Mesarich and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2025] ARTA 1004
•15 July 2025
Mesarich and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1004 (15 July 2025)
Applicant/s: Beverley Janice Mesarich
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2025/3350
Tribunal:General Member J. Pennell
Place:Melbourne
Date:15 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal revokes the decision under review.
.............................[sgd]...........................................
General Member J. Pennell
Catchwords
MIGRATION – visa cancellation revoked – Class TY Subclass 444 Category (Temporary) Visa – Migration Act 1958 s 501(3A), s 501CA(4), s 501(6) – character test – direction 110 – protection of the Australian community – risk to the Australian community – strength, nature and duration of ties to the Australian community – risk of impediments if returned – legal consequences of decision – decision revoked.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454; [2019] FCAFC 185
Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ERY19 [2021 FCAFC 133
Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 303; (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409; [2014] FCA 303
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 125
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA
Statement of Reasons
This is an application to review the decision dated 22 April 2025 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Minister’) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa (‘the visa’) pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). The delegate found that the applicant did not pass the character test and was not satisfied that there was another reason why the cancellation of the visa should be revoked.
The applicant was born on 19 March 1985 (40 years old) and is a citizen of New Zealand. She first arrived in Australia on 20 August 2012 (aged 27 years) as the holder of the visa.[1] The applicant has resided in Australia since 27 January 2013.[2]
[1] G26, 161.
[2] Ibid.
On 19 January 2023 the applicant was convicted of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (methylamphetamine) and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment (‘the index offence’).[3] The applicant will be eligible for parole on 18 September 2025.[4]
[3] G8, 48.
[4] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [11].
On 6 August 2024, the applicant’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that she had a substantial criminal record.[5]
[5] G27, 162-167.
On 2 September 2024, the applicant made representations to have the cancellation revoked under section 501CA of the Act.[6]
[6] G5, 32; G9, 59-62.
On 22 April 2025, the delegate found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act was not enlivened (‘non-revocation decision’).[7] The applicant was notified of the non-revocation decision on 23 April 2025.[8]
[7] G4, 31.
[8] G3, 22-24.
On 30 April 2025, the applicant sought review of the non-revocation decision.[9] The applicant seeks that the Tribunal exercise its discretion under s 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) to revoke the non-revocation decision.
[9] G2, 5-19.
The Tribunal hearing was held on 2 July 2025 via MS Teams. The applicant attended the hearing by video from Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison to give evidence in support of her application. The applicant was represented at the hearing by Mr Sklarz of Sklarz Lawyers. The respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr Dietrich of MinterEllison.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the Minister’s decision should be revoked.
Relevant law
Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), obliges the Minister to cancel a visa granted to a non-citizen if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test. This includes if the non-citizen has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Minister is required under s 501CA(3) of the Act to provide notice of the cancellation decision as soon as practicable and invite the affected person to respond. Under s 496 of the Act, the Minister may delegate these powers.
Section 501CA(4) allows for the revocation of a decision under subsection 501(3A) of the Act. Relevantly s 501CA(4) states:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation should be revoked following that evaluative exercise, the Tribunal must revoke the original visa cancellation decision.
Section 501(6) of the Act defines the ‘character test’. Relevantly, in part, s 501(6) states:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7))
Section 501(7) provides that a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
If an Applicant fails the character test, the issue to be determined under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is whether the discretion to revoke the cancellation decision is enlivened by the Tribunal’s satisfaction that there is ‘another reason’ to do so.[10] In Plaintiff M1/2021,[11] the High Court referred to how representations made under s 501CA(4) of the Act should be approached (citations omitted):
22.Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act confers a wide discretionary power on a decision maker to revoke a decision to cancel a visa held by a non-citizen if satisfied that there is “another reason” why that decision should be revoked. The statutory scheme for determining whether the decision-maker is satisfied that there is “another reason” for revoking a cancellation decision commences with a former visa holder making representations. In determining whether they are satisfied that there is “another reason” for revoking a cancellation decision, the decision-maker undertakes the assessment by reference to the case made by the former visa holder by their representations.
…
25.It is also well-established that the requisite level of engagement by the decision-maker with the representations must occur within the bounds of rationality and reasonableness. What is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for a valid exercise of power will necessarily depend on the nature, form, and content of the representations. The requisite level of engagement – the degree of effort needed by the decision-maker – will vary, among other things, according to the length, clarity, and degree of relevance of the representations. The decision-maker is not required to consider claims that are not clearly articulated, or which do not clearly arise on the materials before them.
[10] Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 285 FCR 187, [3]-[5] (Katzmann J); [24] (Derrington J); [103] (O’Bryan J).
[11] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 (‘Plaintiff M1/2021’), [22]-[27] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ).
