Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: FBM v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2022] NSWCATAD 30 Hearing dates: 21 January 2022 Date of orders: 27 January 2022 Decision date: 27 January 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision of the respondent dated 1 March 2021 is set aside and I make the following decision by way of substitution: (a) FBM is a primary victim of an act of violence on the balance of probabilities for the purposes of ss 19 and 20 of the Act. (b) FBM was the victim of a sexual assault other than one referred to in ss (2)(b) of the Act. (c) But for the approval of victims support made in matter no. 304414, FBM would have been eligible for a category C recognition payment under s 35(3)(c) of the Act and cl 14(d) of the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2019 in respect of this act of violence. (d) However, as FBM has previously received a category B recognition payment of $10,000, on the basis that this act of violence and that in claim no. 304414 were "related acts", she has no further entitlement to victims support in the form of a recognition payment in respect of this act of violence. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Victims rights and support - Recognition – sexual assault – whether act of violence established on the balance of probabilities – contents of medical notes to be approached with care – Applicant previously received a category B recognition payment on the basis that she was the victim of related acts of violence – No further entitlement to a recognition payment Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2019 (NSW) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 at [8] Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; (1990) 64 ALJR 316; 105 ALR 51; 19 ALR 607; 13 ALR 447; (1990) Aust Torts Reports ¶81–022; [1990] HCA 20 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Category: Principal judgment Parties: FBM – Applicant Commissioner of Victims Rights – Respondent Representation: Solicitors: FBM - (Applicant Self-represented)) Victims Services (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00214070 Publication restriction: Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – Restriction on publication of information that will identify any victims or evidence given and received in this Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. These proceedings relate to a claim for victims support and a recognition payment lodged by the applicant known by the pseudonym FBM initially before the Commissioner of Victims Rights ("the Respondent"). Application no. 294972 1. The application was lodged under the provisions of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act) on 13 December 2018, and alleged that she was the victim of an act of violence that was committed by her then neighbour (name provided) over a period of time from 6 October 2014 to 24 May 2016 at Rutherford, in New South Wales, and that she suffered physical and psychological injuries, as follows: My neighbour raped me on 6/10/2014, my neighbour came in to see me and tried to kiss me I told him it wasn't right, but he kept persisting and forced himself on me I felt that bad about myself I attempted suicide, after that I would be sitting outside and he'd come to his side of the fence, he had been drinking, I'd go inside to avoid him, and he would knock on my door, and force his way in I kept telling him no, this went on a few times, I tried to avoid the family but I was friends with his wife, and he threatened me that if I told her, he would make my life hell, every time his wife went to work, he would get drunk, and come into my place and want sex, even though I kept telling him no, he wouldn't listen to me. The application claimed counselling and a recognition payment. Application no. 304414 1. On 8 April 2019, FBM made an application for counselling, financial assistance and a recognition payment. The application alleged that she was the primary victim of an act of violence that occurred over a period of time from 12 November 2018 to 3 April 2019, at Waratah, in New South Wales, as follows: On the 4th of April 2019 at 3:08 pm I received a phone call from a man that I had been seeing, the call came through as no called id as I was expecting a call from another person I answered the call, the man who called, said to me, "you're a fucken cunt, you slut, you're dead" I rang the police immediately, I recognised the voice of the man I had been seeing, Now because of his phone call I am very anxious to go outside my door or to the shops and I have to move to another place and suburb and change my phone number. He also came to see me in November 2019, and forced me to have sex with him and he used a strap on dildo, it was hurting and I asked him to stop several times but he kept going, until he was satisfied then he left after he left I went to use the toilet and it hurt to pass urine and I wiped myself and the tissue paper had blood on it and bled and hurt and stung for two days, I was embarrassed to go to the drs and ended up with a uti and no I still didn't go to the drs due to embarrassment. The application alleged that FBM suffered both physical and psychological injuries as a result of the act of violence.. 1. FBM alleged that she reported all of these acts of violence to Police and provided COPS event reference numbers to the respondent. Decision at first instance 1. On 17 August 2020, both applications were considered by an Assessor, Client Claims, acting as a delegate of the Respondent. The Assessor made an administrative decision that an act of violence was established on the balance of probabilities, but also determined that the acts of violence were related acts because they were committed by the same alleged offender and this would enable approval of the highest category of recognition payment that was available. 2. The Assessor determined that all of the related acts of violence were committed by FBM's neighbour and that these included verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, stalking, harassment and sexual harm, over a period of time from 6 April 2014 to 3 April 2019. 3. The Assessor also stated, relevantly: Reports to police and court outcomes 10. On the previous occasion in which I considered this matter, I made reference to the information sourced from NSW Police which gives details about [FBM] reporting violence from the offender which included threats of harm being made over the phone and also a pattern of harassment by the offender. 