Zidar v Department of Justice (No 2)

[2018] NSWCATAD 214

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Zidar v Department of Justice (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 214
Hearing dates:	14 June 2018
Date of orders:	14 June 2018
Decision date:	14 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	1. Mr Zidar’s application to use a recording device to record the hearing on 14 June 2018 is refused. 2. Mr Zidar’s application for me to disqualify myself from conducting the hearing on 14 June 2018 is refused. 3. A non-publication order is made under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 in the terms set out in the order dated 19 June 2018.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application to use a recording device to record a case conference – application for disqualification - apprehended bias - non-publication order - a party has engaged in inappropriate conduct - use of social media.
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Court Security Act 2005 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Zidar v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 209
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Joe Zidar (Applicant) Department of Justice (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: D Birch (Respondent)   Solicitors: J Zidar (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/00008174
Publication restriction:	1. The Applicant is prohibited from disclosing, except for the purposes of preparing for and/or participating in the proceedings:(a). The names of the persons identified in the orders that I made at the hearing on 14 June 2018 and included in the hard copy of those orders signed by me on 19 June 2018;and/or(b). Any information which otherwise allows the identity of the persons described in Order 1(a) of these orders to be ascertained in connection with their role in the subject matter of the proceedings. 2. Order 1 takes effect from 19 June 2018 and remains in force until the final determination of the matter or until further order of the Tribunal. Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the paragraph of these reasons identified as [Not for publication]

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. The substantive matter in these proceedings involves an application by Mr Joe Zidar for review of a determination by the Department of Justice under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

2. The matter was listed before me for hearing on 14 June 2018. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Zidar made an application to be able to record the proceedings. I refused that application. Mr Zidar then made an application for me to recuse myself from dealing with the matter. I also refused that application.

3. I also made orders pursuant to section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Those orders restrict the basis on which Mr Zidar may disclose the names of a number of identified persons or material that might identify those individuals.

4. Mr Zidar has requested written reasons for my decisions. These are my reasons.

Sound recording

5. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Zidar made an application to use a recording device to record the proceedings. He put forward a number of reasons why he should be permitted to record the proceedings. These included the assertion that there have been instances of malfunctioning of the recording equipment and that there have been instances of tampering with official recordings in the past. Mr Zidar also indicated that there have been issues regarding copyright attaching to the official recordings.

6. Mr Zidar also indicated that one of the Tribunal’s Deputy Presidents had given approval for him to make his own recording in other proceedings.

7. The Respondent opposed Mr Zidar’s application to record the proceedings.

8. At the time of Mr Zidar’s request the hearing was being recorded officially. I asked the Monitor who was present during the course of the proceedings to check the recording equipment and I was assured that it was functioning correctly.

9. I considered a similar application by Mr Zidar in my recent reasons in Zidar v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 209. I will not repeat the consideration of the applicable legislation that I provided in those reasons. However, I note that I refused the application in this matter for the same reasons.

10. The hearing has been electronically recorded. There is no reason to believe that the recording equipment will malfunction or that it will not accurately record the conference. I was not satisfied that any of the reasons that Mr Zidar put forward in support of his application to be permitted to record the case conference warranted a departure from the general prohibition against making such recordings as set out in section 9 of the Court Security Act 2005.

Recusal

11. As noted, Mr Zidar also made an application for me to recuse myself from dealing with this matter. I understood this application to be brought on the basis of apprehended bias. I do not understand this application to be brought on the basis of actual bias. In my view, the issues Mr Zidar has raised do not support a view that I am actually biased against him.

12. In Zidar v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 209 I also discussed the principles to be applied in determining such an application based on apprehended bias. I will not repeat the consideration of those principles here.

13. Mr Zidar’s application appears to be based on the fact that I refused his application to be able to record the hearing. Mr Zidar must show that a reasonably fair minded lay observer with knowledge of the material and facts in the proceedings might reasonably apprehend that I might not be open to persuasion. In my view he has not done so. The issues that he has raised do not provide a ground for disqualification. The fact that a decision maker makes a decision adverse to a party is not sufficient to show that the decision maker is biased or in some other way prejudicial towards that party, is abusing the decision maker’s power or that the decision maker could not fairly and impartially determine the matter.

