Petterson and National Disability Insurance Agency

[2024] AATA 2922

Petterson and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 2922 (12 August 2024)

Division:NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/2529

Re:Janine Petterson

APPLICANT

AndNational Disability Insurance Agency

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:The Honourable Pru Goward AO, Senior Member

Date:12 August 2024

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed

...................................[SGD].....................................

The Honourable Pru Goward AO, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

National Disability Insurance Scheme – access criteria – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome -– osteoporosis – permanence of impairments – substantially reduced capacity – decision affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (Cth)

CASES

FBJV and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 913

Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544

SECONDARY MATERIALS

National Disability Insurance Agency, Our Guidelines – Becoming a participant – Applying to the NDIS, (Web Page) < FOR DECISION

The Honourable Pru Goward AO, Senior Member

12 August 2024

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant, Janine Petterson, is a 62-year-old woman seeking access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS) on the basis of functional impairments resulting from her conditions of osteoporosis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).

2. The Applicant applied for access to the NDIS on 5 January 2022 and was declined on 19 January 2022. She requested internal review of that decision and on 24 March 2022, a decision was made under s 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act), confirming the decision of 19 January 2022.

3. The Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) under s 103 of the Act, for review of the decision of 24 March 2022 (the reviewable decision).

4. The AAT commenced to hear the matter by video but the Applicant withdrew from the hearing partway through the first day due to ill health and asked that the matter be decided on the written evidence, submissions provided by the parties and evidence from the witnesses already heard. The Respondent agreed to this course and the Tribunal has proceeded on that basis.

   Relevant Sections of Legislation and Guidelines

5. The Act provides a legal framework for the NDIS, which is tasked with providing supports for Australian citizens living with disability. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that to become a participant in the NDIS, applicants must satisfy the access criteria set out in s 24 (the disability requirements) or s 25 (the early intervention requirements).

6.       Section 24 of the Act states:

(1)A person meets the disability requirements if:

(a)the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and

(b)the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and

(c)the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(i)     communication;

(ii)    social interaction;

(iii)   learning;

(iv)   mobility;

(v)    self care;

(vi)   self management; and

(d)the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social or economic participation; and

(e)the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the variation.

1. The Act is supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (Cth) (the Access Rules).

2. Relevantly to s 24(1)(b), permanency, the following Rules apply:

   5.4An impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent (see paragraph 5.1(b)) only if there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.

   5.5An impairment may be permanent notwithstanding that the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of the person may fluctuate or there are prospects that the severity of the impact of the impairment on the person's functional capacity, including their psychosocial functioning, may improve.

   5.6 An impairment may require medical treatment and review before a determination can be made about whether the impairment is permanent or likely to be permanent. The impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if the impairment does not require further medical treatment or review in order for its permanency or likely permanency to be demonstrated (even though the impairment may continue to be treated and reviewed after this has been demonstrated).

   5.7 If an impairment is of a degenerative nature, the impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent if medical or other treatment would not, or would be unlikely to, improve the condition.

   9.Relevantly to s 24(1)(c), substantially reduced functional capacity, the following rule applies:

   5.8An impairment results in substantially reduced functional capacity of a person to undertake one or more of the relevant activities—communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, self-management (see paragraph 5.1(c))—if its result is that:

   (a)the person is unable to participate effectively or completely in the activity, or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate effectively or completely in the activity, without assistive technology, equipment (other than commonly used items such as glasses) or home modifications; or

   (b) the person usually requires assistance (including physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting) from other people to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity; or

   (c) the person is unable to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity, even with assistive technology, equipment, home modifications or assistance from another person. 

3. The early intervention requirements are specified in s 25 of the Act, which states:

   1A person meets the early intervention requirementsif:

   (a)the person:

   (i)     has one or more identified intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent; or

   (ii)    has one or more identified impairments that are attributable to a psychiatric condition and are, or are likely to be, permanent; or

   (iii)   is a child who has developmentaldelay; and

   (b)the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by reducing the person's future needs for supports in relation to disability; and

   (c)the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by:

   (i)     mitigating or alleviating the impact of the person's impairment upon the functional capacity of the person to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management; or

   (ii)    preventing the deterioration of such functional capacity; or

   (iii)   improving such functional capacity; or

   (iv)   strengthening the sustainability of informal supports available to the person, including through building the capacity of the person's carer.

   Note:In certain circumstances, a person with a degenerative condition could meet the early intervention requirements and therefore become a participant.

