Ragni v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

[2022] NSWCATAD 247

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Ragni v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2022] NSWCATAD 247

Hearing dates:

On the Papers

Date of orders:

21 June 2022

Decision date:

21 June 2022

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Levine, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) The application of the mother, Ms Megan Baker Mather, to join the proceedings pursuant to section 44 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is dismissed.

(2) The Respondent’s application to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is granted.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for dismissal under section 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – new decision rendered by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages after the proceedings were commenced rendered continuation of proceedings baseless – proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW)

Birth Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

None

Texts Cited:

None

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Matteo Ragni (Applicant)
NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
NSW Department of Customer Service (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/00021695

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 25 January 2022, Mr Matteo Ragni (“Applicant”) applied to the NSW Civil and Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for administrative review of a decision made on 6 January 2022 (“Decision”) under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2009 (NSW) (“BDMR Act”) by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (“Registrar” or “Respondent”). The Decision affirmed an earlier decision not to add Mr Ragni’s name to the birth registration of a child, born on 11 March 2019 (as he is a minor, for privacy reasons, the child is referred to in this decision as the “Child”).

2. After Mr Ragni applied to this Tribunal for administrative review, the Registrar decided to conduct a further internal review of her Decision. That internal review led the Respondent to find in favour of Mr Ragni. On 23 March 2022, the Registrar updated the register and the birth certificate of the Child to include Mr Ragni’s details as the father.

3. The Respondent submits that in these circumstances there is no longer any basis for the application and seeks an order pursuant to section 55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (“CAT Act”) to dismiss the matter.

4. For the reasons that follow, and having considered all the circumstances, I find that the Respondent’s application under section 55 of the CAT Act should be granted.

Background

The Original Decision and the Decision under Review

5. The Applicant and the Child’s mother, Ms Megan Baker Mather, were married in 2016. The Child was born on 11 March 2019. Mr Ragni and Ms Mather separated in November 2018, and were divorced in January 2021. When the Child’s birth was first registered, Mr Ragni’s details as father were not included.

6. Mr Ragni and Ms Baker have been involved in Family Court proceedings. Amongst other things, the Family Court proceedings involved an order by Deputy Chief Justice McClelland on 19 April 2021 that Mr Ragni pay the mother’s legal costs of Mr Ragni’s application for orders for parentage testing (“Family Court Order”). McClelland DCJ noted that he ordered Mr Ragni to pay costs as a result of him “continuing with an application for orders requiring the mother and the child to undergo parentage testing when his application had no reasonable prospects of success in circumstances where the mother had not disputed that the father is the biological father of the child and where no plausible evidence had been presented to cast in doubt the father’s paternity of the child.”

7. On 18 May 2021, Mr Ragni applied to the Respondent to have his details included in the birth registration of the Child. That application was declined on 28 October 2021 (“Original Decision”).

8. On 18 November 2021, Mr Ragni applied to the Respondent for an internal review of the Original Decision. As part of that process, Mr Ragni and the Child’s mother were invited to provide additional submissions.

9. On 9 December 2021, the Registry sent a letter to Mr Ragni indicating that, based on information available, including the fact that the Family Court Order stated that Mr Ragni is the father of the Child, his details would be entered into the Register under section 18(e) of the BDMR Act. The letter stated contact details of the child and mother would not be included in any new birth certificate due to ongoing Family Court proceedings. The letter further stated that the “Registry is adjourning this matter for 14 working days to give both parties time to provide any further submissions on this outcome.”

10. On 6 January 2022, the Registrar wrote to Mr Ragni with her Decision resulting from the internal review of the Original Decision. The Registrar stated that she had viewed all documentation submitted on file and decided to affirm the Original Decision not to add Mr Ragni to the birth registration. The Registrar stated that “[b]ased on the information on file, and the ongoing court matter’s I am not satisfied that I can make the presumption of parentage under section 18 of the [BDMR Act].” She added that “If the Court orders the inclusion of Mr Ragni or DNA evidence is produced or both parties agree to the inclusion, I will comply with the request.” The Registrar advised that the Applicant could apply to this Tribunal for external review of the Decision within 28 days.