14. I fail to see how the decisions that I have made in this matter or in any other matter involving Mr Zidar in any way indicate an abuse of my power or that a reasonably fair minded lay observer with a knowledge of the material and facts in the proceedings, would reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the adjudication of this case.

15. In my view, the issues raised by the Applicant do not provide a ground for disqualification. For the reasons I have given I declined to disqualify myself.

Publication Restriction

16. On 14 June 2018 I made orders pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. I made these orders in response to an application brought by the Respondent. The Respondent relied on both open and confidential evidence in support of the application.

17. Section 64 is in the following terms;

64 TRIBUNAL MAY RESTRICT DISCLOSURES CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS

(1) If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, it may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) make any one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of any person (whether or not a party to proceedings in the Tribunal or a witness summoned by, or appearing before, the Tribunal),

(b) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report of proceedings in the Tribunal,

(c) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal,

(d) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceedings of evidence given before the Tribunal, or of the contents of a document lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal, in relation to the proceedings.

(2) The Tribunal cannot make an order under this section that is inconsistent with section 65.

(3) The Tribunal may from time to time vary or revoke an order made under subsection (1).

(4) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

18. The orders that I made on 14 June 2018 prohibited Mr Zidar from disclosing the names of five identified persons, or any information which would allow the identity of those persons to be ascertained, except for the purposes of preparing for and/or participating in these proceedings. At the time that I made the orders I indicated that they were to take effect from 19 June 2018. Similar orders were already in place but those orders were stated to continue until 18 June 2018. The orders that I made on 14 June 2018 were intended to take the place of the earlier orders and were to remain in force until the final determination of the matter or until further order of the Tribunal.

19. At my request, the Respondent prepared a hard copy of the orders that I had made and I signed that hard copy on 19 June 2018. The parties have been given a copy of those orders. It is not appropriate that the individuals named in that document be disclosed in these reasons.

20. [Not for Publication]

21. A similar application for a non-publication order was brought in another application before this Tribunal. That application was also based on alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr Zidar. The comments made by the presiding Senior Member in that matter, and by the Appeal Panel on appeal, are also applicable to the circumstances of this matter.

22. In Fraud Detection & Reporting Pty Ltd v Department of Justice [2018] NSWCATAD 63 Senior Member Leal stated:

Non-publication order

63   In an earlier interlocutory matter heard by Principal Member Titterton, Mr Zidar gave an undertaking on behalf of Fraud Detection and Reporting not to publish any information on its website about the application, including the orders and directions of the Tribunal, until the final disposition of the matter.

64   Before me, the respondent sought an order prohibiting the disclosure of the names of any witnesses or staff members of the Office of the Legal Services Commission and the Department of Justice in these proceedings. According to the respondent, Mr Zidar is known to publish extracts of information provided by the respondent on social networking and internet sites which are extracted out of context.

65   Contained on file, and set out in part above, is a tweet by Mr Zidar which names relevant staff members and accuses them of protecting the OLSC.

66   Also contained on file are emails which, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied are from Mr Zidar to staff members of the OLSC, excerpts of which are set out above, some of which contain expletives. I accept that the content of the emails and the naming of staff members on social media could cause stress for the named members and that they may feel threatened by such a public naming.

67 For these reasons, I am satisfied that a non-publication order should be made in this matter under s64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act in the following terms:

The names of any witnesses to these proceedings and the names of any staff members of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner or the Department of Justice referred to in these proceedings must not be disclosed.

23. On appeal, the Appeal Panel considered whether the non-publication order that Senior Member Leal had made was justified. In regard to that aspect of the appeal the Appeal Panel stated:

The non-publication order

39 Mr Zidar also appeals that part of the decision made by the Senior Member to make a non-publication order pursuant to section 64 (1) (a) of the NCAT Act. The order was in the following terms;

The names of any witnesses to these proceedings and the names of any staff members of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner or the Department of Justice referred to in these proceedings must not be disclosed.