   11.The NDIS Access Operational Guidelines also assist in making decisions under the Act. The relevant Operational Guideline is Our Guidelines – Becoming a participant – Applying to the NDIS (the Operational Guidelines) which provides:

   When we consider your disability, we think about whether any reduction or loss in your ability to do things, across all life domains, is because of an impairment.

   An impairment is a loss or significant change in at least one of:

   ·your body’s functions

   ·your body structure

   ·how you think and learn.

   To meet the disability requirements, we must have evidence your disability is caused by at least one of the impairments below:

   ·intellectual – such as how you speak and listen, read and write, solve problems, and process and remember information

   ·cognitive – such as how you think, learn new things, use judgment to make decisions, and pay attention

   ·neurological – such as how your body functions

   ·sensory – such as how you see or hear • physical – such as the ability to move parts of your body.

   You may also be eligible for the NDIS if you have a psychosocial disability. This means you have reduced capacity to do daily life activities and tasks due to your mental health.

4. The Operational Guidelines also provide definitions of the activities identified in s 24(1)(c) namely:

   ·Communicating – how you speak, write, or use sign language and gestures, to express yourself compared to other people your age. We also look at how well you understand people, and how others understand you.

   ·Socialising – how you make and keep friends, or interact with the community, or how a young child plays with other children. We also look at your behaviour, and how you cope with feelings and emotions in social situations.

   ·Learning – how you learn, understand and remember new things, and practise and use new skills.

   ·Mobility, or moving around – how easily you move around your home and community, and how you get in and out of bed or a chair. We consider how you get out and about and use your arms or legs.

   ·Self-care – personal care, hygiene, grooming, eating and drinking, and health. We consider how you get dressed, shower or bathe, eat or go to the toilet.

   ·Self-management (if older than 6) – how you organise your life. We consider how you plan, make decisions, and look after yourself. This might include day-to-day tasks at home, how you solve problems, or manage your money. We consider your mental or cognitive ability to manage your life, not your physical ability to do these tasks.

   BACKGROUND

5. The Applicant lives with her husband who provides most of her care, although she also has paid domestic assistance with housework. They have adult children who no longer live in the family home, but she stays in touch by telephone or with occasional visits from them.

6. The Applicant developed CFS reportedly when her youngest child left school and she commenced seeking paid employment, in 2011/12. Subsequently she appeared to have also developed a chemical sensitivity which prevented her from using public transport, severely limited her social activities and her diet. As a result, she largely remains at home, the occasional visit to the beach with her husband being one of her few excursions from the house.

7. The Applicant has osteo-porosis, diagnosed in 2022. This has resulted in considerable pain associated with recurring spinal fractures. She relies on powerful pain killers but has good days and bad days, when the pain is greater or less. Sometimes she is confined to bed for days. She has assistive technology in the form of a raised toilet seat, an electric bed, a long-handled sponge, and shower chair. The Applicant considers the chronic pain has exacerbated her chronic fatigue.

8. The Applicant is concerned that her husband, who is still in paid work, is suffering carer burn out and has developed anxiety and depression because of the burden of her care.

   CONTENTIONS

9. The Applicant contended that both the pain resulting from her spinal fractures is permanent because her osteoporosis is permanent and the fractures recurring, and that her CFS is also permanent, so meeting the requirements of s 24(1)(b) of the Act.

10. The Respondent contended that the pain resulting from her osteoporosis is not permanent although the condition of CFS is accepted as permanent.

11. The Applicant contended that her CFS and the severe pain associated with recurring spinal fractures (resulting from her osteoporosis) have substantially reduced her capacity for self care, mobility and social interaction, so meeting the requirements of s 24(1)(c) of the Act.

12. The Respondent contended that the evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant’s reduced capacity is substantial, applying both the guidelines and Rule 5.8.

13. The Respondent contended there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the provision of early intervention support was likely to benefit the Applicant, reducing her future need for support and in any event, was not applicable to the Applicant’s long-standing conditions. The Applicant did not contend reliance on early intervention requirements and this is accepted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the requirements of s 25 are not considered by the Tribunal in this decision.

    THE ISSUES

14. The Tribunal is to determine whether the conditions the Applicant relies upon, namely CFS and pain caused by spinal fractures arising from osteoporosis, are both permanent and have substantially reduced her capacity for all or any of the activities of self-care, mobility and social interaction.

15. The Respondent does not dispute the eligibility of the Applicant based on her age or citizenship and these are therefore not in contention in this matter.

    EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

16. The Tribunal has had regard to various material before it, including:

    (a)Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 6 March 2024;

    (b)Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed on 28 March 2024;

    (c)Respondent’s Outline of Closing Submissions dated 19 July 2024;

    (d)Joint Hearing Tender Bundle (filed on 18 December 2024), including:

    ·T-documents ((T1-T9) pp 1-190) filed on 11 April 2022;

    ·Letter from Dr David Jaa, General Practitioner dated 20 May 2022;

    ·Statement of Janine Petterson regarding medication dated 22 September 2022;

    ·Letter from Dr David Jaa, General Practitioner dated 4 October 2022;

    ·Letter from Dr Henry Wamala, General Practitioner dated 3 August 2023;

    ·Email from Dr Henry Wamala, General Practitioner dated 5 December 2023;

    ·Statement of Janine Petterson regarding functional capacity (Undated);

    ·Statement of Jeff Petterson, Applicant’s husband (Undated);

    ·Letter of Instructions to Dr Phillip Vecchio, Rheumatologist dated 1 February 2023;

    ·Report of Dr Philip Vecchio, Rheumatologist dated 23 February 2023;

    ·Letter of Instructions to Ms Deirdre Richards, Occupational Therapist dated 9 May 2023;

    ·Report of Ms Deirdre Richards, Occupational Therapist dated 8 June 2023;

    ·Supplementary Report of Dr Vecchio, Rheumatologist dated 16 August  2023;

    ·Supplementary Report of Ms Deirdre Richards, Occupational Therapist dated 23 August  2023;

    ·Summonsed Records of Dr David Jaa;

    ·Summonsed Records of Friendly Society Private Hospital;

    (e)The oral evidence given at the hearing by the Applicant and Dr David Jaa, General Practitioner, before it was concluded due to the Applicant’s ill health;

17. Dr Philip Vecchio, Rheumatologist and Diedre Richards, Occupational Therapist were scheduled to provide evidence at the hearing but the Tribunal was unable to hear from them due to the hearing concluding partway through the first day.

18. The Applicant contended that her osteoporosis was a permanent condition which, among other things, resulting in recurring spinal fractures. This fracturing was and is associated with what she described as “terrible” pain, which continues during the healing process. The pain cycle recommences with another fracture, resulting again from osteoporosis.

19. At the outset of the hearing the Respondent sought to clarify that there was no disagreement about the permanency of the Applicant’s osteoporosis.  However, there was disagreement about the permanency of the impairments arising from the osteoporosis, namely the pain arising from her fractures over the past two years and specifically, whether those fractures were permanent (did not heal) and whether further fractures were unavoidable.

20. The Applicant described the ongoing pain as intermittent, contributing to good and bad days. Overall, she considered the tiredness and restricted mobility associated with her pain and the fractures themselves both directly reduced her functional mobility, self-care and social interaction and also exacerbated the tiredness and other impairments associated with her CFS.

21. The Applicant told the Tribunal she had been hospitalised in June 2022 for backpain and again in July 2023. More recently, she says she was diagnosed with a new fracture in April 2024. She took very powerful medication for her pain but had suffered severely with constipation as a result. Even so, she claimed the medication did not entirely suppress the pain. She says that non-prescription pain relief medication, such as Panadol and Nurofen, did not provide sufficient pain relief.

22. The Applicant’s treating doctor, Dr Jaa, confirmed a new fracture had occurred in April 2024 and that the fractures caused pain, which could be alleviated with over-the-counter medications such as Panadol, or with stronger, prescription drugs such as codeine, but that these required other medication to address the resulting constipation. He was unable to confirm which of the Applicant’s several fractures had healed, because this required a nuclear bone scan and possibly a bone mineral density scan, but he suspected they may not all have healed completely, in light of her reported symptoms.

23. In summary, the Applicant appears to have had several episodes of bone fracturing over the past two years with resultant pain and reduced mobility. It seems reasonable to conclude, as Dr Jaa told the Tribunal, that without treatment, these fractures and their associated pain would continue to occur and with that, the impact on the Applicant’s mobility and overall energy levels would be ongoing and effectively permanent.

24. Dr Jaa’s evidence about treatment available to the Applicant for her osteoporosis was that her options were not yet exhausted. He advised that she was currently undergoing a trial of annual intravenous zoledronic acid infusion, which commenced with her treating doctor, Dr Wamala, in July 2023. The results of that infusion were not known but an upcoming bone density scan would provide some indication of success.

25. Dr Jaa also confirmed at the hearing that if the bone density scan planned for July 2024 did not demonstrate some improvement in the Applicant’s osteoporosis, that Teriparatide was available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and was a further avenue for treatment, so that her osteoporosis “could improve”.