The Applicant’s Application to this Tribunal for Administrative Review of the Decision

11. Mr Ragni filed his application with this Tribunal on 25 January 2022. In his application form he noted that the presumption of paternity was not in dispute, that a court made findings that he was the biological father, that no DNA testing had been requested, that according to an affidavit sworn by the mother, he is the father, and that the Registry was “trying to dispute the paternity of the Applicant, when paternity is not disputed.”

12. The Respondent was notified of the application on 28 January 2022 and filed an appearance on 3 February 2022. By emailed dated 21 February 2022, the Respondent asked the Tribunal for a two-week extension for filing section 58 documents because it had decided to undertake an inquiry into its internal review decision under section 44 of the BDMR Act. As part of the inquiry, both Mr Ragni and the mother were being invited to provide further material. The Respondent advised the Tribunal that if, as a result of this inquiry, it were to find in favour of Mr Ragni, “it will be seeking that the matter is dismissed by the Tribunal.” By email of the same date the Respondent explained to the Applicant that the purpose of the inquiry was to “determine whether there is any dispute as to whether you are [the Child’s] biological father. If the inquiry finds that you are, [the Registrar] proposes to include your details in the Register.”

13. On 24 February 2022, Mr Ragni expressed dissatisfaction with the Registrar’s communication, because it had “disturbingly changed too many times to decline and add my name as the father” and he accused the Registrar of “negligence incompetency and/or malice”.

14. On 28 February 2022, the mother, Ms Baker, filed an application to be joined to the proceedings, noting her opposition to including Mr Ragni’s name on the Child’s birth certificate, and her position that Mr Ragni’s application to the Tribunal mispresented factual background. That same date, Mr Ragni filed further materials from the Family Court (including a February 2021 affidavit in which Ms Baker stated Mr Ragni was the father, and an extract of the Family Court Order of 19 April 2021). Mr Ragni stated that he would be seeking to dismiss the application of Ms Baker if there is no new dispute of paternity.

15. On 1 March 2022, SM Montgomery listed the matter for further directions and noted that the matter was stood over to allow time for the Registrar to review the matter.

16. On 7 March 2022, the Applicant filed materials including another bundle of documents from the Family Law proceedings.

17. On 15 March 2022, PM Simon ordered the Respondent to give to the Tribunal and the other party any new decision to add the Applicant as a father to the birth certificate by 25 March 2022. She also ordered the Applicant to give notice of any withdrawal of the application by 1 April 2022 or otherwise state the basis on which the matter should proceed in the Tribunal. If the application were not withdrawn by 1 April 2022, then the Respondent was ordered to notify any application to dismiss the proceedings by 8 April 2022. The proceeding was listed for further directions on 12 April 2022.

The Respondent’s Application to Dismiss

18. On 23 March 2022, the Respondent advised the Tribunal that it had emailed Mr Ragni and Ms Baker on the outcome of the additional internal review. The Respondent attached a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr Ragni, in which the Respondent had written:

After receiving the NCAT application, I decided to undertake an inquiry under the provisions of section 44 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (the Act), because the NCAT application raised grounds sufficient to call into doubt the correctness of the original decision.

Submissions were sought from both parties on 18 February 2022 and have been received by me.

I have undertaken an inquiry under section 44 of the Act which entailed the consideration of all documentary evidence in file and the submissions provided by Ms Baker and yourself. After the inquiry, I found that Ms Baker did not dispute that you are [the Child’s] biological father, and on that basis, you could be included as [the Child’s] father pursuant to section 18(c) of the Act.

In these circumstances, I have decided that [the Child’s] birth registration in the Register will now include your details as his father.

This outcome and information has also been provided to Ms Baker.