40 Section 64 is in the following terms;

...

41   The reasons given by the Senior Member for the making of the non-publication order are as follows;

...

42   In her reasons for decision, the Senior Member referred to evidence and information which had been provided in the course of the hearing before her which she summarised as follows;

Additional material

35 Contained on file is a print out of tweets from a Twitter account called ‘Joe Zidar’ with a stampeding bull as the profile picture for the account. The relevant tweets name staff members of the OLSC noting that one staff member:

refuses to discuss GIPA application. Seems very STRESSED !!’ and that both staff members are protecting the NSW OLSC by refusing to ‘release one document under GIPA...Stay tuned.

36 On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this account is managed by Mr Joe Zidar.

37 Also contained on file is a letter dated 12 July 2017 from the General Counsel of the NSW Department of Justice to Mr Zidar, which states in part that:

Since 20 February 2017 staff within the Open Government, Information and Privacy Unit (OGIP) Office of the General Counsel have received 38 emails from your regarding both formal access applications and the application for internal review. On many occasions your emails were copied to numerous other individuals. Staff of the OGIP Unit have indicated that they perceive the content and tone of many of your communications to be threatening, and this has resulted in them experiencing significant levels of stress.

38 In this letter, Mr Zidar is advised that any communication from him will only be accepted if delivered by Australia Post and that ‘any correspondence sent via email will be blocked and deleted without being read to protect staff from experiencing further stress arising from your emails.’

39 Examples of the email content emanating from Mr Zidar’s email account include expletives and the following notes:

I MADE a PROMISE to my Late GRANDMOTHER that I WOULD make SURE that HER BEQUEATHS, WISHES and INTENTONS, would be FULFILLED and NO FUCKING JUDGE is GOING to TELL me OTHERWISE’ (22 May 2017)

Over the NEXT (72) HOURS, I will DEMONSTRATE to YOU and YOUR TEAM only the IMPORTANCE of MANAGING a MATERIAL RISK. I would BE HONOURED for you to CONSIDER ME a MATERIAL RISK. Now if I LOOSE my JOB, you WILL LOOSE yours TOO...I am setting up (5) NEW emails tonight...From 1 JULY 201, I ANTICIPATE that I will RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE stating that I am BLACK BELT QUALIFIED in SIX SIGMA.’ (22 May 2017)

If FrdDetRpt are FORCED to use our Solicitor to obtain a response, I am advised that this might be considered a HARASSMENT and or BULLYING. (23 MAY 2017)

40 Also contained on file are copies of correspondence between Mr Zidar and the OLSC.

43   For the purpose of considering this issue we take into account the voluminous documentation provided to us by Mr Zidar in a 230 page document filed for the purpose of these appeal proceedings. We shall refer to some of this material in the order in which it appears;

(a)   a letter dated 14 June, 2017 from Mr Zidar to the Secretary, NSW Department of Justice stating that for his “protection and for legal reasons, all future telephonic discussions between the writer and Officers from the NSW Department of Justice will be digitally recorded.”

(b) a letter dated 24 July, 2017 from Mr Zidar to the Secretary, NSW Department of Justice alleging that a named officer had deliberately omitted reference to multiple statutory breaches by other officers, the precise details of which are unspecified. The same named officer and another named officer were accused of having “deliberately discredited” Mr Zidar by “repeatedly stating mistruths, inaccuracies and acting deceptively” when responding to his “numerous genuine attempts to clarify how decisions were made.” In the same letter complaint is made that his GIPA applications were being considered by junior officers notwithstanding an earlier request that they be handled by a more senior person. The letter also sought details of the manner in which certain officers had considered communications from Mr Zidar to be “threatening”, as had been asserted in previous correspondence. Mr Zidar demanded that “a single contact person is appointed” to engage with him concerning his GIPA applications and formal complaints.