26. The Applicant was hospitalised in June and July of 2022 and relied upon the letters of Dr Rakesh Bilwani, radiologist, about the results of a series of scans she had undergone while in hospital to support her contention that she had ‘quite significant osteoporosis”. The radiologist had further advised in his letter of 20 July 2022, that treatment was required “to prevent further bone loss”.  Although the Applicant claimed that Dr Bilwani’s letter of 20 July 2022 did not propose treatment to heal her existing fractures, but only to prevent further loss, Dr Bilwani’s letter was a brief report and the reference to treatment of any kind was cursory. No observations about suitable treatments were made in his subsequent letters where her fractures were described, and it is not clear from the letters whether his advice about suitable treatments had been sought by the hospital.

1. The Tribunal notes Dr Bilwani was not called to give evidence by the Applicant and his reports appear to be standard and brief analyses of a patient’s radiology results, such as are usually provided after tests of this nature. It would seem that treatment advice in any detail would have been beyond the scope of such a report. The Tribunal accepts, as the Respondent contended, that the Applicant has osteoporosis, confirmed by Dr Bilwani; this is not in dispute. It is, as the Respondent further contended and the Tribunal also accepts, the efficacy of treatment in preventing further fractures and healing existing fractures, which is in dispute.

2. The Report of the Applicant’s general practitioner, Dr Henry Wamala, concluded that

   
   

   “in my opinion, with optimal medical management, I would expect the fractures to heal naturally with time hence resolution of her back pain and osteoporotic treatment to prevent further fractures”.

3. The Applicant states in her Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions that she did not accept Dr Wamala’s conclusion, since she was “still in pain after 8 months of the fractures” and that therefore waiting for the fractures to heal was not likely to remedy the impairment.

4. While it may be true that the Applicant’s fractures were unlikely to heal naturally, the impact of possible treatments, as proposed by Dr Jaa, also requires examination. The Applicant considered that the osteoporotic treatment advised by Dr Wamala was to prevent further fractures, not to treat those which had already happened.  Dr Wamala was not called to give evidence and so the Applicant’s contention could not be tested with him.

5. The Applicant’s view of her possible treatment outcomes is also at odds with the advice of Dr Jaa, who gave evidence and considered that the treatment administered to the Applicant in July 2023 (the infusion) may have assisted healing. Since, at the time of hearing, the Applicant was waiting for follow up nuclear imaging and a bone density scan to confirm the current state of her fractures, it was not known if the July 2023 infusion had been successful, or to what degree. Dr Jaa’s oral evidence that other treatments (he identified Teriparatide) were available, should the infusion not have improved the Applicant’s fractures, was not contested by the Applicant and accepted by the Tribunal.

6. The Respondent accepted the Applicant’s CFS is permanent and relied upon the report of her rheumatologist, Dr Phillip Vecchio, who observed that the major features of her “global Disability” were “subjective and are unable to be verified by any known test, but chronicity, collateral reporting and historical consistency form the basis of the diagnosis and its apparent repercussions”.

   FINDINGS

7. The Tribunal finds, on the evidence available, that the Applicant’s Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a permanent condition.

8. The Tribunal also recognises, consistent with FBJV, Mulligan and other case law, that it must be positively satisfied that the impairments arising from the Applicant’s osteoporosis (namely the pain and reduced movement associated with recurring spinal fractures) cannot be improved with further treatment. The Tribunal finds, based on the evidence available, that there is the prospect of further treatment for the Applicant which may prevent further fractures and heal her existing ones.

9. On the basis that there is further treatment for osteoporotic fractures available to the Applicant, the Tribunal concludes that the impairments associated with the Applicant’s osteoporosis are not permanent for the purposes of s 24(1)(b) of the Act.

10. The question arising from the finding of non-permanence of one condition relied upon by the Applicant is the impact this has on her overall level of impairment. During the hearing, the Applicant said the pain from her fractures affected her CFS in addition to being a significant contributor to her limited mobility. Indeed, much of her evidence revolved around the pain caused by her fractures and her declining tolerance to the pain over the course of a day. As she told the Tribunal:

    I cannot sit in my lounge chairs as they are too low and also cause me severe pain in my back. The only chair I have found I can sit on at home is a dining chair - the one I'm sitting on now – and I use a heat pack behind my back every time I sit down. Trying to sit in a different chair, anything that changes my spine or alignment, causes severe pain. I cannot manage without the electric adjustable bed that I use that enables me to get in and out of bed due to the pain in my back.

11. In her opening statement, the Applicant also described the steps she took to avoid that pain, including restrictions on car travel, on what weights she could lift, her ability to sit and stand for longer than a half an hour or to walk any distance. Significantly, she attributed her difficulty getting in and out of the car entirely to the pain associated with her back fractures as evidenced in the following exchange with the Respondent:

    So thinking about the time before those fractures was it hard for you to get in and out of the car?‑‑‑No. I could get in and out easily.

