S & A Chalhoub Nominees Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2019] AATA 80
•4 February 2019
S & A Chalhoub Nominees Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] AATA 80 (4 February 2019)
Division:TAXATION & COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/0279
Re:S & A Chalhoub Nominees Pty Ltd
APPLICANT
AndAustralian Securities and Investments Commission
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Bernard J McCabe
The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior MemberDate:4 February 2019
Place:Melbourne
The Decision is affirmed.
.......................[SGD].................................................
Deputy President Bernard J McCabe
CATCHWORDS
CORPORATIONS - refusal to issue an Australian Financial Services Licence - whether the applicant will contravene the obligations under s 912A of the Corporations Act - Regulatory Guides - failure to meet requirements - professional indemnity insurance requirements - training requirements for responsible managers - efficiently, honestly and fairly requirement - decision affirmed CORPORATIONS - refusal to issue an Australian Financial Services Licence - whether the applicant will contravene the obligations under s 912A of the Corporations Act - Regulatory Guides - failure to meet requirements - professional indemnity insurance requirements - training requirements for responsible managers - efficiently, honestly and fairly requirement - decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 2A
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 911A, 912A, 913B
Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) reg 7.6.01BA
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - ss 911A, 912A, 913BCorporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) - reg 7.6.01BA
CASES
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Camelot Derivatives Pty Ltd (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 206; [2012] FCA 414
Felden and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] AATA 301
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
One RE Services Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] AATA 294
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Rent-To-Own (Australia) Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 689
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Yao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 140 ALD 21; [2014] FCAFC 17
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Camelot Derivatives Pty Ltd (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 206; [2012] FCA 414
Felden and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] AATA 301
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
One RE Services Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] AATA 294
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Rent-To-Own (Australia) Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 689
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286Yao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 140 ALD 21; [2014] FCAFC 17
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Regulatory Guide 105 - Licensing: Organisational competence (December 2016)
Regulatory Guide 126 - Compensation and insurance arrangements for AFS licensees (August 2017)
Regulatory Guide 146 - Licensing: Training of financial product advisers (July 2012)Regulatory Guide 105 - Licensing: Organisational competence (December 2016)
Regulatory Guide 126 - Compensation and insurance arrangements for AFS licensees (August 2017)Regulatory Guide 146 - Licensing: Training of financial product advisers (July 2012)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Bernard J McCabe
The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member4 February 2019
INTRODUCTION
This is a review of a decision made by a delegate of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) on 18 December 2017 to refuse an application made by the applicant for an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) (the Decision).[1]
[1] T Documents (TD) 2.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether it can be satisfied that there is no reason to believe that the applicant is likely to contravene the obligations that will apply to it under s 912A of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) should the AFSL application be granted.
Having carefully considered all of the material before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant fails to meet the necessary requirements with respect to both professional indemnity insurance and training. In addition, we cannot be satisfied that the applicant will do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services proposed to be covered by the AFSL will be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly as required by s 912A(1)(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the Decision. Our reasons are set out below.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The applicant is a company controlled by Mr Akram El-Fahkri (Mr El-Fahkri Snr). Mr El-Fahkri Snr and his son, Mr Hayaf El-Fahkri (Mr El-Fahkri Jnr), are both directors of the applicant.
Mr El-Fahkri Snr is an accountant who is seeking to establish a financial advisory business specialising in superannuation. He intends to operate the business through the applicant. This requires the applicant to hold an AFSL.
On 25 June 2016, the applicant applied to ASIC) for an AFSL for this purpose.[2]
[2] TD 4.
In its application to ASIC, the applicant sought an AFSL to provide limited financial services which would allow it to:
(a)Provide financial product advice for the following classes of financial products:
(i)Self-Managed Superannuation Fund; and
(ii)A person’s existing holding in a superannuation product;
(b)Provide class of product advice for the following classes of financial products:
(i)Basic Deposit Products;
(ii)General Insurance Products;
(iii)Life Risk Insurance Products;
(iv)Simple Managed Investment Schemes;
(v)Securities; and
(vi)Superannuation;
to retail clients.[3]
[3] TD 4 pg 81.
For the purpose of the application Mr El-Fahkri Snr was named as the applicant’s sole responsible manager.
