condition of the allocation.
Relevantly, s 27 provides
(1) The approved participants code of conduct is set out in subsection (2).
(2) The approved participant for a rental dwelling:
(a)must comply with legal obligations relating to investors in a timely manner; and
…
(d)must respond to a communication from an investor within 30 days, unless the approved participant has a reasonable excuse; and
…
(g) must not make a misrepresentation to an investor; and
..
(l) must not require an investor to enter into an arrangement with another person in relation to the dwelling, unless the arrangement relates to a property management service provider and the approved participant is able to ensure that the provider (complies with the (l)(i) to (vii)) and
(m) if the approved participant requires the investor to enter into an
arrangement as mentioned in paragraph (l)—must ensure that the property management service provider acts in accordance with subparagraphs (1)(i)
to (vii).
Subdivision B sets out procedures for making determinations of breaches. Section 28 provides that the Secretary may determine a breach on its own initiative or on a transfer request by an investor for the allocation to be transferred because of a breach. Section 29 provides that an investor may request for the allocation to be transferred because the approved participant has committed a breach (individual, serious or disqualifying) and how that request must be made.
Subdivision C of the Regulations provides for transfers or revocation of allocations because of breach (s 32). Section 32 only applies if this Tribunal has confirmed the Secretary’s decision to make a determination or the period for making an application for review to the Tribunal has expired.
Division 6 of Part 2 sets out general rules for transfers of allocations.
Part 3 of the Regulations addresses market value rent. Part 4 has one provision, s 41, which sets out the requirements in respect of eligible tenants. Part 5 is about demonstrating compliance. Part 6 deals with incentives.
Part 7 of the Regulations set out he obligations to investors and includes sections 63 and 64 which provide:
63 Approved participant’s obligations to investors
The approved participant for a rental dwelling is required to pass on an incentive
or State or Territory contribution to an investor if, at the time when the incentive
or contribution is given to the approved participant, the approved participant or
an associated party has a legal obligation:
(a) to pass on to the investor any payment or benefit (including rent) relating to
the dwelling; or
(b) to take steps to enable the investor to claim a tax offset to which the
investor is entitled under Division 380 of the Income Tax Assessment Act
1997 in relation to the incentive; or
(c) to make an election under section 380-11 or 380-16 of the Income Tax
Assessment Act 1997 in relation to the incentive.
64 Obligation to pass on incentives or State or Territory contributions in a
timely manner
(1) This section applies if:
(a) an approved participant:
(i) is given an incentive or State or Territory contribution; and
(ii) is required to pass on all or part of the incentive or contribution to an investor (whether under an arrangement or otherwise); or
(b) a gaining approved participant is required to give an investor an incentive that has been redirected under Division 3 of Part 6.
(2)The approved participant or gaining approved participant must comply with the requirement before the earliest of the following:
(a) if a legal obligation requires the incentive or contribution to be passed on within a particular period (however described)—the end of that period;
(b) 90 days after the approved participant is given the incentive or contribution.
The transitional provisions in Part 9 of the Regulations will be considered later in respect of the second issue.
The alleged breaches occurred before the Regulations came into force on 1 April 2020.
The reviewable decisions
In matter 2021/1287, the individual breach was determined on 5 February 2021 on the following grounds:
a) failing to pass on rent due under a legal obligation set out in the Deed of Agreement with the investor (paragraph 27(2)(a));
b) failing to respond to a communication from an investor within 30 days, without a reasonable excuse (paragraph 27(2)(d)); and
c)failing to pass on incentives or state or territory contributions in a timely manner (subsection 64(2)), owed to the investor under subsection 63(a).
In matter 2021/1288, the individual breach was determined on 19 February 2021 on the following grounds:
a) paragraph 27(2)(a) — this is based on failure to comply with legal obligations relating to investors in a timely manner;
b) paragraph 27(2)(m) — in requiring the investor to enter into an arrangement as mentioned in paragraph 27(2)(1). This is based on failure to ensure the property management service provider acts in accordance with subparagraphs 27(2)(1)(i) to (vii); and
c) section 64 — this is based on failure to pass on incentives or State or Territory contributions in a timely manner.