12. In her evidence, the Applicant attributed almost all the restrictions in her life to the avoidance of pain, although she attributed much of her social isolation to her chemical sensitivity, without providing independent evidence of such sensitivity. Further, the mobility aids she used, such as an electric bed, were described as measures she took to address her back pain and mobility, rather than her fatigue.

13. The evidence of Dr Jaa was that the Applicant’s CFS was a mitochondrial disorder. Notwithstanding several blood tests which Dr Jaa considered were indicators that the Applicant may have had a mitochondrial disorder, Dr Jaa confirmed she has “clinical symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”.

14. Neither the Applicant nor Dr Jaa provided evidence of falls, which the doctor associated with an extreme form of CFS.

15. Dr Jaa told the Tribunal that CFS sufferers “don’t recover when they rest and may wake up unrefreshed…they have the energy level of a ninety five year old”.

16. Since most of Dr Jaa’s consultations with the Applicant were “by phone” he made few direct observations to the Tribunal about the Applicant’s mobility and overall functionality other than observing her to be exhausted after walking thirty metres on flat ground and requiring extensive assistance in every day activities.

17. The evidence of the Occupational Therapist, Ms Richards, was not subject to examination at the hearing for the reasons indicated previously. However, her report recorded the Applicant’s self-reported limited driving tolerance, no capacity to ascend or descend stairs and her overall struggle with heavy lifting, household tasks and general mobility. Some of the Applicant’s reduced functionality was, she said, the result of chemical sensitivity, which had not been put forward as an independent source of impairment and was largely unexplored. Overall, Ms Richards described a woman of reduced functionality who could not attend to some household tasks without assistive technology, although she could attend to others in a modified way.

18. Ms Richards’ occupational assessment report did not distinguish between the impact of pain and the impact of fatigue on the Applicant to any useful degree; such a distinction may have enabled the Tribunal to come to a different understanding of the impact of the Applicant’s CFS alone.

19. During the hearing, the Applicant was able to sit for 45-minute stretches, and sat for the duration of Dr Jaa’s evidence, which was almost an hour and a half. She took only two breaks to reheat her heat pack and was an engaged and alert participant in the hearing, although she did complain of having some pain towards the end of the morning. Her questioning of Dr Jaa was informed and alert. The Tribunal found her overall presentation to be at odds with the description she gave of her struggles to sit and to maintain her energy level while at home. As she told the Tribunal in her opening statement:

    On good days I lay down and sleep or rest three to four times a day for an hour each rest. Bad days I don't walk at all, and lay down all day due to absolute exhaustion

20. The Applicant said she could usually sit in the mornings between 15 and 30 minutes before needing to move.

21. The Tribunal appreciates that the Applicant may have found the hearing stressful and decided during the lunch break not to participate further. She told the Tribunal by telephone she had been advised to call an ambulance following health concerns. The Tribunal does not consider that the Applicant’s decision not to continue for health reasons constitutes evidence helpful in determining the Applicant’s level of functional impairment and places no weight on it. The Tribunal notes the truncation of the hearing meant that the evidence of two expert witnesses, Dr Vecchio and Ms Richards, could not be tested and reduced the evidence available to the Tribunal.

    CONCLUSION

22. The Applicant’s only condition found to be permanent is her CFS, so satisfying s 24(1)(b).  The Tribunal concludes that the impairments associated with the Applicant’s osteoporosis do not satisfy the requirements of s 24(1)(b) and are not permanent. Accordingly, consideration of the functional impact of impairments arising from her osteoporosis is not relevant to her application to become a participant in the NDIS.

23. Since the Applicant’s major emphasis in her evidence related to the impact of fracture pain on her functionality, and only limited and very general evidence was provided regarding the impact of the Applicant’s CFS, or any possible relationship between the two sources of impairment, there is, overall, insufficient evidence that her CFS has contributed to a ‘substantial reduction in functionality” as required by s 24(1)(c).

24. The Tribunal, in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence of the contribution of CFS alone to reduced functionality, does not consider it necessary to now determine whether there are any substantial functional reductions in the Applicant’s activities of mobility, self-care and social interaction, irrespective of the impairments relied upon. However, the Tribunal notes the Respondent explored the Applicant’s level of impairment in written closing submissions.

    DECISION

25. The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty - nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of AAT

........................................................................

Associate

Dated: 12 August 2024

Date(s) of hearing:	9 July 2024
Date final submissions received:	19 July 2024
Applicant:	In person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Douglas-Baker