(c) a letter dated 16 August, 2017 from Mr Zidar to the Secretary, NSW Department of Justice complaining of a lack of acknowledgement of previous letters, and complaining that as he appeared “incapable of fulfilling your duties, responsibilities and obligations” the matter was to be escalated to the NSW Premier. The letter contained allegations that the persons dealing with the GIPA application were “substandard” and unfit “to make reasonable and sound judgements relating to this GIPA application.” Mr Zidar demanded inter-alia access to all communications relating to each of the GIPA applications between all persons within the Department including emails, letters, videos/voice recordings, file notes, phone logs, and minutes of meetings held. He also demanded details of the same communications referable to blocking of his emails and referable to “un-substantiated allegations” made against him.

(d)   a letter dated 24 September, 2017 addressed to the NSW Attorney General referring to certain unanswered correspondence to the NSW Department of Justice requesting details of when all information requested would be finalised, and confirmation whether the appellant company’s emails were being blocked.

(e)   a letter dated 29 October, 2017 addressed to the NSW Attorney General alleging that as he had allowed certain named officers “to engage in repeated unconscionable and unethical conduct” the Attorney had lost his “moral compass” and continued to demonstrate “a fundamental lack of commitment and care”. Essentially, the letter requested attention to the same matters referred to in the earlier letter.

(f)   a lengthy letter dated 18 February, 2018 addressed to the Principal Registrar of this Tribunal complaining inter-alia concerning the issue of four summonses lodged on 22 December, 2017 and processed on 3 January, 2018. The letter also contained allegations that his emails had been blocked. Complaints were made concerning the circumstances in which approval was given for the issue of the summonses and specifically why a date stamp could not be used indicating that the date of issue of the summons was a Sunday. The Principal Registrar replied to Mr Zidar by email dated 2 March, 2018 which responded also to email communications from him dated 18 and 25 February, 2018 concerning the same matters. That reply indicated, inter alia, that his email communications had not been blocked by either NCAT or NSW Justice IT staff.

(g)   lengthy letters of complaint from Mr Zidar dated 5, 25 and 26 March, 8, 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 and 21 April, and 6 May 2018 all addressed to the President of this Tribunal making complaint about, inter alia, the Principal Registrar, the issue of certain summonses, named Principal Members who had allegedly acted inappropriately, seeking that the Principal Registrar have no further dealings with his matters, asserting that because NCAT was an “agency” of the NSW Department of Justice it could not act impartially, questioning the qualifications of the Senior Member whose decision is under appeal by reference to certain alleged statistical information, questioning whether the Senior Member had been given some inducement, favour or directive by the NSW Attorney General or the Secretary of the NSW Department of Justice as an example of a perception “that the community, in general, has lost all faith in the NSW Judiciary, especially decisions relating to Paedophilia as exposed by the recent Royal Commission into historic sex abuse. The extent of the systemic corruption as between various NSW Government Agencies, the Clergy including the Judiciary are now being or will be made public.” The letter of 10 April, 2018 asked that time for appealing the decision of the Senior Member should not run until after the President had replied to his correspondence. That request was repeated in the letter of 11 April, 2018. The letter of 15 April, 2018 referred to the service of submissions in these appeal proceedings by the respondent, and related how Mr Zidar had collected an express post satchel from the post office to which it had been directed, took it to the Registry and insisted on opening it in the presence of a Registry officer to verify the contents and the fact that the respondent had failed to provide the information in electronic form either on a USB or CD. The letter also complained about “maladministration” and questioned “whether directives are coming from your superiors and whether (NCAT) is being directed to create as many obstacles for “the appellant”, so that we are denied reasonable time to prepare and lodge submissions or to obtain relevant evidence by way of summons….” The penultimate paragraph contained the following;

Lastly, please advise your staff that if they continue to “mistreat”, “harass”, “intimidate” and “bully” the writer in his capacity as Director or of (the appellant), then their name will form part of the “WALL of SHAME” as published at WebsiteLink8”

The letter of 16 April, 2018 made complaint about a Principal Member of the Tribunal alleging that he had a conflict of interest in dealing with a matter which involved a firm of solicitors of which a person whom he named as the brother of the Principal Member was the managing partner. He further complained about the manner in which certain interlocutory matters had been conducted by members of the Tribunal

The letter of 21 April, 2018 referred to five previously unanswered emails and complained that the Registrar had failed on five occasions to inform him why a particular matter had been “delegated to the Appeals panel”, the basis for that delegation and the name of the Officer responsible for making that delegation.

