Nematollahi and Child Support Registrar (Child support)
[2017] AATA 2704
•15 December 2017
Nematollahi and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2017] AATA 2704 (15 December 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2016/6634
Re:Aria Nematollahi
APPLICANT
AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Brigadier AG Warner, Member
Date:15 December 2017
Place:Perth
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
......(Sgd).......................................................
Brigadier AG Warner, Member
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – application for Departure Authorisation Certificate (DAC) – circumstances in which Child Support Registrar must issue a DAC - whether Applicant satisfies circumstances in which Registrar must issue DAC – two sets of circumstances not satisfied – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 – s 3(2) – s 72D – s 72L – 72M
CASES
Askew v Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 354
Bettison and Child Support Registrar [2016] AATA 592
Kay and Child Support Registrar [2015] AATA 429
Onder and Child Support Registrar and Sari (No. 2) [2011] FMCAfam 430
Valve and Child Support Agency [2009] AATA 927SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guides to Social Policy Law - Child Support Guide - Version 4.27 - Released 20 September 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
Brigadier AG Warner, Member
15 December 2017
INTRODUCTION
Mr Aria Nematollahi (the Applicant) has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar), made on 30 November 2016, to refuse an application he made for a Departure Authorisation Certificate (DAC) pursuant to section 72L of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Registration and Collection Act).
The Applicant attended the hearing. Mr Nematollahi’s brother, Mr Arshia Nematollahi, participated by telephone conference and acted as an advocate for the Applicant. Ms Sarah Szymaszek, a Farsi translator, assisted the Tribunal.
ISSUES
The Tribunal must decide whether the Applicant should be issued a DAC.
Section 72L of the Registration and Collection Act sets out two sets of circumstances in which the Registrar must issue a DAC. The legislative considerations are as follows:
The set of circumstances in section 72L(2)
·whether, if the DAC were granted, the Applicant would be likely to return to Australia within an appropriate period; and
·whether it is likely that, within an appropriate period, the Registrar would be required to revoke the departure prohibition order (DPO) against the Applicant; and
·whether it is unnecessary for the Applicant to give security to secure the person’s return to Australia.
The set of circumstances in section 72L(3)
·whether the Applicant has given security to secure the person’s return to Australia; or
·whether the Applicant is unable to provide security; and
·whether a DAC should be issued to the Applicant on humanitarian grounds; or
·whether refusing to issue a DAC to the Applicant would be contrary to Australia’s interests.
Relevant to the definition of the issue before the Tribunal, the Registrar submits:
…that it is not open for this Tribunal to consider on the merits whether or not the DPO should have been imposed (O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 545). The Tribunal is limited in its review of the decision made under section 72L of the Registration and Collection Act as to whether the Registrar must issue a DAC to the Applicant.
(Exhibit 3, para36)
The Registrar further submits:
…that, for the purpose of the review of the decision to refuse to issue a DAC, it is not open to the Tribunal to look behind or draw conclusions inconsistent with previous child support assessments (O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 545 at [86]). The section 116(2) certificate is prima facie evidence of the child support liability due and payable by the Applicant [T30, 205]
(Exhibit 3, para 37)
These submissions were not disputed and the Tribunal agrees.
FACTS
The background facts as detailed in the Registrar’s Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions (Exhibit 3), and not in dispute, are repeated in part in the following paragraphs 9 – 21.
A child support case involving the Applicant was registered in respect of a child born in June 1998 and became collectable by the Department of Human Services (the department) from 28 October 1998 (T5/25-26).
A second child support case involving the Applicant was registered in respect of two children born in July 2005 and February 2010 and became collectable by the department from 12 February 2014 (T6/27-31).
On 12 June 2015, the Registrar issued a section 72A notice to Link Realty Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White - Port Hedland, to intercept rental income owed to the Applicant. This notice was withdrawn on 4 September 2015 (T15, 79-80).
On 18 March 2016, a delegate of the Registrar issued a DPO to the Applicant pursuant to section 72D of the Registration and Collection Act (T20/100), The DPO prevents the Applicant from travelling outside of Australia; the DPO is still in force.