Direction 110
On 7 June 2024, Direction No. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (‘Direction 110’) came into effect. Direction 110 sets out the principles that provide a framework within which a decision maker should approach the task of deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant a visa or revoke mandatory cancellation decisions. It is binding on the Tribunal in performing its functions or exercising powers under s 501 of the Act.
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, including whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation.
The primary considerations in making a decision under ss 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4) are detailed in paragraph 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5) expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of Direction 110 details other considerations, where relevant, that must be considered. These are:
a) legal consequences of the decision;
b) extent of impediments, if removed;
c) impact on Australian business interests
A decision-maker is required to give greater weight to primary considerations under paragraph 8 than to other considerations pursuant to paragraph 9. In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[12] Colvin J when considering an earlier Direction[13] stated:
Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the ‘other considerations’ (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given ‘appropriate weight’. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are ‘normally’ given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both ‘primary’ and ‘other considerations’. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.
[12] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, [23].
[13] Direction 65.
The issues before the Tribunal are:
(a) does the applicant pass the character test, as defined in s 501 of the Act? If not;
(b) is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked?
Documents
The following statements were provided to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s application for review:
(a) Applicant’s statement entitled ‘Reasons for Requesting Revocation’. [14]
(b) Statement by the applicant dated 9 September 2024.[15]
(c) Statement by the applicant dated 18 November 2024.
(d) Statement by Melissa Velda dated 26 May 2025.[16]
(e) Statement by the applicant dated 11 June 2025.[17]
(f) Statement by eldest daughter dated 9 June 2025.[18]
(g) Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 June 2025.
(h) Applicants Reply to Respondent’s Submissions dated 27 June 2025.
(i) Applicant’s Further Submissions.
[14] G11, 77-90.
[15] G21, 139-143.
[16] HB, 312-313.
[17] Ibid, 309-311.
[18] Ibid, 306-308.
In addition, the Tribunal was provided with:
(a) Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 23 June 2025.
(b) Respondent’s Supplementary Documents.
(c) G Documents.
(d) Hearing Book.
The character test
The character test is defined under s 501(6) of the Act. It provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined in s 501(7) of the Act. Relevantly, s 501(7)(c) of the Act provides that a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more or have been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.[19]
[19] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(7).
In this case, the applicant was sentenced to a term of 4 years’ imprisonment for the index offence. The applicant concedes that she does not pass the character test for the purposes of the Act due to having been convicted of the index offending and sentenced to a period of 5 years’ imprisonment.[20]
[20] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [11].
Based on the applicant’s own admission and the documentation provided, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not pass the character test and that the requirements of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) are not met.
Whether there is another reason the visa cancellation decision should be revoked
The issue for the Tribunal is, therefore, whether there is another reason the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be revoked. The Tribunal is required to have regard to Direction 110 in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation decision.
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 provides that when considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal is required to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.[21] In addition, it provides that the Tribunal give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct and the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in further serious conduct.[22]
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
[21] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1(1).
[22] Ibid, paragraph 8.1(2).
In considering the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending or other serious conduct, the Tribunal is required to consider those factors detailed in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110. The Direction indicates that violent crimes are viewed seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
In this case, the applicant was convicted of the index offending by the District Court of Western Australia on 19 January 2023. The applicant’s criminal history report shows that her criminal history in Australia occurred over a relative short time frame from 2021 to 2023.[23] The applicant’s convictions include:
(a)On 19 January 2021 the applicant was convicted and fined for five speeding offences (Exceed speed limit between 10 and 19km/h (four counts); Exceed speed limit by not more than 9km/h (one count)).
(b)On 19 January 2023 the applicant was convicted of the index offending, Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine) (three counts) and Offer to sell or supply a prohibited drug to another (one count).
(c)On 1 February 2023 the applicant was convicted and fined for possession of prohibited drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property and breach of bail.
[23] G6, 43-44.
In addition, the applicant was convicted of one count of Burgles (Oth Prop) (Over $5,000) in New Zealand on 25 June 2008 (‘the New Zealand offence’).[24] The applicant claims that at the time of the New Zealand offence she was 21 years old and working at a bar of a sports recreation club. The applicant claims that Andre Mesarich used her car to burgle the club and steal $20,000 cash. The applicant’s evidence was that while she was driving her car with Andre Mesarich as a passenger she was pulled over by the police, a result of which both she and Mr Mesarich were charged with burglary. While she denies being involved in the burglary, she admits to pleading guilty to the charge.[25]
[24] G7, 45.
[25] Applicant’s Further Submissions.
As to the applicant’s speeding offences, the applicant was convicted and fined for five speeding offences that appeared to have been incurred in or about the time of the applicant’s index offending. While the Tribunal notes that the traffic laws are in place to protect road users and other members of the public in the interests of community safety,[26] it appears that the applicant has committed the offences at about the time of the index offending. That is, at a time when she was using drugs and under duress because of her ex-husband’s drug debt. The applicant does not have any other traffic offences other than those listed. That is, she has not demonstrated a flagrant or prolonged disregard for the law in committing the traffic offences. Accordingly, the Tribunal places little weight as to the seriousness of the applicant’s speeding offences.