On 3 July 2017, ASIC wrote to the applicant advising that a preliminary decision had been made to grant the AFSL subject to the applicant meeting specified requirements (the Requirements Letter). The Requirements Letter required the applicant to:
(a)Confirm acceptance of the licence conditions;
(b)Provide the ‘Details of Professional Indemnity Insurance’ questionnaire;
(c)Provide a certificate of currency for the Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance policy;
(d)Confirm the applicant’s membership with an ASIC approved External Dispute Resolution Scheme;
(e)Provide evidence of the successful completion of all the Regulatory Guide 146 training modules that Mr El-Fahkri Snr had enrolled in with Mentor Education; and
(f)List all the commercial contingencies the applicant considered when preparing the cash flow projections.
A draft copy of the proposed AFSL was attached to the Requirements Letter.[4]
[4] TD 5.
In the months following the issuing of the Requirements Letter there was an exchange of correspondence between ASIC, the applicant and Mr El-Fahkri Snr where ASIC raised concerns about the timing and adequacy of further information that had been provided in response to the Requirements Letter.
It is not necessary to detail these exchanges for the purpose of these reasons, except to say that ASIC ultimately formed the view that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of the AFSL as set out in the Requirements Letter.
ASIC sent the applicant a letter on 4 October 2017 advising that its application for an AFSL was being recommended for refusal.[5]
[5] TD 23.
On 29 November 2017, ASIC sent the applicant a notice providing the applicant with an opportunity to attend a hearing for the purpose of making submissions to ASIC as to why the application should not be refused (the Hearing Notice).[6] The Hearing Notice set out the grounds ASIC was relying on in being minded to refuse the application.
[6] Supplementary TD 12 pg 589.
The hearing was held on 15 December 2017 and was attended by an ASIC delegate together with Mr El-Fahkri Snr and Jnr for the applicant.
Following the hearing, on 18 December 2017, the ASIC delegate made the Decision to refuse the application.
LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS
Section 911A(1) of the Act provides that a person who carries on a financial services business in this jurisdiction must hold an AFSL covering the provision of the financial services.
Section 912A(1) provides that a financial services licensee must:
(a) do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly; and
(aa) have in place adequate arrangements for the management of conflicts of interest that may arise wholly, or partially, in relation to activities undertaken by the licensee or a representative of the licensee in the provision of financial services as part of the financial services business of the licensee or the representative; and
(b) comply with the conditions on the licence; and
(c) comply with the financial services laws; and
(ca) take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives comply with the financial services laws; and
(cb) if the licensee is the operator of an Australian passport fund, or a person with responsibilities in relation to an Australian passport fund, comply with the law of each host economy for the fund; and
(d) subject to subsection (4)—have available adequate resources (including financial, technological and human resources) to provide the financial services covered by the licence and to carry out supervisory arrangements; and
(e) maintain the competence to provide those financial services; and
(f) ensure that its representatives are adequately trained (including by complying with section 921D), and are competent, to provide those financial services; and
(g) if those financial services are provided to persons as retail clients:
(i) have a dispute resolution system complying with subsection (2); and
(ii) give ASIC the information specified in any instrument under subsection (2A); and
(h) subject to subsection (5) - have adequate risk management systems; and
(j) comply with any other obligations that are prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.
Reg 7.6.01BA of the Corporations Regulations (2001) also incorporate s 912A(1)(eb) into the Act as follows:
(eb) for a limited licensee that is a corporation or partnership—ensure that each recognised accountant that supervises and has responsibility for the provision of financial services covered by the licence maintain knowledge of the financial services covered by the licence; and
Section 912B of the Act provides for compensation arrangements if financial services are to be provided to persons as retail clients:
1If a financial services licensee provides a financial service to persons as retail clients, the licensee must have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of the relevant obligations under this Chapter by the licensee or its representatives. The arrangements must meet the requirements of subsection (2).
2The arrangements must:
(a)if the regulations specify requirements that are applicable to all arrangements, or to arrangements of that kind—satisfy those requirements; or
(b)be approved in writing by ASIC.
3Before approving arrangements under paragraph (2)(b), ASIC must have regard to:
(a)the financial services covered by the licence; and
(b)whether the arrangements will continue to cover persons after the licensee ceases carrying on the business of providing financial services, and the length of time for which that cover will continue; and
(c)any other matters that are prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.
4Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3)(c) may, in particular, prescribe additional details in relation to the matters to which ASIC must have regard under paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).
Section 913B(1)(b) relevantly provides that ASIC “must grant an applicant an Australian financial services licence if (and must not grant such a licence unless)” it “has no reason to believe that the applicant is likely to contravene the obligations that will apply under section 912A if the licence is granted”.