On 17 June 2016, the Registrar issued a second section 72A notice to Link Realty Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White - Port Hedland. This notice was withdrawn on 7 January 2017.
As at 5 January 2017, the Applicant had an outstanding child support liability of $27,437.71 comprised of $24,297.58 in child support arrears and $3,140.13 in penalties (T30/205).
On 11 January 2017, the Registrar issued a third section 72A Notice to Link Realty Pty Ltd, trading as Ray White-Port Hedland; this notice is still in force.
On 23 January 2017, the Registrar intercepted a tax refund of $4,162.32 (Exhibit 3, Attachment A).
On 25 January 2017, the Registrar intercepted a second tax refund of $9,917.98 (Exhibit 3, Attachment A).
As at 29 March 2017, the Applicant has an outstanding child support liability of $13,676.71 comprised of $9,997.60 in child support arrears and $3,679.11 in penalties (Exhibit 3, Attachment A).
On 5 October 2016, the Applicant made a verbal application for a DAC. The Applicant requested a DAC to depart Australia to travel to Iran to see his elderly parents, who both suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, and to travel to Bali, Indonesia for urgent dental work (T23/148-151). The Applicant indicated that he wished to depart as soon as practically possible and proposed to remain outside of Australia for a period of up to three months (T23/148).
On 30 November 2016, a delegate of the Registrar refused the Applicant’s application for a DAC (T2/3-4).
On 13 December 2016, the Tribunal informed the Registrar that the Applicant had lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking review of the Registrar’s decision of 30 November 2016 (T1/1-2).
EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
·a 204 page set of T-Documents (T1-T29);
·Applicant’s letter dated18 April 2017, with attached Centrelink Statement and other documents (Exhibit 1);
·Applicant’s Submission received 15 June 2017 (Exhibit 2);
·Registrar’s Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions dated 9 May 2017 (Exhibit 3);
·Certificate issued under subsection 116(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Exhibit 4); and
·The oral evidence of the Applicant.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND AUTHORITIES
The legislation governing DPOs and DACs is set out in Part VA of the Registration and Collection Act.
Section 3(2) of the Registration and Collection Act provides that it is the Parliament’s intention that the Registration and Collection Act shall be construed and administered to the greatest extent consistent with the attainment of its objects.
Section 3(1) of the Registration and Collection Act provides that:
Objects of Act
(1) The principal objects of this Act are to ensure:
(a)that children receive from their parents the financial support that the parents are liable to provide; and
(b)that the periodic amounts payable by parents towards the maintenance of their children are paid on a regular and timely basis; and
(c)that Australia is in a position to give effect to its obligations under international agreements relating to maintenance obligations arising from family relationship parentage or marriage.
Departure Prohibition Orders
Section 72D of the Registration and Collection Act authorises the Registrar to make a DPO prohibiting a person from departing from Australia for a foreign country if the following four conditions are met:
(a)the person has a child support liability; and
(b)the person has not made arrangements satisfactory to the Registrar for the child support liability to be wholly discharged; and
(c)the Registrar is satisfied that the person has persistently and without reasonable grounds failed to pay child support debts arising from a registrable maintenance liability under section 17; and
(d)the Registrar believes on reasonable grounds that it is desirable to make the order for the purpose of ensuring that the person does not depart from Australia for a foreign country without:
(i) wholly discharging the child support liability; or
(ii)making arrangements satisfactory to the Registrar for the child support liability to be wholly discharged.
Departure Authorisation Certificates
Section 72K of the Registration and Collection Act allows a person to whom a DPO has been issued to apply for a DAC.
The application for a DAC under section 72L of the Registration and Collection Act must be considered with due regard to the fact that section 72L sets out exceptional circumstances in which the non-achievement of the purpose referred to in section 72D and the views expressed in the matter of Onder and Child Support Registrar and Sari (No.2) [2011] FMCAfam 430 by Monahan FM, who said at [79]:
Consistent with the view expressed by Lindgren J in Whittaker; s.72D(1)(d) of the Collection Act is satisfied if it is established by the evidence that the CSA Registrar believed on reasonable grounds that it was desirable to make a DPO for the purpose of “ensuring” that the liable parent does not depart the country at any time in the future without first discharging the child support liability or making arrangements satisfactory to the CSA Registrar for its discharge.