[26] MJNN and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 3205, [54]-[55] (Senior Member Evans).
The circumstances of the applicant’s index offending[27] were that on 25 March 2020, she was a front seat passenger in a vehicle that was intercepted and searched by police. During a search of the vehicle the police found $8,060.00 in a backpack located in the front passenger seat footwell. As a result, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to sell or supply and the vehicle was seized. Investigators executed a search warrant on the vehicle and located 69.27 grams of methylamphetamine.
[27] G8, 50.
The remaining of the applicant’s convictions relate to the Offer to sell or supply a prohibited drug to another conviction that resulted from the police recording four of the applicant’s telephone calls with an associate during which she planned to sell methylamphetamine and cocaine.[28] Two of these phone calls occurred in the weeks after the applicant's arrest on 25 March 2020, while she was on bail.
[28] Ibid, 51.
The Tribunal notes that the Judge in her sentencing remarks[29] noted the circumstances of the applicant’s offending. Her Honour noted that in early 2019 the applicant decided to leave her husband, Andre Mesarich, due to his escalating negative lifestyle, infidelity and increased use of drugs. Mr Mesarich had not accepted that the marriage was over and became violent towards her. In October 2019, Mr Mesarich broke the applicant’s wrist, cracked her ribs and strangled the applicant in front of her children.
[29] Ibid, 53-54.
Mr Mesarich was taken into custody in December 2019. The applicant’s evidence was that after Mr Mesarich’s arrest, she was approached at home and was advised that Mr Mesarich had a significant drug debt that she remained responsible to pay.[30] The applicant received the visit while her children were home. The applicant was informed that she was required to sell drugs to repay the debt. The applicant’s evidence was that she believed she had no other choice but to comply with the demand to sell the drugs in circumstances where it was known that she lived alone with three children. As a result, she committed the further offences in breach of her bail conditions between 25 March 2020 and 27 May 2022 for which she was convicted on 1 February 2023.[31]
[30] G21, 140.
[31] S1, 1.
During the sentencing remarks[32] the judge stated that the applicant’s offending was serious because of the weight of the methylamphetamine seized and the commercial nature of her offending. Her Honour noted that the greater the quantity of methylamphetamine seized, the greater the harm that would be inflicted on the community. Nevertheless, her Honour accepted that notwithstanding that the applicant’s offending was commercial, she had not led a lavish lifestyle and that she had a significant debt due to her ex-husband’s actions, for which the applicant had used proceeds from the sale of drugs to repay.
[32] G8, 55.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s criminal offending occurred over a relatively short period of time. Based on the findings of the sentencing judge, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that she was coerced into selling the drugs for the purposes of repaying Mr Mesarich’s debt. Nevertheless, by doing so she did display a complete disregard for the safety of the Australian community. As a result, based on the offences committed by the applicant and the sentencing remarks by the Court, the Tribunal finds the nature of the applicant’s conduct to be serious. As a result, the Tribunal places some weight on this consideration in favour of affirming the cancellation decision.
Risks to the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction 110 provides that in assessing whether the Applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i.information and evidence on the risk of the noncitizen re-offending; and
ii.evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence
In measuring the risk to the Australian community, guidance can be found in the decision of Mortimer J in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[33] Her Honour stated that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one must evaluate what the consequences of reoffending are as well as the likelihood of the person engaging in that conduct in the future.
[33] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection(2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673.
The Tribunal is required to assess the risk posed to the Australian community if the applicant reoffends, taking into consideration the nature of any harm and its probability. The courts have held that past actions are legitimate predictors of future behavior.[34] In Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924 Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) considered the notion of risk and its nexus to future possibility. Her Honour noted:[35]
That is, part of the Tribunal’s task was to decide not only whether the Applicant might engage in further offending conduct if he were permitted to stay, but what level of risk any such conduct might pose to the Australian community, the possible level of violence of the conduct being at least one measure (but not the only measure) of how serious the risk was, or whether the risk should be tolerated.
[34] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 (‘Guo’), [574]-[575]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ERY19 [2021] FCAFC 133, [81]; Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120, [63].
[35] Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924, [37].
In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo[36] the High Court considered the extent to which past events can be a guide to the future. The Court stated:
Past events are not a certain guide to the future, but in many areas of life proof that events have occurred often provides a reliable basis for determining the probability - high or low - of their recurrence.
[36] Guo (n 34), [574].
As such, in the process of determining the chance of something occurring in the future a conclusion will need to be formed concerning past events.[37] Assessing what is likely to happen in the future based on past events involves questions of degree. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo the Court held that:[38]
The extent to which past events are a guide to the future depends on the degree of probability that they have occurred, the regularity with which and the conditions under which they have or probably have occurred and the likelihood that the introduction of new or other events may distort the cycle of regularity…
[37] Ibid, [575].