In addition, ASIC from time to time issues regulatory guidance notes which set out ASIC’s compliance expectations in its administration of the Act. The guides relevant to this matter include:
RG 105 - Licensing: Organisational competence;
RG 126 - Compensation and insurance arrangements for AFS licensees; and
RG 146 - Licensing: Training of financial product advisers.
Where such guides are available, it is appropriate for decision-makers to follow them, unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[7] Neither of the parties raised any concern in relation to the guides. Having considered the guides, the Tribunal is satisfied that they are consistent with the Act and that there are no cogent reasons why they should not be followed in the circumstances of this case.
[7] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at [640]-[641] per Brennan J.
ISSUE
The grounds that ASIC relied on in making the Decision to refuse the applicant’s application for an AFSL are summarised by the respondent as follows:
PI Coverage
The Delegate found that the PI coverage in the policy provided by the Applicant did not cover the Applicant for all the services to be provided under the proposed license.
Although the original PI Insurance policy from CGU indicated the sum insured was $1million29 and the PI insurance policy from Insurance House provided at hearing indicated the sum insured was $2million, the policy still excluded any investment advice.
Accordingly, the Delegate found that they were not satisfied that they had no reason to believe that the Applicant was likely to contravene the obligations under s 912A(1)(c) as the Applicant did not have adequate arrangements for the purposes of s 912B of the Act.
RG 146 Training Requirements
The Delegate found that they could not be satisfied that they had no reason to believe that the Applicant was likely to contravene the obligations under ss 912A(1)(e) and (f) to maintain the competence to provide the services under its proposed license and to ensure that its representatives were adequately trained to provide those financial services.
This finding was made on the basis that Mr El-Fahkri, as the proposed Responsible Manager, was not RG146 compliant in:
(a)Securities and Self-managed superannuation fund financial products; and
(b)Personal advice.
Efficiently, Honestly and Fairly
The Delegate also found that they could not be satisfied that the Applicant would do all the things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by the license would be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly under s 912A(1)(a) of the Act.
The Delegate based this finding on the fact that, throughout the process of the AFSL Application, the Applicant had not responded in a timely and adequate manner to ASIC’s requirements.[8]
[8] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed 12 July 2018 at [20]-[26].
However, in undertaking this review, the Tribunal is not limited to consider the grounds on which ASIC relied. Rather, the Tribunal is required to consider the matter afresh and determine for itself what the correct or preferable decision is: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286.[9] In doing so, the Tribunal is entitled to consider all the material before it and is not limited to consideration of only the material that was before the original decision-maker.
[9] See also Yao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 140 ALD 21; [2014] FCAFC 17 at [41] per Perry J.
More specifically in the context of applying section 913B(1) of the Act, SM Redfern noted in One RE Services Limited and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] AATA 294 at [70]:
Under s 913B(1) it is not necessary for me to form a view about whether [the applicant] will or will not comply with the obligations under s 912A of the Act but rather whether there is ‘no reason to believe’ it will not comply. While the expression ‘reason to believe’ poses a ‘relatively low threshold’, the requirement that there be ‘no reason to believe’ sets a benchmark that has the practical effect of shifting the onus to an applicant for an AFSL to establish, to the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker, that it will comply with the obligations under s 912A. If there is any doubt based on the objective facts, the decision maker will not be able to form such a view.
While it is true there is no onus of proof in administrative proceedings[10], from a practical perspective the applicant does need to provide the Tribunal with sufficient information about its capacity to meet its obligations as a licensee to enable the Tribunal to be “reasonably comfortable”, on the evidence, that the test set out in s 913B(1) is able to be met.[11] If not, then the Tribunal must refuse the licence.
[10] See McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354.
[11] See Felden and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] AATA 301.
Therefore, the issue is whether, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal can be satisfied that there is no reason to believe that the applicant is likely to contravene the obligations that will apply to it under s 912A of the Act should the AFSL application be granted.
In undertaking this assessment the Tribunal needs to consider whether:
(g)The applicant has demonstrated that it has adequate compensation arrangements such that it will satisfy the requirements of s 912B of the Act having regard to the guidance set out in RG 126 should the AFSL Application be granted.
(h)The applicant has demonstrated that it will satisfy the requirements of ss 912A(1)(eb) and (f) of the Act by showing that its proposed responsible manager, Mr El-Fahkri Snr, has complied with the requirements of RG 105 and RG146.