In matter 2021/1289, the individual breach was determined on 5 February 2021 on the following grounds:
a) failing to pass on rent due under a legal obligation set about in the Deed of Agreement with the investor (paragraph 27(2)(a));
b) making a misrepresentation to the investor through stating it would assign its obligations as an approved participant to Kenjad Rentals (paragraph 27(2)(g)); and
c) failing to pass on incentives or state or territory contributions in a timely manner (subsection 64(2)), owed to the investor under subsection 63(a).
In matter 2021/1290, the individual breach was determined 5 February 2021 on the following grounds:
a) failing to respond to a communication from an investor within 30 days, without a reasonable excuse (paragraph 27(2)(d)); and
b) failing to pass on incentives or state or territory contributions in a timely manner (subsection 64(2)) owed to the investor under subsection 63(a))
The Respondent did not press the first ground (a), found by the primary decision-maker. Ground (b) is a compliance breach for the purpose of section 24(3) of the Regulations and therefore an individual breach for the purpose of section 24(1)(c) of the Regulations.
The Respondent did posit further or in the alternative to (b) that the Applicant’s failure to pass on the State contributions within the period required by the deed is a failure to comply with legal obligations relating to investors in a timely manner as required by s 27(2)(a) of the Regulations and has therefore committed an individual breach for the purposes of ss 24(1)(b) and 24(2) of the Regulations.
I will not consider the Respondent’s alternative/further submission because the Applicant did not engage with it and the application or otherwise of the notice requirements in section 30 of the Regulations when an alternative breach is raised that was not the subject of a reviewable decision, was not addressed.
The property in matter 2021/1290 was in the Scheme at the time of the breach determination on 5 February 2021. The deed between the Applicant and the investor was dated 24 August 2011.
Consideration
In matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288 and 2021/1289, was the dwelling in each case no longer in the scheme because the agreement between the Applicant and the investor had ended and therefore the Secretary of the Department had no jurisdiction to determine a breach under the Regulations?
In matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288 and 2021/1289, the Applicant contended that the dwelling in each case was removed from the scheme no later than 30 April 2019 because the Applicant’s agreement with each of the investors had ended by that date and therefore the dwellings were removed from the scheme and no regulatory action could be taken by the Respondent.
This contention was put on various alternative or cumulative bases including:
·the dwelling was no longer rented to an eligible tenant;
·the dwelling was not a ‘rental dwelling’ as defined;
·the owners were no longer ‘investors’ as defined in the Act;
·the Respondent incorrectly characterised ‘dwelling’ and ‘allocation’ as the same thing;
·only an approved participant can provide a dwelling to the NRAS and the Applicant had no legal or physical capacity to provide the dwelling to the NRAS to rent to eligible tenants;
·the allocation remained with the approved participant but was ‘inactive’ because no rental dwelling is attached to it which was tenanted;
·the approved participant has no obligation to apply to revoke an allocation or to submit a formal transfer request until a substitute dwelling has been found.
The Regulations do not support the Applicant’s contention on any of the proposed bases. There is no provision that has that effect. An allocation is allotted to the approved participant, in this case the Applicant, and remains associated with the approved participant unless it is transferred or revoked under Division 4 or 5 of Part 2 of the Regulations or expires at the end of the incentive period.
Notwithstanding that the contractual relations between an approved participant and an investor may have ceased, the determination of an individual breach remains relevant to a request by the investor for an allocation in respect of a dwelling to be transferred to another person, as well as the Secretary’s discretion to transfer an allocation following a breach determination made on the Secretary’s own initiative (see ss 29 and 32 of the Regulations). Otherwise, an approved participant could avoid transfer of the allocation upon determination of breach by simply terminating the contractual relations with the investor. That cannot be the intention of the breach provisions or the Scheme generally, the object of which is to encourage large-scale investment in housing, including through protecting investors and providing rights to investors (sub-sections 3(1) and (2)(b) and (c) of the Act).
In matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288 and 2021/1289, the investor requested a transfer of the allocation on 24 April 2020, 30 June 2020 and 30 July 2019 respectively. There had been no transfer or revocation when the respondent made the decisions under review and nor had the incentive periods ended. It follows that the allocations were active when the reviewable decisions were made and when the Applicant’s conduct, the subject of the reviewable decisions occurred.