[38] Ibid, [574]-[575].
The respondent submits that having regard to the downstream community impacts of commercial drug offending, any future offending of a similar nature would expose the Australian community to significant physical, psychological and financial harm. The Respondent submits that any such harm is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.[39]
[39] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1.2(1).
The applicant expressed her remorse for her offending to the Tribunal. By her statement dated 11 June 2025,[40] the applicant has expressed remorse for her offending, stating ‘I am genuinely remorseful that it was something I choose, and I believe my sentence in indicative of the fact that I am not a recidivist offender and the circumstances around my offending were mitigating factors’. By her statement dated 9 September 2024,[41] the applicant detailed the circumstances surrounding her offending. Her evidence was that following the arrest of her ex-partner, she was approached at her home and was advised that she would need to repay his significant drug debt and that her offending was a direct result of this duress.[42] The applicant’s evidence was consistent with the sentencing remarks made by the Judge in relation to her index offending.[43] It was accepted by her Honour that the applicant’s offending occurred in circumstances where she was under duress to sell the drugs for the purposes of repaying her ex-husbands debt.
[40] HB, 309-311.
[41] G21, 140.
[42] Ibid.
[43] G8, 53-54.
In addition, the Judge in her sentencing remarks[44] noted that she was satisfied that the applicant was making significant steps towards her rehabilitation. She noted that the applicant had been on bail for a significant period without reoffending. It was found that the applicant had taken complete responsibility for her offending and that she intended to regain the respect of the community, be a helpful member of the community and a mother to her three children.
[44] Ibid, 54.
On 20 April 2023 the applicant obtained a Family Violence Restraining order which was made against her ex-husband, Andre Mesarich, that amongst other matters restrains him from approaching or remaining with 10 meters of the applicant or behave in an intimidatory, offensive or emotionally abusive manner towards the applicant. The Tribunal notes that the order was made after the applicant’s conviction of the index offence and in circumstances where Mr Mesarich was in prison or immigration detention from 28 August 2020 until at least 14 March 2022.[45] The applicant’s evidence was that it was only after her ex-husband had been charged and incarcerated did she feel safe in obtaining the Family Violence order.[46] Based on the applicant’s evidence and the documentation provided, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that she was a victim of family violence as claimed.
[45] Mesarich v Minister forImmigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 430.
[46] G21, 141.
The applicant’s evidence was that her offending was largely attributable to her engagement with negative relationships, and particularly her marriage to Mr Mesarich. Nevertheless, her evidence was that she had utilised her time in prison effectively to address her behaviour that led to her drug use and criminal behaviour. The applicant provided evidence of engagement with rehabilitation programs during her incarceration, including the Cyrenian House – Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison Therapeutic Community Rehabilitation Program and the SMART Recovery Online Training.[47]
[47] G13, 93-94.
The Wandoo Therapeutic Community Program is an intensive program designed to address the behaviours, attitudes and beliefs that perpetuate substance abuse and criminal offending. The applicant’s Completion Report dated 15 January 2025[48] noted that she presented as open and motivated to address her substance use and maintained her level of motivation throughout the program. The report states[49] that her Treatment Assessment Report identified the applicant as scoring one on the Risk of Reoffending-Prison Version assessment screening tool. Given her low score no further assessment was indicated.
[48] S2, 68.
[49] Ibid, 66.
Nevertheless, the respondent submits that the applicant represents a continuing and significant risk to the community as she is not capable of identifying anti-social behaviours. The respondent referred to the Completion Report that records that the applicant’s current partner, Mr David Cooper, was banned from visiting the applicant at Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison for a period of six months for abusing prison staff.[50] The Completion Report states that while she agreed with the prohibition, the applicant did not admit to perceiving her partner’s behaviour as anti-social and maintained the relationship despite reportedly acknowledging that it was ‘not congruent with her core values’.[51] The Completion Report noted[52] that the applicant’s apparent inability to constructively reflect on her current relationship presented as a potential risk for the applicant. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that she has now distanced herself from Mr Cooper. Her evidence was that because they were in an early stage of their relationship, she had given Mr Cooper the benefit of the doubt. However, her evidence was that she has now distanced herself from Mr Cooper. She described their relationship as ‘fluid’ in circumstances where she has been incarcerated for an extended period. Her evidence was that they remain friends but are no longer in an intimate relationship. Her evidence was that her primary focus is her children and parenting her three daughters.
[50] Ibid, 68.
[51] Ibid.
[52] S2, 69.