19. On 1 April 2022, the Applicant sent an email requesting the Respondent provide further information and clarification about the reasoning of the earlier decisions. He complained about the inconsistencies in the Respondent’s decisions about him, that it was difficult to establish if there was or was not a paternity dispute, and he expressed concerns about procedural fairness.

20. On 1 April 2022, in reference to the Tribunal’s orders of 15 March 2022, the Respondent filed an application for the matter to be dismissed under section 55 of the CAT Act “as the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance.” The Respondent stated as the grounds for dismissal:

The Applicant sought to have his name included on the Register against the birth registration of his son. The Respondent undertook an inquiry and found in favour of Mr Ragni. The Register has been updated to include this information and Mr Ragni was issued with a birth certificate to reflect this on 24 March 2022 (copy annexed). There is no longer any basis for the Respondent’s application.

21. On 7 April 2012 Ms Baker filed an appearance via her representative from Reid Family Lawyers, who noted that the “application to be joined as a party has not formally been dismissed and as I understand it, an appearance is required in those circumstances”.

22. On 11 April 2022, the Applicant made a submission requesting the Respondent to “submit all evidence submitted by the parties under section 58 since May 2019-March 2022”. He recounted the history of the matter and noted “as the BDM has not mentioned reasons why to add or not to add the father name, so there are no evidences for the father nor this tribunal to assess accept that this dismissal is legitimate, nor that the father is the father nor the paternity has been or is not in dispute.” In particular, he requested that the Tribunal order the Respondent to “provide all submissions of the mother since her application in April 2019 to issue a birth certificate was authorized by BDM to issue it without the father’s name in January 2021”. The Applicant submitted that ordering the Respondent to continue to file its section 58 documents would satisfy the requirement of procedural fairness. The history of the matter had left him with “no clues to ascertain [if] the mother has accepted paternity”.

23. On 12 April 2022, SM Montgomery directed the Applicant to file evidence and submissions in relation to the Respondent’s dismissal application on or before 29 April 2022. SM Montgomery also made an order to dispense with a hearing on the dismissal application and for it to be determined on the papers, pursuant to section 50(3) of the CAT Act. He made that order having considered the submissions and being satisfied that the Respondent’s application for dismissal could be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.

24. On 28 April 2022, the Applicant repeated his request that the Respondent “submit all evidence submitted by the parties under section 58 since May 2019-March 2022”. He referred to the child’s mother having at one stage requested a birth certificate without the father’s name and subsequent clarifications about paternity. He stated that “it is clear that there is a controversy or a dispute and there are contradictory versions of facts and no evidences can prove or sustain a decision made outside jurisdiction, this is an external review, the internal review was finalized by registrar Ianna with declining to add the name of the father.” He referred to remarks made at the directions hearings by the representative of the Respondent to the effect that “the mother has not disputed paternity” but Mr Ragni said “it was unclear why this should said on behalf of the mother”. He referred to procedural fairness and noted that nothing in section 50(3) prevents the Tribunal “from holding a hearing even if it is not required”.

Material before the Tribunal

25. In considering this matter I have had access to the Tribunal file with respect to Mr Ragni’s administrative review application.

26. Specifically, I have had regard to the following documents filed by the Applicant:

1. Mr Ragni’s application for administrative review of 25 January 2022 attaching the Respondent’s letter of 9 December 2021 and Decision of 6 January 2022;

2. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 28 February 2022 enclosing an affidavit of Ms Baker from February 2021 and orders of McClelland DCJ of 19 April 2021;

3. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 7 March 2022 attaching a bundle of material from the Family Court proceedings;

4. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 11 March 2022, enclosing the full Reasons for Judgment delivered by McClelland DCJ on 19 April 2021 and an affidavit of Mr Ragni from March 2021;

5. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 1 April 2022;

6. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 11 April 2022;

7. Mr Ragni’s email to the Tribunal of 28 April 2022.

27. I have also had regard to the following materials from the Respondent:

1. The Respondent’s email to the Tribunal of 23 March 2022, enclosing correspondence sent to Mr Ragni attaching the letter from the Registrar setting out the results of her review under section 44 of the BDMR Act and the updated birth certificate of the Child dated 23 March 2022 bearing Mr Ragni’s details as the father; and

2. The Respondent’s 1 April 2022 application for dismissal of these proceedings under section 55 of the CAT Act, and the Respondent’s communications to the Applicant of the same date.