Section 72L of the Registration and Collection Act sets out the circumstances in which the Registrar must issue a DAC. That section provides:
When Registrar must issue departure authorisation certificate
(1)This section applies if a person makes an application under section 72K for a departure authorisation certificate.
(2)The Registrar must issue the departure authorisation certificate if the Registrar is satisfied:
(a)that, if the certificate is issued:
(i)it is likely that the person will depart from Australia and return to Australia within a period that the Registrar considers appropriate; and
(ii)it is likely that, within a period that the Registrar considers appropriate, the Registrar will be required by subsection 72I(1) to revoke the departure prohibition order in respect of the person; and
(b)that it is not necessary for the person to give security under section 72M for the person’s return to Australia.
(3)If the Registrar is not satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2), the Registrar must nevertheless issue the departure authorisation certificate if:
(a)the person has given security under section 72M for the person’s return to Australia; or
(b)if the person is unable to give such security, the Registrar is satisfied:
(i)that the certificate should be issued on humanitarian grounds; or
(ii)that refusing to issue the certificate will be detrimental to Australia's interests.
Section 72M of the Registration and Collection Act allows a person to give such security as the Registrar considers appropriate for the person’s return to Australia. Section 72M(1) provides:
A person may give such security as the Registrar considers appropriate by bond, deposit or any other means, for the person's return to Australia by such day as is agreed by the person and the Registrar and is specified in the departure authorisation certificate.
The Tribunal must have regard to relevant government policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so. Child Support legislation is administered with the assistance of policy set out in the Child Support Guide (the Guide).
Chapter 5.2.11 of the Guide relates to DPOs and DACs (T4, 17-24). The following extracts of the Guide are relevant to this application:
DAC issued where security provided
... a DAC must still be issued when the child support debtor has given appropriate security, under section 72M, for their return to Australia (section 72L(3)(a)). Security can be given by a bond or a deposit or by other means. If the debtor does not return by the agreed date, the security will be forfeited to the Commonwealth of Australia. It cannot be applied against the outstanding child support debt.
The Registrar will only accept a security that:
·is in a form that is readily convertible to cash e.g. bank cheque;
·is offered by the debtor rather than third parties on the debtor’s behalf;
·is generally not significantly less in value than the amount of the debt owing.
Note: security arising from a loan obtained by a child support debtor from a financial institution or a third party is not considered to be a payment from a third party.
…
If a child support debtor is able to give appropriate security, the use of those funds to reduce the child support debt is preferred to their use as a security. Wholly discharging the debt or making a satisfactory arrangement to discharge the debt and meet any ongoing child support liability will generally result in a DPO being revoked (section 72I). Where the debt is in dispute and a person is taking steps to resolve this dispute, offering security could be an appropriate alternative.
…
DAC issued on humanitarian grounds or in Australia’s interests
The Registrar must also issue a DAC where satisfied that (section 72L(3)(b)):
·the certificate should be issued on humanitarian grounds, or
·refusing to issue the certificate would be detrimental to Australia’s interests.
AND
·the debtor is unable to provide security, under section 72M, for their return to Australia.
In considering the meaning of ‘unable’ in this context, the Registrar must be satisfied that the debtor could not, in the existing circumstances, provide appropriate security. It is not sufficient that the debtor is merely unwilling to provide security or unable to satisfy the Registrar as to the appropriateness of the security offered…
…
Where a DAC is sought on humanitarian grounds, the debtor must supply evidence to support:
·the contention they are unable to give security to the satisfaction of the Registrar, and
·the humanitarian grounds relied upon in the application for the DAC.
…
In considering whether security is appropriate, the Tribunal ought to consider the surrounding circumstances of the Applicant. Deputy President Tamberlin in Valve and Child Support Agency [2009] AATA 927 at [18] and Senior Member McDermott in Askew v Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 354 at [21] both found that where an Applicant had not complied with child support obligations, the security should not be substantially less than the amount of the child support liability.