In addition, the respondent submits that any rehabilitation the applicant has received has not been tested against the stressors of the unsupervised environment of the community and that she has outstanding treatment needs.[53] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s treatment has not been tested within the community. The Tribunal notes that the Completion Report[54] states that the applicant has been observed in making gains in identifying the impact of her substance abuse creating a relapse prevention plan, addressing consequential thinking deficit and unhelpful thinking styles, demonstrating improved decision-making skills and engagement in prosocial leisure pursuits. In addition, the report notes that she has commenced re-connecting with her prosocial biological family but that she had demonstrated underdeveloped assessment of relationships based on her relationship with Mr Cooper.
[53] Ibid, 72.
[54] Ibid.
In addition, the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s offending occurred over a relatively short period of time and in circumstances where she was subject to family violence and duress resulting from having to repay the drug debt of Mr Mesarich. Prior to her offending the applicant worked as the state manager of a national coffee distributor for 5 years and as an owner and operator of her own gardening and cleaning business, known as Voodoo Flora. The applicant provided copies of various qualifications she has obtained relating to her works as a landscape gardener. The applicant appears to have a strong prosocial network of friends within the community who all attest to her being hard working, kind and a person of good character. The applicant provided the Tribunal with several statements[55] from people known to her who confirmed that she was a responsible person within the community who had become affected by her husband’s violence and duress. Ms Lisa Pine, a Senior Child Protection Worker in Mandurah, Western Australia provided a statement[56] in which she states that she regularly attended the applicant’s home for social occasions, including their daughters’ playdates. She confirmed that the applicant was a victim of Mr Mesarich’s drug abuse and family violence and stated that she personally took the applicant to hospital because of the family violence inflicted on her. The applicant’s evidence was that if released from prison and permitted to remain in the community she has been offered accommodation and employment with her friend, Ms Michelle Lynch.[57] The applicant notes that if she is released on parole, she will continue to be subject to any conditions of parole.
[55] G24, 152-155; HB, 312-313.
[56] G24, 152.
[57] Ibid, 154.
The respondent submitted that even if the Tribunal found that the risk of the applicant offending was low, it is open for it to conclude that even a low risk of offending is unacceptable if the gravity of the harm that might eventuate is sufficiently serious.[58] However, any conclusion that a person represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community must be based on probative evidence concerning the risk, or likelihood, of the person committing an offence of a particular kind in the future.[59] That is, while the seriousness of the offence is a relevant factor in the Tribunal’s consideration, the Tribunal is also required to consider any other relevant factors in determining if the applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community including any information and evidence on the risk of any reoffending, any evidence of rehabilitation achieved and any time spent in the community since her most recent offence.[60]
[58] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446, [30].
[59] Ibid.
[60] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1.2.
In this case the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s offending occurred over a relative short time frame and in circumstances where she was subject to family violence and duress over her ex-husband’s drug debt. The applicant has been assessed as having a low risk of reoffending[61] and did not offend while on bail for an extended period.[62] In prison the applicant has genuinely engaged in rehabilitation programs during her incarceration, including the Cyrenian House – Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison Therapeutic Community Rehabilitation Program and the SMART Recovery Online Training. While the Tribunal accepts there is some risk the applicant will reoffend because of not being capable of identifying anti-social behaviours, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has made considerable gains in identifying the impact of her substance abuse, creating a prevention plan, addressing consequential thinking deficit thinking and unhelpful thinking styles, demonstrating improved decision-making skills and engagement in prosocial leisure pursuits.
[61] G23, 146.
[62] G8, 53-54.
Based on the above considerations, the Tribunal finds that there is a low risk to the Australian community that the Applicant will reoffend in the future. As a result, the Tribunal places some weight on this consideration in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. In this case, there is no evidence before the Tribunal indicating that the applicant engaged in acts of family violence. The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia.
Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 sets out factors to be considered in determining the strength, nature and duration of ties that the applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to:
a)how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b)the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 20 August 2012 (aged 27 years) as the holder of the visa,[63] and has resided in Australia since 27 January 2013.[64] In New Zealand the applicant completed High School, obtaining very high grades. She commenced a Veterinary Science degree at university but did not complete the degree due to breaking her shoulder in a horse-riding accident. The applicant married Andre Mesarich in New Zealand and travelled to Australia to build a future for herself and her children.[65] The applicant has three daughters. Her eldest two daughters who were born in New Zealand on 19 February 2009 and 25 October 2012.[66] The applicant’s youngest daughter was born in Australia on 29 September 2015.[67]
[63] G26, 161.
[64] Ibid.
[65] G21, 141.
[66] G14, 97.
[67] Ibid, 99.
The applicant has been in Australia for approximately 13 years. The applicant worked as a state manager for a national distributor of 5 years. She has also owned and operated a landscape gardening business and a cleaning business. For most of her children’s lives, they lived in a home purchased by the applicant in Baidivis, Western Australia. The house has since been sold by the applicant.[68]
[68] Ibid, 85.