11. Since that time, [FBM] has provided a further COPS event number which she indicates relates to her experience of sexual harm from the offender. The event number which is dated 21 April 2017 confirms that [FBM] went to her local police station to make a report of sexual harm. [FBM] then made disclosures of a number of perpetrators of sexual harm, primarily from her childhood and adolescence. There is no mention of this alleged offender in the police event and no description or timeframe that would match any sexual harm from this offender. 12. The police report described in paragraph 10 however, is sufficient evidence of the other forms of violence from the offender being reported to a government authority. Evidence of physical or psychological harm 13. [FBM] has been accessing the Victims Services Approved Counselling Program for a period of time and I have two relevant reports to consider. One report was previously referenced however I will revisit both. One of the counselling reports received in August 2019 provides information regarding disclosures of [FBM] who experienced sexual harm from the offender. This includes an incident of sexual assault where the offender used a sexual toy to penetrate [FBM] against her will. [FBM] disclosed that there were several incidents of sexual harm from this offender. A later counselling report received in early 2020 from the same counsellor gives details about (FBM's) childhood history of trauma and the impacts on her life and emotional wellbeing. There is also mention of the threats made by the offe4nder towards [FBM] which included a threat to kill her and then the harassment which followed. 14. Understandably, there is information which confirms that all forms of violence from this offender have resulted in [FBM] displaying a range of psychological symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Given the direct link between her symptoms and the violence which has been perpetrated by the offender, this information can be considered as evidence of a psychological injury for the purposes of this decision. 15. This is not to minimise any physical injuries sustained by [FBM]. I can see from her disclosures and descriptions of the penetrative sexual assault that she described sustaining physical injuries. My decision reflects the evidence before me and regrettably, I have no evidence specific to physical injuries being sustained. 1. The Assessor approved a category B recognition payment in the sum of $10,000, pursuant to s 35(2)(b) of the Act, on the basis that FBM was the victim of a sexual assault, sexual touching or sexual act or attempted sexual assault involving violence that is one of a series of related acts. 2. I note that a copy of this decision was posted to FBM under cover of a letter dated 17 August 2020. However, the date that this was actually posted is not indicated in the documents before me. Internal review 1. On 9 October 2020, FBM applied for an internal review of the Assessor's decision on the following grounds: The particular appeal I would like to be reviewed is the application where I was raped by a neighbour from the 6th October 2014 – 15th June 2016, which I did report to Waratah Police Station in 2017. 1. On 12 November 2020, a Senior Assessor issued a Deferral of Review Decision, on the basis that further information was required as follows: Reasons for deferral 6. Having considered the information in [FBM's] applications and the evidence produced, I find that further information and evidence is require4d to consider the acts of violence described in application 294972, and to determine whether they are in fact related to the later violence described in 304414. 7. [FBM] is requested to provide the following: The name of her neighbour who she states sexually assaulted her between 6 October 2014 and 24 May 2016; A police report or report of a government agency that contains information about the violence committed by her neighbour, noting that the evidence before me, including police report (number provided) dated 21 April 2017, does not refer to it. 8. [FBM's] request for review is deferred and it will be further considered upon receipt of the additional information requested. 1. On 1 March 2021, a Senior Assessor issued a Notice of Review Decision, which did not approve a recognition payment in relation to application no 294972, because the s 39 documentary requirements were not met, and noted that a category B recognition was previously approved and paid with respect to application no. 304414. 2. The Senior Assessor noted that the original decision maker determined that both claims were related because the acts of violence were committed by the same offender. However, it was now evident that this was not the case and that the acts of violence were committed by different offenders, and referred to a counselling report from Ms H Kelson dated 16 November 2020 as evidence of this fact. The Senior Assessor stated, relevantly: 23. A Category B recognition was approved in relation to claim 304414. This amount has been paid to [FBM]. Noting that a Category B recognition payment is the "highest" category available for this type of act of violence, there could be no benefit to [FBM] if I were to reconsider this finding. 24. The rest of this internal review decision will relate specifically to claim 294972. Documentary evidence requirements 25. To be considered for a recognition payment, the required evidence is a documentary report to police or a government agency as well as medical, dental evidence or a report from a Counsellor. Consideration of the documentary evidence Reports to police and court outcomes 26. [FBM] has advised that she reported the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by (her neighbour) to the police. [FBM] provided the police cops reference (number provided). 27. The original decision maker noted in their decision that event (number provided) referred to "disclosures of a number of perpetrators of sexual harm, primarily from her childhood and adolescence." The original decision maker noted that there was no evidence of sexual violence committed by a neighbour having been reported to the police or a government agency. 