(h)   a letter dated 8 July, 2018 to the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office referring to complaints made by Mr Zidar to NCAT alleging, inter alia, that a Senior Member had backdated orders, that the Senior Member had “knowingly impersonated a Judicial Officer” to the advantage of a client of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, that he had been deprived of a right to be heard and to adduce evidence, that he was concerned about the “sporadic behaviour and inconsistent decision-making” of the Senior Member, and that certain NCAT Officers might be receiving “inducements”. The letters sought, inter alia, an indication as to whether the Crown Solicitor’s Office and officers within the Department of Justice were intending to report the Senior Member to ICAC for impersonating a Judicial Officer.

44   We must emphasise that the material contained within the submissions of Mr Zidar which we have referred to above constitutes a summary only of some of the documents which he produced. They are enough, however, to indicate that Mr Zidar is a person who has, and is likely to engage in conduct which consists of a repeated, continuing and unrelenting barrage of requests and spurious observations which have little if any relevance to a considered, rational approach to the determination of his problems. It is obvious that some of these concerns arise out of abject ignorance. He has failed to appreciate that a member of this Tribunal is empowered to undertake a range of functions which might otherwise be undertaken by a judicial officer. He clearly does not understand many of the procedures and processes of the Tribunal and readily applies a sinister and malevolent consideration to anything which he does not understand. However, there is evidence that Mr Zidar has an obsessive mistrust of the legal system and those who are involved in it. He readily ascribes notions of bribery and corruption to members of this Tribunal, to officers of the Department of Justice and even to the Attorney General. He justified the request of the respondent for the non-publication order by informing us that he ran a website exposing fraud and corruption, and that the officers concerned did not want to be exposed on that website. He described one of the named officers as a solicitor who did not need protection by a non-publication order. He described such orders as not being designed “to protect government solicitors in exposing their wrongdoings.” Furthermore, Mr Zidar produced material about one of the named officers and her career in the public service. It is obvious that, at least in the case of this one officer, Mr Zidar has gone to some trouble to collect personal information about her.

45   If any further proof be necessary of the obsessive nature of Mr Zidar’s attitude to officers of the respondent and to this Tribunal it is sufficient to refer to background information commencing on page 1 of the applicant’s submissions filed on 17 July, 2018. The submissions commence by complaining of the failure to extend the timetable for preparation of the appeal proceedings (presumably by reference to the failure of the President to respond to a number of requests for information). The submission then refers to the “scandalous” obstacles to the preparation and filing of submissions and by way of example, the notation of the proceedings by reference to the corporate appellant rather than Mr Zidar personally. The submission then continues “It is the writer’s submission that Officers of the NSW Department of Justice, including those that are employed by (NCAT) are trying to sabotage the Appellants ability to obtain the correct and preferable decision. The extent of the wrongdoings is vast and almost beyond comprehension. Furthermore, it is evident that all measures are being taken to protect Mr John McKenzie, Commissioner of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Moreover, various Summons have been wilfully rejected so that “forensic” evidence could not be obtained and to safeguard Officers of the NSW Department of Justice, including the Legal Services Commissioner, Mr John McKenzie.”

46   Furthermore, Mr Zidar is happy to use social media for the purpose of pursuing his ill-conceived understanding of the work of this Tribunal and the part played by officers of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Crown Solicitor and the Attorney General. He has referred in his documentation to the "Wall of Shame”, which he informed us refers to a website which he operates, possibly through the auspices of the appellant company for the purpose of naming persons whom he perceives to be guilty of some wrong doing. Indeed, included within the material which he filed in these proceedings is a “Wall of Shame Certificate of Achievement” awarded to a named person, whom we know from material filed in these proceedings is an officer of the Department of Justice involved in dealing with Mr Zidar. We would add that during the course of the hearing Mr Zidar informed us that if he was unhappy with our decision, he would add our names to the Wall of Shame, presumably for anyone who has access to his website to see.