The applicant claims that all her friends and social links are in Australia. The applicant provided four letters of support from long term friends within Australia (Lisa Pine, Louise Whyte, Michelle Lynch and Lauren Heath) attesting to her good character and family values, as well as the impact domestic violence has had on her life.[69] Lauren Heath employed the applicant as a disability support worker and is also the mother to the applicant’s goddaughter.[70] Based on the applicant’s evidence and the statement provided, the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant has established genuine and enduring relationships in Australia as claimed and has made a positive contribution to the broader Australian community.[71]
[69] G24, 152-154.
[70] Ibid, 155.
[71] Direction 110, paragraphs 8.3(2)(a)(ii), 8.3(2)(b).
The applicant’s evidence was that her children have been returned to New Zealand pursuant to an order of the Family Court of Western Australia dated 27 April 2023 which granted parental responsibility to the applicant’s mother Carrol Shirley Lawrence.[72] The applicant’s evidence was that the order was made because of her incarceration, otherwise her children would have remained living in Australia with her. The applicant claims that if her cancellation decision is not revoked her children will not be able to return to Australia until they are adults. However, it’s her submission that if her cancellation decision is revoked her children will be able to return to Australia where they have strong ties to the community and where their education and development will be better served.
[72] G11, 86.
In addition, the applicant has given evidence that she has been in a serious relationship with her Australian citizen partner, Mr David Cooper, since 2022.[73] Mr Cooper’s adult daughter, Ms Kira Cooper, provided a statement in which she claimed the applicant had been a big part of their lives and that they would hate to see her not return to their home.[74] Mr Cooper also provided a statement in which he states that he had assumed the caring responsibilities for the applicant’s children following her incarceration and prior to their return to New Zealand.[75] In addition, he expressed his loyalty and commitment to the applicant and expressed a desire to open a café with her in the future.[76] However, as referred to above, the applicant’s evidence was that her relationship with Mr Cooper was now fluid. She stated that they are no longer in an intimate relationship but stated she expected that they would remain friends. Her evidence was that she was focused on her relationship with her children and being reunited with them upon her being released from prison. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence and finds that she is no longer in an intimate relationship with Mr Cooper, and that her relationship with him is one of friendship only. Nevertheless, he remains a person to whom the applicant has had close association and with whom she remains connected.
[73] G21, 141.
[74] G24, 150.
[75] G17, 103.
[76] Ibid.
As such the Tribunal finds that the applicant has ties to Australia and as such gives this consideration some weight in favour of revocation.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to determine, where relevant, whether revocation is in the best interests of any minor children in Australia. This provision applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time of the application.
In this case, the applicant submitted that her children are minors who may be affected by a non-revocation decision.[77]
[77] G10, 67.
In the applicant’s request for revocation of the cancelation of her visa made to the department the applicant also identified the grandchildren of Mr Cooper and her godchildren as minors who will be affected by a non-revocation decision.[78] Mr Cooper has three grandchildren. The applicant has two godchildren being the children of her friend, Ms Heath.
[78] Ibid, 69.
As to the applicant’s children, on 27 April 2023, the applicant’s parents (the children’s grandparents) were granted interim parenting responsibility for the applicant’s biological children by way of an order of the Family Court of Western Australia (‘family court order’).[79] As a result of the family court order the applicant’s children currently reside with the applicant’s parents in New Zealand. The Tribunal notes that as the applicant’s children are not in Australia, their best interests do not fall for consideration under this primary consideration. However, it is open for the Tribunal to consider the best interest of the applicant’s children as part of the ‘Other considerations’ under paragraph 9 of Direction 110.
[79] G25, 156-160.
As to Mr Cooper’s grandchildren, the applicant’s evidence was that her relationship with Mr Cooper was now ‘fluid’ in that they are no longer in an intimate relationship. Nevertheless, her evidence was that they remained friendly. Mr Cooper’s daughter Kira Cooper provided a statement[80] to the Tribunal in support of the applicant claiming that she had known the applicant for three years during which she had become a big part of her family’s life. The applicant’s evidence was that she did see the grandchildren once per week,[81] but that has become less because of her changed relationship with Mr Cooper. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Cooper has changed as claimed, based on the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal finds that her relationship with Mr Cooper as a friend will continue upon her release from prison and that she will continue to have contact with his grandchildren. Based on the applicant’s own evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Cooper’s grandchildren is non-parental and limited given the duration of their relationship. As such the Tribunal gives the applicant’s relationship with Mr Cooper’s grandchildren some weight in favour of revocation.
[80] G24, 150.
[81] G10, 70.
The applicant’s evidence was that she continues to see her godchildren every week.[82] The applicant was previously employed as a disability carer for the mother of her godchildren. There was no evidence that the applicant had been their primary care giver, or that she would assume such responsibility upon being released into the community. As such the Tribunal gives the applicant’s relationship with her godchildren some weight in favour of revocation.