That the dwelling was rented by a real estate agent on 20 April 2020 in matter 2021/1287 does not mean that no application to transfer the allocation could have been made on 24 April 2020. The allocation was active.
The settlement of a legal action between the Applicant and the investor by a Deed of Settlement dated 29 January 2021 in matter 2021/1288 did not end the allocation of the dwelling.
An incentive is not payable in any particular NRAS year in respect of an allocation because it is active. The conditions for the allocation must be met in that year (see for example subsections 51(2) to (4) of the Regulations).
Did the Regulations operate with the effect that conduct before the Regulations came into force on 1 April 2020 could not found a breach under the Regulations?
The Applicant relied on two arguments to support the contention that the Regulations did not operate with the effect that conduct before the Regulations came into force on 1 April 2020 could found a breach under the Regulations.
The first was the construction of the provisions in Part 9 of the Regulations which is titled Application and transitional provisions and includes sections 73 to 79. The second relied on the operation of s 12 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) (the Legislation Act).
The Respondent made ‘cascading’ submissions. That is, if I did not accept the first submission, I should consider the next, and so on.
The Explanatory Memorandum helpfully explains that the Regulations repeal and replace the 2008 Regulations which would otherwise ‘sunset’ under the Legislation Act on 1 April 2020. As explained at [15] the NRAS is prescribed by the Regulations. There is no NRAS if there are no regulations.
The construction of the provisions in Part 9 of the Regulations
The Applicant contended that the only provisions of Part 9 of the Regulations which operate retrospectively are sections 75 and 78 which are not relevant to this decision. Section 75 commenced on 1 May 2017 and section 78 commenced on 1 March 2018.
As the Explanatory Memorandum succinctly explains:
Despite their retrospective commencement, sections 75 and 78 will not operate to disadvantage the rights of any persons. Rather, these sections will have a beneficial impact on approved participants (and any associated investors) who may otherwise receive no incentive because of inadvertent overcharges of rent (that occurred on or after 1 May 2017), or because of a failure to meet the requirements for redirection under the previous regulations.
Before considering the provisions explicitly in contention, section 6 of the Regulations is relevant. It provides:
(1) No further allocations are available under the Scheme on or after 1 April 2020.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 7(1) of the Act, an allocation:
(a) made under the previous regulations; and
(b) in force immediately before 1 April 2020;
has effect for the purposes of this instrument (and may be dealt with) as if it had been made under this instrument.
Section 73 of the Regulations relevantly provides:
(1) If:
(a) a thing was done, or arose, for a particular purpose under the previous regulations; and
(b) the thing could be done, or could arise, for that purpose under this instrument;
the thing has effect for the purposes of this instrument (and may be dealt with) as if it had been done, or had arisen, for that purpose under this instrument.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a reference in that subsection to a thing being done, or arising, includes a reference to each of the following:
(a) an entitlement to incentive arising under the previous regulations;
(b) a request made under the previous regulations by an investor for an allocation to be transferred;
(c) a determination of breach under the previous regulations;
(d) a decision, payment, incentive, notice, application or other instrument being given or made.
Note 1: An allocation made under the previous regulations may have additional special conditions imposed on it, or be transferred, revoked or otherwise dealt with, under this instrument (see subsection 6(2)).
Note 2: Subsections (1) and (2) confirm that things can be done under this instrument in reliance on things done under the previous regulations. For example:
(a) if an amount of incentive is still to be given on 1 April 2020, the entitlement to the incentive is treated as if it arose under this instrument and could result in a reduction of the amount before it is given under this instrument; or
(b) if an investor request for transfer is still to be dealt with on 1 April 2020, the request is treated as if it had been made under this instrument and could result in a transfer under this instrument; or
(c) if, on 1 April 2020, a decision about redirecting an incentive is still to be made following a determination of breach that has been made, the determination of breach is treated as if it had been made under this instrument and could result in a redirection under this instrument.
Note 3: Other examples of the effect of subsection (1) are as follows:
…
Section 77 of the Regulations provides:
To avoid doubt, a reference in this instrument to:
(a) a breach, or suspected breach, (however described); or
(b) circumstances giving rise to such a breach or suspected breach (however
described);applies to such a breach, suspected breach or circumstances whether happening before, on or after 1 April 2020.