28. Additionally, I have noted the following documents in the file on behalf of the mother:

1. Application to be joined to the proceedings, dated 28 February 2022;

2. Letter to the Tribunal dated 9 March 2022 from Reid Family Lawyers, acting on behalf of the mother, correcting her name in the case file;

3. Emails to the Tribunal dated 7 April 2022 from Reid Family Lawyers confirming appearance for directions hearings and noting that the “application to be joined as a party has not formally been dismissed and as I understand it, an appearance is required in those circumstances.”

Relevant Legislation

29. Three pieces of legislation are relevant to the present proceedings: the BDMR Act, the ADR Act and the CAT Act.

30. The objects of the BDMR Act, as stated in section 3, include the registration of births in New South Wales, the keeping of registers for recording and preserving information about births, and the issuance of certified information from the registers.

31. Under section 6, the Registrar’s general functions include the establishment, maintenance, integrity and administration of the registration system set up by the BDMR Act.

32. Part 3 of the BDMR Act provides for notification and registration of births. Section 17 provides that the Registrar registers a birth by making an entry about the birth in the Register including the particulars required by the regulations. Regulation 5 of the Birth Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulation 2017 (NSW) outlines that, for purposes of Section 17 of the Act, the registration of birth requires particulars of “(d) the full name (including, if applicable the original surname), date of birth (or age), place of birth, occupation and usual place of residence (at the time of delivery) of each parent of the child.”

33. Section 18 of the BDMR Act relevantly provides:

18 Registration of parentage details

The Registrar must not include registrable information about the identity of a child’s parent in the Register unless—

(a)    both parents of the child make a joint application for the inclusion of the information, or …

…

(c)   one parent of the child makes an application for the inclusion of the information and the Registrar is satisfied that the other parent does not dispute the correctness of that information;

…

(e)   a court makes a finding that a particular person is a parent of the child,

…

34. Section 20 of the BDMR Act provides for an application to the Registrar to be made for the addition of registrable information in a person’s birth registration.

35. Part 8 of the BDMR Act deals with the Register. Section 43 sets out the Registrar’s duty to maintain a register (“Register”) of registrable events (defined in section 4 to include births).

36. The Registrar’s powers of inquiry are provided for in Division 2, as follows:

(1)    The Registrar may conduct an inquiry to find out—

(a)    whether a registrable event has happened, or

(b)    particulars of a registrable event, or

(c)    whether particulars of a specific registrable event have been correctly recorded in the Register.

(2)    The Registrar may, by notice given to a person who may be able to provide information relevant to an inquiry under this section, required the person to answer specified questions or to provide other information within a time and manner specified in the notice.

…

37. Section 45 allows the Registrar to correct the Register as follows:

(1)    The Registrar may correct the Register—

(a)    to reflect a finding made on inquiry under Division 2, or

(b)    to bring an entry about a particular registrable event into conformity with the most reliable information available to the Registrar of the registrable event.

…

(3)    The Registrar corrects the Register by adding or cancelling an entry in the Register or by adding, altering or deleting particulars contained in an entry.

38. Part 9 of the BDMR Act provides the general power of review that gives the Tribunal jurisdiction in this matter. Section 56(1) provides:

(1)    A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar made in the exercise or purported exercise of functions under this Act may apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of the decision.