CONSIDERATION
It is not in dispute that the Applicant made a request for a DAC pursuant to the requirements of section 72L(1) of the Registration and Collection Act.
Before the Tribunal the Applicant was at times difficult and sarcastic in answering the Respondent’s questions. The tenor of the Applicant’s oral evidence and the submissions by his advocate, Mr Nematollahi are summarised as follows:
·The Applicant’s three children provide an important reason for him to return to Australia. He is a builder and his financial position will improve. His is trying to avoid bankruptcy, his current circumstances are not his fault, and he is receiving benefits from the Department of Human Services.
·The information used by the Registrar was unreliable and included the lie that he owned six houses and had a large income. Further, the Registrar did not consider that Australia was his home and his country of residence.
·The suggestion that he would not return to Australia was insulting and inhuman.
·The Registrar is a bully who fails to consider the individual and has harassed the Applicant’s family.
·The Applicant confirmed that he travelled overseas four times during 2015 but did not pay any child support since January 2015. The Applicant advised that his family will assist with any future travel costs, and he considered that the financial aspects of his overseas travel were outside the jurisdiction of the Registrar.
·The Applicant insisted that the DAC should be issued on humanitarian grounds and disagreed with the opinion that the necessary conditions were not met. Particular reference was made to the opinion contained in the Departmental submission dated 21 November 2016, that “Mr Nematollahi’s circumstances justify the issuing of a DAC under humanitarian compassionate grounds, under the condition that the travel is directly to Tehran, Iran and returning directly to Australia” (T23/150).
·The Applicant maintained that the Registrar and Centrelink were one and the same and that his receipt of Newstart was sufficient to demonstrate his financial position. He repeatedly maintained that he should not be required to answer questions from the Registrar.
Circumstances in which it is appropriate to issue a DAC
There are two main sets of circumstances in which the Registrar must issue a DAC (See paragraph 32 above).
The first set of circumstances is set out in section 72L(2) of the Registration and Collection Act, and requires the Registrar to be satisfied:
(a)that the Applicant will depart from and return to Australia within an appropriate period; and
(b)it is likely the DPO will be required to be revoked in an appropriate period; and
(c)it is not necessary for an applicant to provide security under section 72M for their return.
Is the Tribunal satisfied that the Applicant will return to Australia in an appropriate period if the DAC is issued?
The Applicant has a substantial child support liability of $13,676.71 as at 29 March 2017 and that liability will continue to accrue. He has travelled overseas on a number of occasions despite a demonstrated and acknowledged history of non-compliance since at least January 2015, and on each of these occasions has returned to Australia. The Applicant maintains family ties in Iran and the Tribunal considers that in his circumstances there is a significant risk that the Applicant may not return to Australia by a specified date.
The Applicant has stated that he wishes to travel to Iran to visit his parents and to travel to Bali. The Tribunal considers the proposed absence of three months to be excessive when considered against the reason for travel and the Applicant’s financial situation (T23/148-152).
The Tribunal is satisfied that the criteria in section 72L(2)(a)(i) is not met.
Is there any basis that would assist a conclusion that the DPO will be required to be revoked in an appropriate period of time?
The Applicant’s child support debt is detailed in the Child Support Payer Transaction Statement 11/11/1998 to 04/01/2017 (Exhibit 3, Attachment A). As at 29 March 2017, the Applicant has an outstanding child support liability of $13,676.71 comprising $9,997.60 in child support arrears and $3,679.11 in penalties. The Applicant has made no submissions, and gave no indication before the Tribunal that he would or could address this liability in any way. The Respondent contends that based on the current payment arrangement of $48.30 per fortnight from his social security payments, the Applicant would require approximately 11 years to discharge the liability (Exhibit 3 para 42.2). In light of these payments, the Tribunal considers that the liability is not completely irrecoverable, but these payments and the Applicant’s circumstances as described to the Tribunal do not support a conclusion that the DPO will be required to be revoked.
Is it necessary for the Applicant to give security to secure his return to Australia?
Deputy President Forgie and Senior Member Cremean in the matter of Kay and Child Support Registrar [2015] AATA 429, affirmed the decision to refuse the issue of a DAC, highlighting the underlying rationale of the need for a person to give security, that reason being to ensure the person returns for the purpose of discharging his or her child support liability.