Relying on section 73 of the Regulations, the Applicant contended that:
(a) the Respondent had to have acted before 1 April 2020 so that a matter was on foot on 1 April 2020, for example by having given notice to the Applicant of a suspected breach, and consistently with that submission;
(b) the relevant conduct had to constitute a breach under the regulations in force at the time of that conduct and under the Regulations.
Because of the Applicant’s view that each of the dwellings in matters 2021/1287, 2012/1288 and 2021/1289 was not in the NRAS on 1 April 2020, it made a separate submission in relation to proceedings 2021/1290 where the dwelling was in the NRAS on and after 1 April 2020.
I note that the dwelling in that matter did cease to be in the scheme on 23 August 2021 because the 10-year period had expired. The reviewable decision was made before then. No issue arose from those circumstances.
In matter 2021/1290, the Applicant contended that the alleged breaches were not raised with the Respondent until after 1 April 2020 and therefore the evidence about late payment of State incentives for four separative incentive years beginning FY16/17 was nugatory. It relied on a submission from the investor to the Respondent dated 10 January 2021 where the breaches were set out.[1]
[1] T50.
The investor had requested transfer of the allocation on 16 September 2019 and expressed in the submission hope for a reply ‘to close off this matter which has taken over 1 year to resolve’.
It is unnecessary to address the Applicant’s submission about matter 2021/1290 separately because of the conclusions I have come to.
The Respondent’s primary submission relied on section 77 of the Regulations. I accept that the presumption against retrospective operation is clearly rebutted by the express words of section 77.
Alternatively, the Respondent submitted that Regulations will not offend the presumption against retrospective operation if they have future consequences for events which occurred prior to the commencement of the Regulations, which is this case.[2]
[2] See D’Arro v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2017] QCA 90 at [23] and [27]-[35] and the cases cited therein.
If my finding that section 77 operates retrospectively is incorrect, I accept that section 77 does not offend the presumption against retrospective operation because the provision has future consequences for events which occurred before the Regulations commenced.
With respect to section 73 and if the above findings are incorrect, the 2008 Regulations contain provisions which support the Respondents’ individual breach determinations in each of the four proceedings. Those provisions are set out in the Schedule to the Respondent’s Outline of Written Submissions.
The Applicant’s second contention relied on s 12 of the Legislation Act. Subsection 12(1A) of that Act provides that ‘despite any principle of common law’ a legislative instrument may provide that the instrument or a provision of the instrument commences before the instrument is registered.
Subsection 12(2) of that Act provides that if a legislative instrument or a provision of it, commenced before the instrument is registered, the instrument or provision does not apply to a person if the person’s rights at the time of that registration would be affected so as to disadvantage the person or impose liabilities on the person in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before the instrument is registered. (Emphasis added.)
Section 2 of the Regulations provides that sections 1 to 74, 76, 77 and 79 and Schedule 1 of the Regulations commenced on 1 April 2020. The Regulations were registered on 20 March 2020. Section 12(2) of Legislation Act does not apply to those regulations. Sections 75 and 78 of the Regulations have been addressed above.
Was it a fatal flaw that payment of the incentive was to the Applicant and not to the investor?
During oral submissions, the Applicant said that it was to receive the payment of the incentive and not the investor and there was no provision in the contract for the investor to receive the incentive which was a fatal flaw in the Respondent’s argument.
An approved participant for a rental dwelling covered by an allocation is entitled to receive an incentive pursuant to Part 6 of the Regulations. Each of the agreements in issue was made by the Applicant as an approved participant under the Act and stated that the parties were bound by the Act and 2008 Regulations.
The Applicant did not demonstrate that this claim answered any of the breaches that have been found.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I have concluded that the reviewable decision in each matter should be affirmed. In matter 2021/1290 only one of the two grounds on which the decision was made was relied upon. However, that does not affect the reviewable decision which is that there has been an individual breach pursuant to section 24(1) of the Regulations.
DECISION
In each of the matters 2021/1287, 2021/1288, 2021/1289 and 2021/1290, the reviewable decision is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 73 (seventy-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
......................................[sgd]..................................
Associate
Dated: 14 September 2022
Dates of hearing: 1 & 2 November 2021 Date final submissions received: 10 November 2021 Applicant Representative: Mr Geoffrey Landrey Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Jamie Stephenson Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Matthew Sheedy, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0
1
0