[82] G10, 70.
As a result, the Tribunal places some weight on the best interests of the minor children in favour of revoking the delegate’s cancellation decision.
Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
Further, paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 provides that visa cancellation, refusal or non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. Finally, paragraph 8.5(3) states that this expectation applies regardless of whether the applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Critically, paragraph 8.5(4) states:
This consideration is about the expectation of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, the Federal Court stated that the paragraph imputed or ascribed to the whole of the Australian community is an ‘expectation that wholly aligns with the expectation of the executive government of the day in respect of its subject matter’.[83] Nevertheless, it remains an issue for the Tribunal as to the weight that should be given to this consideration in making its decision.[84] In doing so the Tribunal is required to consider the specific circumstance of the Applicant’s case.[85]
[83] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; 272 FCR 454 (‘FYBR’), [66]-[67], [91], [101], [104].
[84] Ibid.
[85] Kelly v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 396, [98]-[109] (Beach J).
The respondent submits that the applicant’s conduct is contrary to the expectations of the Australian community because the general expectation of the community is that it expects the Government will not allow non-citizens who have engaged in a serious breach of Australian laws to enter or remain in Australia.[86] The respondent submits that the community expectations apply regardless of whether the applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[87]
[86] Direction 110, paragraph 8.5(2).
[87] Ibid, paragraph 8.5(3).
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has committed a serious offence, she has been assessed as having a low risk of reoffending if released into the community. The Tribunal has placed great weight on the applicant’s background and the circumstances in which her index offending occurred. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s offending occurred over a relatively short period and in circumstances where she was subjected to family violence and under duress to repay her ex-husband’s drug debts. The applicant has previously been a responsible member of the community having been employed as the state manager of a coffee distribution company and owning and operating a landscape gardening business and cleaning business. In addition, the applicant did not offend while on bail for an extended period[88] and was assessed as having a low risk of reoffending.[89] Further, in prison the applicant has genuinely engaged in rehabilitation programs, including the Cyrenian House – Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison Therapeutic Community Rehabilitation Program and the SMART Recovery Online Training. While it has been assessed that there is some risk the applicant will reoffend because of her not being able identify anti-social behaviours, she has been assessed as having made considerable gains in identifying the impact of her substance abuse, creating a prevention plan, addressing consequential deficit thinking and unhelpful thinking styles, demonstrating improved decision-making skills and engagement in prosocial leisure pursuits.
[88] G8, 53-54.
[89] G23, 146.
While the Tribunal has found that there is a low risk of the applicant reoffending upon her release to the Australia community, it considers that the applicant does not represent an unacceptable risk to the Australia community. As such, the Tribunal has given some weight to this consideration in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Other considerations
In deciding whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, the Tribunal must consider the ‘Other considerations’ listed in Direction 110. These considerations are not exhaustive.[90]
[90] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2014] FCA 303; (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 [86].
Legal consequences of the decision
Paragraph 9.1 states:
9.1 Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
(1)Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen.
(2)A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). The Act, particularly the concept of ‘protection obligations’, reflects Australia’s interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing.
(3)International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a non-refoulement claim.
In her personal circumstances form, the applicant indicated that she had concerns for her safety if she was returned to New Zealand.[91] She identified these concerns as a fear of harm from her ex-husband, who was previously violent toward her, as well as general concerns about her children.[92] While the Tribunal makes no comment as to its outcome, it is open for the applicant to make an application for a protection visa, upon which any claim regarding Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would be fully considered.[93] In the event she applied for a protection visa the applicant would not be liable for removal until the protection visa application is finally determined.[94] If a protection finding is made, the applicant would not be liable for removal unless one of the events in s 197C(3)(c) of the Act takes place. As such, it is for the applicant to make a protection visa application where any non-refoulement claims she wishes to make can be assessed and determined.
[91] G10, 75.
[92] Ibid.
[93] Direction 110, paragraph 9.1.2(2); Plaintiff M1/2021 (n 11), [30].
[94] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 198(5A).
The applicant has not made any application for a protection visa. As such section s 197C(3) of the Act is not engaged, and the immediate legal effect of the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision would be that she is liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.[95]
[95] Ibid, s 198.
If the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa is not revoked, the applicant will be unable to satisfy the special return criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and will accordingly be ineligible for most classes of visa that would enable her return to Australia.[96]
[96] Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003, [12]-[14] (Feutrill J).
In circumstances where the applicant’s removal and exclusion from Australia are intended purposes of the statutory scheme, and these purposes underlie the considerations in Direction 110, the Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand in establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country).