The Registrar contends that it is necessary for the Applicant to provide appropriate security for his return to Australia for the following reasons:
43.1The Applicant’s child support liability is substantial and he has failed to satisfactorily discharge his child support debt as and when it became due and payable.
43.2The Applicant’s child support records indicate that a variety of enforcement actions have been taken by the department to partially satisfy the Applicant’s child support liability, including:
43.2.1interception of the Applicant's tax refunds on 23 and 25 January 2017; and
43.2.1at least nine section 72A Notices (issued on 22 April 2015, 1 May 2015, 12 June 2015, 19 June 2015, 7 August 2015, 28 August 2015, 4 September 2015, 17 June 2016, and 11 January 2017) have been issued to partially reduce the Applicant’s child support debt [T18, 96].
43.3The Applicant will continue to accrue child support liability until February 2028 based on the current registered child support case.
43.4Iran is not a reciprocating jurisdiction pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulation 1988. Accordingly, the department would be unable to enforce the child support assessment should the Applicant remain in Iran and fail to return to Australia.
43.5Since the DPO was issued on 18 March 2016, the only form of regular payment has been through fortnightly deductions from the Applicant’s social security payment. Centrelink has confirmed in writing that the Applicant’s social security payment is not payable whilst he is overseas for the reason of the Applicant’s proposed travel to Iran [T24, 152]
(Exhibit 3, para 43).
The Tribunal accepts that for these reasons it is necessary for the Applicant to provide appropriate security for his return to Australia.
As the Tribunal has determined that the Applicant does not satisfy the requirements of section 72L(2) of the Registration and Collection Act, it is necessary to consider the Applicant’s request for a DAC under the second set of circumstances as set out in section 72L(3) of the Registration and Collection Act. These circumstances provide that the Registrar must issue a DAC where:
(a)the person has provided appropriate security for their return to Australia pursuant to section 72M; or
(b)the person is unable to provide security
·the Registrar is satisfied that the DAC should be issued on humanitarian grounds; or
·refusing to issue the certificate will be detrimental to Australia’s interests.
The question of appropriate security requires consideration of all relevant circumstances to determine whether the security to be given is appropriate or suitable for its stated purpose, namely to ensure the Applicant returns to Australia by an agreed date.
The Registrar submits, reasonably it seems to the Tribunal, that any security needs to be:
47.1given by the Applicant himself rather than a third person (Kay and Child Support Registrar [2015] AATA 429 at [48]);
47.2in the form of a deposit, a bond, or some other like form that is readily convertible to cash; and
47.3should not be substantially less than the outstanding child support liability (Botel and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2016] AATA 53 at [7]).
(Exhibit 3, pg 10)
The Applicant has declined to give appropriate security for his return to Australia (T23/149) and the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the requirement of section 72L(3)(a) of the Registration and Collection Act is not met.
Is the Applicant unable to provide security?
Before considering the alternative limb in the second set of circumstances, the Tribunal considers it useful to address briefly the Applicant’s assertion that a DAC should be issued on humanitarian grounds because of the statement in the Submission to issue a Departure Certificate, to the effect “I am of the opinion that Mr Nematollahi’s circumstances justify the issuing of a DAC under humanitarian grounds…” (T23/150). The Tribunal notes that this opinion was made without an assessment of the “unable to provide security” precondition, and the opinion was not accepted by the responsible delegate who refused the Applicant’s application for reasons including “humanitarian grounds have not been established” (T2/3).
The alternative limb in the second set of circumstances only applies in circumstances where the applicant is unable to provide appropriate security. As this Tribunal stated in Bettison & Child Support Registrar [2016] AATA 592 (Bettison) at [10]:
The evidential onus is on the Applicant to establish a lack of financial capacity to provide security. The requisite inability to be demonstrated must be financial and not circumstantial.
It follows from the above observations that it is therefore the Applicant who bears the burden of evidencing his financial circumstances in order to satisfy the decision-maker that he cannot provide security.