(i)The applicant’s conduct and representations through the application process and in this proceeding give rise to concerns that the applicant will not do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly as required under s 912A(1)(a) of the Act.
CONSIDERATION
Does the applicant have adequate compensation arrangements?
As described above, s 912B of the Act requires a financial services licensee to have compensation arrangements to protect consumers from any loss or damage suffered as a consequence of breaches of the relevant obligations under the Act. The arrangements must be approved in writing by ASIC. RG 126 sets out ASIC’s expectations and guidance in relation to compliance with s 912B of the Act. Table 4 of RG 126 sets out the features of adequate PI cover for the purpose of the section. In determining what is adequate it is necessary to consider the scope of the financial services covered by the AFSL.
The ProRisk PI policy being relied on by the applicant includes an exclusion provision which explicitly states that the policy excludes “any investment advice or opinion provided by You or on Your behalf, or any allegation of a failure by You to provide investment advice or opinion”. The applicant’s application specifically includes “financial product advice” in the description of financial services to be covered by the AFSL.
For this reason alone ASIC contends that the compensation arrangements are inadequate.
ASIC also contends that the business description the applicant provided for the purpose of obtaining the PI policy quote was substantially narrower than the business description it had used for the purpose of the AFSL application. ASIC contends that for this reason also the PI policy proposed by the applicant is inadequate.
Under cross-examination, Mr El-Fahkri Snr conceded that the PI policy the applicant proposed to rely upon included an exclusion which meant that the policy would not cover the applicant for the provision of investment advice. He also conceded that the description of the business used for the purpose of the PI policy quote was narrower than that used by the applicant for the purpose of the AFSL application and that may also have the effect of rendering the PI policy cover inadequate for the financial advisory business proposed.
Having considered all of the evidence before it, as well as Mr El-Fahkri Snr’s testimony, the Tribunal is satisfied that the PI policy relied on by the applicant is not sufficiently broad to cover the investment advice services proposed to be provided under the AFSL and that, therefore, the applicant does not have compensation arrangements in place that would satisfy RG 126 or s 912B of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the knowledge requirements?
Under s 912A(1)(eb) of the Act a licensee is required to “ensure that each recognised accountant that supervises and has responsibility for the provision of financial services covered by the licence maintain knowledge of the financial services covered by the licence”.
Under s 912A(1)(f) a licensee is required to “ensure that its representatives are adequately trained (including by complying with section 921D), and are competent, to provide those services,..”
RG 105.2 relevantly states that:
We assess your compliance with this obligation by looking at the knowledge and skills of people who manage your financial services business. We refer to these people as your ‘responsible managers’.
RG 105.5 states that:
At a minimum, you need to nominate responsible managers who:
(a)are directly responsible for significant day-to-day decisions about the ongoing provision of your financial services (see Section B);
(b)together, have appropriate knowledge and skills for all of your financial services and products (see Section B); and
(c)individually, meet one of the five options for demonstrating appropriate knowledge and skills (see Section C).
The applicant nominated Mr El-Fahkri Snr as the responsible manager for the applicant for the purpose of its licence.[12] It was also proposed that Mr El-Fahkri Snr would be the natural person providing financial product advice to clients of the business.
[12] It should be noted that because Mr El-Fahkri Snr is an accountant, s912A(1)(eb), as it applied to the applicant at the time it made its application, obviates the need to demonstrate the maintenance of competence as would otherwise be required under s 912A(1)(e).
RG 146 sets out the minimum training standards of advisers. RG146.7 provides that the knowledge and skill requirement and educational levels depend on whether the adviser’s advice is ‘general’ or ‘personal’ advice.
The scope of financial services sought to be covered by the applicant’s AFSL included personal advice.
Mr El-Fahkri Snr conceded in cross-examination that he has only completed training for general advice in life insurance, managed investments, superannuation, and general insurance. He conceded he has not completed training for either securities or self-managed superannuation funds which are both included in the description of the financial services for which the AFSL is sought. He also conceded that he has not completed any training in personal advice.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr El-Fahkri Snr has not completed the required training and that, therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the knowledge requirements under RG 105, RG 146 and s 912A(1) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the efficiently, honestly and fairly requirement?
Section 912A(1)(a) provides that a licensee must “do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly”.