The applicant is 40 years old with no declared health issues that may impede her resettlement in New Zealand.[97] The applicant submits that if she is returned to New Zealand she would experience difficulty finding employment and housing. In addition, she claims that she would struggle without her established support network.[98] The applicant further submits that she would be placed in an uncomfortable and difficult position in having to avoid negative family members (including her ex-partner) if removed to New Zealand.[99] The applicant’s evidence was that she has no contact with her family including her siblings. Her evidence was that even though she is in regular contact with her children, she does not speak to or have any engagement with her parents in New Zealand.
[97] G10, 74.
[98] Ibid, 75; G11, 89.
[99] G11, 89.
The applicant conceded that she will not experience substantial language or cultural barriers in New Zealand. In addition, as a New Zealand citizen the applicant accepted that she would have the same official level of medical, social welfare and economic support as generally available to other citizens in New Zealand. Nevertheless, her evidence was that she did not have the same social network and support in New Zealand and would face difficulties in obtaining employment and establishing herself if she is returned to New Zealand. In this regard the Tribunal refers to VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 649 at [428] in which Deputy President Sosso stated:
Australians and New Zealanders both speak the English language and are culturally almost indistinguishable. The legal and political structures of both societies are similar as are the medical and social welfare systems.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant will likely face some emotional and economic hardship re-establishing herself without her Australian support network. However, the applicant has skills and work experience that can be applied in New Zealand for the purpose of obtaining employment and a productive life in New Zealand.
The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of non-revocation of the cancellation decision.
Best interest of applicant’s minor children in New Zealand
As referred to above the applicant has three minor children aged 16 years, 12 years and 9 years who will be affected by a non-revocation decision.[100]
[100] G10, 67.
The applicant’s children now live in New Zealand with their grandparents because of the family court order made on 27 April 2023. The applicant’s evidence was that as their parent, prior to her incarceration, she was responsible for the care of her children for their entire lives. Her evidence was that they spent the formative part of their lives in Australia[101] and as such have a well-developed social network in Australia.
[101] G11, 86.
The applicant’s evidence was that the family court order was only granted as a result of her incarceration and that her biological children would otherwise continue to be in her custody.[102] The applicant’s evidence was that she does not have a good relationship with her family in New Zealand and that she holds concerns that her children are being subjected to the same negative influences she experienced as a child growing up in New Zealand. The applicant believes that their interests are not being fostered by their grandparents and that there are fewer opportunities for them in New Zealand.[103]
[102] Ibid, 87.
[103] Ibid, 87-88.
By a statement dated 9 June 2025[104] the applicant’s eldest daughter stated that she hated living in New Zealand with her grandparents. She described life with her grandparents as toxic and gave evidence to the effect that it has had a negative impact on her younger sister’s mental health. As a result, she expressed a strong desire be reunited with her mother in Perth as soon as possible.
[104] HB, 306-308.
It was the applicant’s evidence that her children are the focus in her life. It is her greatest concern that she has been incarnated during the most formative part of their lives. As a result, she makes every effort to keep in touch with them on a regular basis. The applicant currently has regular contact with all three of her daughters by two telephone calls a day with additional calls on the weekends. The applicant is also in contact with them two or three times a week via MS Teams video for approximately 30 minutes on each occasion. In addition, her daughters travel twice a year from New Zealand to Perth to visit the applicant in person for a full week at a time.
The applicant’s evidence was that it is her intention to make an application to the Family Court to regain parental control upon her release from prison.[105] The Tribunal notes that the family court order was not made by consent. The applicant’s mother made an application for the children to reside with her in New Zealand which was granted despite the applicant and Mr Cooper’s invitation for alternative arrangements to be put in place.[106] It was not clear to the Tribunal if any application by the applicant to regain parental control would be opposed. In any event, the issue as to whether the applicant can regain parental control of her children will be a matter to be determined by the Family Court.
[105] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [26].
[106] G25, 156-160.
In any event the applicant’s evidence was that her children are the focus of her life, and she will make application to the court upon her realise from prison. In such circumstances the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of revoking the cancelation decision.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110 provides that a decision maker must have regard to any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia. There is no evidence that Australian business interests are enlivened, as the applicant has not been employed since before her prison term. This consideration is not enlivened and carries neutral weight.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has considered the specific circumstances in relation to the applicant. Given the applicant does not pass the character test, the Tribunal is required to weigh the relevant factors to determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
The primary consideration is the protection of the Australian community. While the applicant’s offending was serious, for the reasons above the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk to the Australia community. Having considered the expectations of the Australian community, the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children, together with the other considerations of the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed, the Tribunal has found that the applicant is an acceptable risk to the Australian community. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that countervailing considerations outweigh the protection and expectations of the Australian community such that the cancellation decision should be revoked.
DECISION
The Tribunal revokes the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 100 (one hundred) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Pennell.
………………[sgd]…………………………
Dated: 15 July 2025
Date of hearing: 2 July 2025 Solicitor for the Applicant:
Mr Henry Sklarz, Sklarz Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Cohen Dietrich, MinterEllison
0
17
0