39. Section 9(1) of the ADR Act confers jurisdiction on this Tribunal for administrative review over a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for an administrative review under this Act of any such decision made by the administrator. In the present case, the enabling legislation is section 56 of the BDMR Act, the administrator is the Registrar and the decision under review is the Registrar’s Decision of 6 January 2022 affirming the earlier decision not to include the Applicant’s details on the Child’s birth certificate.

40. Section 58 of the ADR Act sets out the duty of an administrator to lodge material documents with the Tribunal when a decision is under administrative review by the Tribunal:

(1)     An administrator whose administratively reviewable decision is the subject of an application for review to the Tribunal must, within 28 days after receiving notice of the application, lodge with the Tribunal:

(a)     a copy of any statement of reasons given to the applicant under section 49 (or, if no such statement was given to the applicant, a statement of reasons setting out the matters referred to in section 49 (3)), and

(a1)     a copy of any statement of reasons for a decision in an internal review conducted in respect of the administratively reviewable decision, and

(b)     a copy of every document or part of a document that is in the possession, or under the control, of the administrator that the administrator considers to be relevant to the determination of the application by the Tribunal.

(2)     If the applicant has not been given a statement of reasons under section 49, the Tribunal may direct that a copy of the statement of reasons lodged with the Tribunal under subsection (1) (a) be given to the applicant within such period or periods as the Tribunal directs.

…

41. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that in determining an application for an administrative review, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including factual material and any applicable law. In determining an application for administrative review, the Tribunal may decide to affirm, vary or set aside the decision.

42. The other legislation relevant to the present proceedings is the CAT Act. Sections 28 and 30 confirm that, as set out in Section 9 of the ADR Act, the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator. Section 30(2) provides:

(2)    The Tribunal also has the following jurisdiction in proceedings for the exercise of its administrative review jurisdiction—

(a)    the jurisdiction to make ancillary and interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal in the proceedings,

(b)    the jurisdiction to exercise such other functions as re conferred or imposed on the Tribunal by or under this Act, the [ADR Act] or enabling legislation in connection with the conduct or resolution of such proceedings.

43. Section 36 of the CAT Act provides that the guiding principle for the CAT Act is “to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.” The Tribunal must seek to give effect to that guiding principle when it exercises any power given to it by the Act. Parties to proceedings are also under a duty to co-operate with the Tribunal to give effect to that guiding principle. Section 36(4) provides that the practice and procedure of the Tribunal should be implemented so as to facilitate the resolution of the issues between the parties in such a way that the cost to the parties and the Tribunal is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subject-matter of the proceedings”.

44. Under section 38(2) of the CAT Act, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal has to consider all of the evidence in the exercise of its discretion.

45. Section 44(1) of the CAT Act provides that the Tribunal “may order that a person be joined as a party to proceedings if the Tribunal considers that the person should be joined as a party”.

46. Section 50 of the CAT Act provides for the Tribunal to make orders dispensing with a hearing, as SM Montgomery did in the present matter on 12 April 2022. Section 50 states:

(2)    The Tribunal may make an order dispensing with a hearing if it is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering any written submissions or any other documents or material lodged with or provided to the Tribunal.

(3)    The Tribunal may not make an order dispensing with a hearing unless the Tribunal has first—

(a)    afforded the parties an opportunity to make submissions about the proposed order, and

(b)    taken any such submissions into account.

(4)    The Tribunal may determine proceedings in which a hearing is not required based on the written submissions or any other documents or material that have been lodged with or provided to the Tribunal in accordance with the requirements of this Act, enabling legislation and the procedural rules.

(5)    This section does not prevent the Tribunal from holding a hearing even if it is not required.

47. Of relevance to the Respondent’s application to dismiss the proceedings is Section 55 of CAT Act, which provides under the heading “Dismissal of Proceedings”:

(1)     The Tribunal may dismiss at any stage any proceedings before it in any of the following circumstances—

(a)   if the applicant or appellant (or, if there is more than one applicant or appellant, each applicant or appellant) withdraws the application or appeal to which the proceedings relate,

(b)     if the Tribunal considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance,

(c)     if the applicant or appellant (or, if there is more than one applicant or appellant, each applicant or appellant) has failed to appear in the proceedings,

(d)     if the Tribunal considers that there has been a want of prosecution of the proceedings.