ASIC contends that the failure of the applicant to provide information sought by ASIC through the course of the application process is itself a sufficient basis for not being satisfied that the applicant will ensure that the “financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly”.
It is certainly true to say that the applicant, having been put on notice as to the deficiencies in its application in the Hearing Notice issued by ASIC in November 2017, has not taken any practical steps to obtain independent advice as to the nature and extent of the deficiencies, nor has it taken any practical steps to remedy them.
In giving his oral testimony to the Tribunal, Mr El-Fahkri Snr presented as a truthful and frank witness. Mr El-Fahkri conceded in his cross-examination that the AFSL application was deficient in not having adequate insurance and him not having completed the requisite training.
However, as truthful and frank as Mr El-Fahkri Snr was, he could not provide an adequate explanation as to why the applicant had not sought to properly understand the deficiencies at an earlier point in time, nor could he explain why no attempt had been made to remedy the deficiencies before the Tribunal hearing.
In fact the impression that Mr El-Fahkri Snr left on the Tribunal was of an honest and decent man who was genuinely struggling to understand the complexity of the statutory regime that the applicant would need to comply with if it were to be granted an AFSL.
As stated by Foster J in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Camelot Derivatives Pty Ltd (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 206; [2012] FCA 414 at [69]:
The words “efficiently, honestly and fairly” connote a requirement of competence in providing advice and in complying with relevant statutory obligations.
In order to be competent in the providing of advice and meeting statutory obligations you must first understand them. In this case, even having been put on notice in relation to deficiencies in its application, the applicant, and its responsible manager, Mr El-Fahkri Snr, have demonstrated a lack of willingness or capacity to properly understand the statutory obligations let alone to satisfy them in a timely manner.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services proposed to be covered by the AFSL will be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly as required by s 912A(1)(a) of the Act.
Is there ‘no reason to believe’ that the applicant is likely to contravene its statutory obligations?
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have the required compensation arrangements in place; that its responsible manager, Mr El-Fahkri Snr, has not completed the required training modules; and that, having regard to the applicant’s conduct and representations through the application process and at the hearing, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services proposed to be covered by the licence will be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
For these reasons, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there is no reason to believe that the applicant is likely to contravene the obligations that will apply under s 912A of the Act if the AFSL is granted. Therefore, the Tribunal must not grant the licence.
Should the applicant be granted a grace period?
There is one further matter that the Tribunal needs to address.
In its closing submissions the applicant’s representative asked the Tribunal whether it was possible for the Tribunal to provide the applicant with ‘time’ to remedy the deficiencies with its AFSL application that it had conceded through the course of the hearing. Specifically, the applicant’s representative sought time to allow appropriate compensation arrangements to be put in place and for Mr El-Fahkri Snr to complete the required training modules.
The applicant’s representative was not specific about how such a period of ‘time’ could be granted. He seemed to suggest either an adjournment of the proceeding or the granting of the AFSL subject to conditions.
Either way, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be appropriate, or even potentially within the power of the Tribunal, for the kind of grace period sought by the applicant’s representative to be granted.
It would certainly not be appropriate to grant a conditional AFSL in these circumstances. Section 912A simply does not allow it. Having formed the view that there may be a reason to believe that the applicant is likely to contravene obligations that will apply under the section if the AFSL is granted, the Tribunal has no choice – it must not grant the AFSL.
The Tribunal is also satisfied that it would be inappropriate to use its power of adjournment to give the applicant time to correct a deficiency in its case. Once a hearing has commenced the power to adjourn the proceeding can only be used where there are cogent reasons for doing so. The adjournment power must also be used in a manner that is consistent with the Tribunal’s objectives as set out in s 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The objectives of the Tribunal include undertaking a merits review in a manner that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Consistent with this, the function of the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision on the material before it, applying procedural fairness and in a timely manner. It is not the function of the Tribunal to grant an extended adjournment solely for the purpose of enabling one of the parties to address deficiencies in their case. We should be wary of “an overanxious desire to permit regulated activity wherever possible”: see Rent-To-Own (Australia) Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 689 per Downes J and Deputy President Hack at [47].
The Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision in this case is to refuse the AFSL.
DECISION
The Decision is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty -three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Bernard J McCabe, The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member
................................[SGD]........................................
Associate
Dated: 4 February 2019
Date(s) of hearing: 7 December 2018 Applicant: In person Advocate for the Applicant: Counsel for the Respondent: Ms N Hodgson
0
8
0