In relation to this question, the Respondent submits that:
60.The Applicant has failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances. As such the Registrar contends there is insufficient evidence before the tribunal to support a finding that the Applicant is unable to provide appropriate security for his return to Australia.
(Exhibit 3, pg 12)
In considering the question “Is the Applicant unable to provide security?”, the Tribunal has regard to the following:
(a)The Applicant has provided a written statement dated 18 April 2017 setting out his account of his financial position. On receiving the Applicant’s statement, the department invited the Applicant to provide up-to-date corroborating evidence from the creditors identified in the letter of 18 April 2017, however, the Applicant declined to produce such evidence (Exhibit 3, Attachment B). Relevantly, the Respondent contends, reasonably it seems to the Tribunal, that:
53.…the Applicant’s written statement dated 18 April 2017 cannot be accepted without corroborating evidence. This was the position taken by Member Grigg in Todd and Child Support Registrar in ultimately affirming the decision to refuse a DAC application in that matter.
(Exhibit 3, pg 11)
(b)In a written statement by the Applicant’s accountants, Creagh Barker Associates, dated 17 October 2016, the accountants confirmed that the Applicant retained interests in an unspecified number of properties in Australia: “...I wish to remind you, that the payment of child support is sourced from rents from property that Aria has a partial interest in”. In a later written statement dated 17 November 2016, Creagh Barker Associates state:
As far as we are aware, Aria is associated with Aria Building Construction Pty Ltd and Aria and Co investment trust. We understand he was director of the company. We are not sure of his official title of this trust…
…
So far as we are aware, the above two entities are not wound up yet” (T17/82-83).
(c)Information provided by Veda Information Services on 23 April 2015 indicates that the Applicant was the director of two companies, namely Aria Building Construction Pty Ltd, and Allied United Pty Ltd (T14/54-78).
(d)The Tribunal notes that the department has been able to recover various amounts originally intended as rental proceeds by garnishment and apply those amounts to the Applicant’s child support liability.
(e)The Applicant failed to use the opportunity, before the Tribunal, to give frank, full and clear evidence of his financial inability to provide security.
In order for the Tribunal to answer the question asked in the preceding paragraph, it must be satisfied that the Applicant has made full and frank disclosures of his current and historical income, and must have before it corroborating evidence about the Applicant’s financial position, including information about the amount of equity in all properties and other assets that are fully or partially owned by the Applicant. Having carefully considered the evidence and circumstances relevant to this question, the Tribunal concludes that there is insufficient evidence before it to support a finding that the Applicant is unable to provide appropriate security for his return to Australia.
The Respondent submits, and the Tribunal agrees, that the observation made by Senior Member Tavoularis in Bettison at [10] is applicable to the present matter:
The Applicant’s financial position is opaque both to me and, it would seem, the Registrar. This could readily [be] addressed by the Applicant via a relatively basic and independent report (or equivalent) detailing his current and historically accurate financial position including disclosure of ail bank accounts in his name or in the name of entities he controls. As I understood the evidence, no such report or open and frank discussion has ever transpired between the Applicant and the Registrar.
(Exhibit 3, para 61)
It follows from the above that the precondition in section 72L(3)(b) of the Registration and Collection Act is not met. It is therefore unnecessary for this Tribunal to then consider whether there are humanitarian grounds on which a DAC should be issued, or whether the refusal to issue a DAC would be detrimental to Australia’s interests: see for example Kay and Child Support Registrar [2015] AATA 429 at [62].
For all of the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the Applicant does not meet the criteria in section 72L(3) of the Registration and Collection Act.
CONCLUSION
Having carefully considered all the evidence before it and having regard to the circumstances relevant to this matter, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the Applicant does not meet the requirements of the two sets of circumstances in which the Registrar must issue a DAC. It follows that the Applicant’s application for a DAC is unsuccessful.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Child Support Registrar on 30 November 2016 to refuse to issue a DAC to the Applicant.
I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier AG Warner, Member
.....(Sgd)......................................................
Administrative Assistant - Legal
Dated: 15 December 2017
Date of hearing: 17 July 2017 Applicant: In person Representative for the
Respondent:Mr A Burgess Solicitors for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0
7
0