(2)     The Tribunal may reinstate proceedings that have been dismissed under subsection (1)(c) if the Tribunal considers that there is a reasonable explanation for that failure.

48. After the Respondent issued a new decision in favour of Mr Ragni in March 2022, and the Tribunal provided him with an opportunity to withdraw his application, he chose not to do so. Accordingly, section 55(1)(a) is not applicable in the present case. Mr Ragni has appeared at directions hearings and filed written submissions even after the Respondent issued its new decision in his favour. He continues to press for section 58 documents and has also submitted that a hearing may be ordered “even if it is not required”. Accordingly, Sections 55(1)(c) and (d) are also inapplicable. That leaves for the Tribunal’s consideration whether the proceedings should be dismissed under section 55(1)(b) on the basis that they are “frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance.”

Issue to be Determined and Consideration by Tribunal

49. The issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether Mr Ragni’s application for administrative review of the Registrar’s Decision of 6 January 2022 should be dismissed under section 55(1)(b) of the CAT Act.

50. The Tribunal accepts that at the time Mr Ragni made his application to the Tribunal, the proceedings were not frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance. To the contrary, his decision to apply to the Tribunal for administrative review was vindicated by what occurred next.

51. However, the Tribunal considers that the proceedings have since become frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance. That is because the Registrar subsequently decided, as was within her powers under section 44 of the BDMR Act, to conduct an inquiry to find out whether the particulars of the Child’s birth had been correctly recorded in the Register. She made a finding, having sought information from both parents. In accordance with section 45 of the BDMR Act, on 23 March 2022, she corrected the Register and issued a new birth certificate for the Child containing Mr Ragni’s details as the father.

52. The administratively reviewable Decision that was the subject of the application to the Tribunal has thus effectively been replaced by the Registrar’s decision of 23 March 2022. That new decision reflects the outcome that was sought by Mr Ragni when he applied to this Tribunal in January 2022.

53. The Tribunal is conscious that the Applicant is frustrated by what he describes as the Registrar having “disturbingly changed too many times to decline and add my name as the father”. That does not, in the Tribunal’s view, justify continuing proceedings before this Tribunal when there is no longer any basis for the proceedings. The Tribunal has considered the guiding principle that it should “facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.” The real issue in the proceedings was whether Mr Ragni’s details should have been added to the Child’s birth certificate. That issue has now been re‑examined and addressed by the Respondent in the decision of 23 March 2022 to correct the Register and issue a new birth certificate. The real issue is therefore no longer a live issue.

54. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s statement that there remains a “controversy or a dispute”. That is negated by the Respondent’s decision of 23 March 2022 in which she explained to Mr Ragni that her inquiry under section 44 of the Act entailed the consideration of all documentary evidence and the submissions provided by both parents and found that “Ms Baker did not dispute that you are [the Child’s] biological father, and on that basis, you could be included as [the Child’s] father pursuant to section 18(c) of the Act.”

55. Continuing proceedings in the circumstances would be misconceived and would also add unnecessary costs and burdens to those involved. In light of the above considerations, the Tribunal grants the Respondent’s application for dismissal of the proceedings under section 55(1)(b) of the CAT Act.

56. In these circumstances, and noting that the Respondent sought and received information from both parents in the context of her inquiry under section 44 of the BDMR Act, the Tribunal considers it unnecessary under section 44(1) of the CAT Act to make an order joining the mother to these proceedings.

Orders

57. The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The application of the mother, Ms Megan Baker Mather, to join the proceedings pursuant to section 44 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is dismissed.

2. The Respondent’s application to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is granted.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 21 July 2022