47   The factual material noted in the decision of the Senior Member which we have extracted above refers to several officers of the Department of Justice feeling intimidated and stressed as a result of their dealings with Mr Zidar. Any concerns that their names may be publicised in an unfavourable light on Mr Zidar’s social media should, in our opinion, be ameliorated. Employees of any organisation who undertake their work and carry out their duties in an appropriate and regular manner should not be exposed to inappropriate and unwarranted criticism in social media, no matter how disappointed Mr Zidar might be with the result.

48   There is reference in the extract from the decision of the Senior member set out above to Mr Zidar representing a “material risk” to the officers of the Department of Justice with whom he was involved coupled with a threat that they would lose their jobs. He then referred to the prospective receipt by him of a certificate stating that he would be a “blackbelt qualified in Six Sigma.” During the course of submissions Mr Zidar stated that the officers concerned were threatened by this reference. He then referred to a page contained within his volume of material which he said indicated that the Six Sigma system was a business process system, and that it contained a number of “belts” including a blackbelt. When he explained this, Mr Zidar referred in a laughing, derisory manner to any discomfort felt by any officer who had mistakenly referred to a blackbelt by reference to a martial arts qualification. We would comment that in the context that we understood the reference to a blackbelt having been used by Mr Zidar, and having been confronted by his aggressive and antagonistic manner, we have sympathy for any adverse reaction on the part of any officer within the Department of Justice to the use of the reference made by him. If Mr Zidar had not intended to make that reference by way of a threat, we do not understand how any business process system would have any relevance to his dealings with the Department.

49   In his submissions, Mr Zidar complained that the non-publication order offended the principle of open justice. The principle of open justice is relevant, and we take it into account: see State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 at [61]-[63], [81], [86]. That principle was recognised in the proceedings the subject of this appeal in the following way. The proceedings, save for the names of the officers within the Department who dealt with Mr Zidar were heard in public, and the reasons for decision of the Senior Member have been published. All of the material relevant to the determination of the real issues between the parties is in the public domain. The only restriction refers to the names of the officers within the Department, but suppression of their names does not affect the outcome of the proceedings, nor the overall in principle approach to be adopted in determining them.

50   Mr Zidar complained that the terms of the non-publication order were unduly vague which, in some unspecified manner, may have caused him difficulty in complying with it. We do not agree with this submission. We agree that this order was justified in all the circumstances to protect the persons concerned from the insidious and constant attacks on their integrity made by Mr Zidar personally and on behalf of the appellant.

24. In this matter the parties have also filed a considerable amount of material which is similar in nature to that discussed by the Appeal Panel.

25. On the basis of the material that was before me I formed the same views as those expressed by the Appeal Panel in regard to the effect that Mr Zidar’s conduct has had on the officers of the Respondent who are involved in these proceedings. I accept that staff members may feel threatened by being named on social media and that this public naming could cause them stress.

26. I am satisfied that the identified persons referred to in the Respondent’s application for a non-publication order have felt intimidated and stressed as a result of their dealings with Mr Zidar. In the circumstances it is my view that the order that I made on 14 June 2018 is justified to protect those persons from ongoing intimidation and stress that would otherwise be likely to follow unrestricted action by Mr Zidar.

27. For these reasons, I am satisfied that a non-publication order under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 is warranted.

Orders

1. Mr Zidar’s application to use a recording device to record the hearing on 14 June 2018 is refused.

2. Mr Zidar’s application for me to disqualify myself from conducting the hearing on 14 June 2018 is refused.

3. A non-publication order under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 is made in the terms set out in the order dated 19 June 2018.

**********

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: 14 September 2018