28. Senior Assessor Martin also noted that the evidence available to them "including police report (number provided)" does not refer to violence committed against [FBM] by a neighbour. 29. I have confirmed that COPS event (number provided) does not include a report of sexual violence committed against [FBM] either by a neighbour or a person named (name provided). 30. It therefore remains that there is no evidence of the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by (name provided) as having been reported to the police or to a government agency. The section 39 documentary evidence requirements have therefore not been met. 294972: (FBM's) supporting documentation 31. I have had regard to the reports of [FBM's] Approved Counsellor, including the report received by Victims Services on 16 November 2020. In that report (referred to above at paragraph 21), Ms Kelson described the alleged sexual violence perpetrated by (name provided), which is based on (FBM's) disclosures during their counselling sessions. 32. I have also considered clinical notes from counsellor Natasha Catalovski, which were filed as medical evidence for another of [FBM's] claims for victims support (211250). Ms Catalovski's notes from a session on 21 October 2014 refer to [FBM] describing having a sexual relationship with her neighbour that started 2 weeks prior. According to Ms Catalovski's notes, [FBM] had disclosed that she had consensual sexual intercourse with her married neighbour on 2 separate occasions. [FBM] described feeling shocked that she did not fee guilt or remorse about this sexual relationship. 33. I mention Ms Catalovski's clinical notes not with the express intent to cast doubt over the alleged act of violence by (name provided), but for the sake of having clearly discussed all evidence that may be relevant to this application for victims support. 1. The Senior Assessor concluded that they had not reconsidered the approval of a $10,000 Category B recognition payment to [FBM] in relation to claim 304414, which sum had already been paid to her. 2. I note that a copy of the review decision was sent to FBM under cover of the respondent's letter dated 1 March 2021, although the date on which it was posted is not indicated in the documents before me. Application for Administrative Review 1. This Tribunal's powers in relation to an application for administrative review are governed by s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (the ADR Act), which provides: (1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision. (3) In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal. 1. FBM sought a review of the Respondent's decision by reference to an email that she sent to the respondent on 23 July 2021, relevantly, as follows: …On reading the email, I noticed a few discrepancies, in their evidence. The evidence produced by Natasha Catalovski are incorrect, as when at my next appointment with Ms Catalovski, I told her I had attempted suicide and she was upset that my GP hadn't notified her of what had happened, she asked me why and I told her the neighbour had sexually assaulted me on several occasions, I was devastated by what he did to me, this neighbour also threatened me that if I told his wife, he would make my life hell, well I did tell his wife and they both made my life hell so much so that I had to move from my place of residence, where I had lived for approx. 8 years. I did report the incident Waratah police station in 2018, on page 4 paragraph 30 senior assessor Martin states that there is no evidence of alleged sexual assault, when in actual fact my psychiatrist Ms Helen Kelson has also confirmed this to victims services. I feel that victims service have taken all of my applications into account, instead of looking at the one application of (name provided), sexually assaulting me. My sexual assaults and rape have been going on since I was 8 years old until two years ago, when I have had to cut myself off from people who I thought cared about me as they didn't and don't believe this has happened to me, as the same as Victim services does not believe it happened to me either, according to their reports and decision of dismissing the case 00294972. Directions hearings 1. The matter came before Senior Member McAteer for directions on 3 September 2021. FBM appeared in person and Ms K Douch, Victims Services, appeared for the respondent. The Senior Member made an anonymisation order under s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and stood the matter over for further directions on 5 November 2021. 2. On 5 November 2021, Senior Member McAteer directed FBM to file and serve a statement in respect of her Police report as noted in the material produced under Summons, so that she could provide further oral evidence at the hearing. Such signed statement or statutory declaration was to be filed and served on or before 26 November 2021. He also directed the respondent to file and serve a reply and any submissions on or before 10 December 2021 and he listed the matter for hearing on 21 January 2022. The hearing 1. The matter came before me for hearing by way of telephone on 21 January 2022, at which FBM appeared in person and Ms K Douch, Victims Services, appeared for the respondent. 2. FBM relied upon a statutory declaration dated 16 November 2021, in which she deposed that the contents of an annexed statement dated 7 November 2021, were true and correct. The statement was in the following terms: 1. Supporting documents I refer to paragraph 32 supporting documentation, regarding the report from Ms Catalovski notes. In a meeting with her on 21st of October 2014 she states that I had consensual sex with (name provided). These dates are incorrect. The correct date that the sexual assault happened was on the 6th October 2014. Where I disclosed to her that I had attempted suicide on the 6th October. Ms Catalovski asked the reason for attempting suicide. I answered because my neighbour (name provided) had sexually assaulted me. 2. Findings I refer to paragraph 34. It states that I contacted police on several occasions to report the incident regarding the sexual assault by (name provided). This information is incorrect. The only time I had reported this to police w3as on the 21st April 2017, on the advice of my psychologist Helen Kelson to help me get closure. Subpoena documents Approximately 10am, I attended the Waratah Police Station, as advised by my psychologist Helen Kelson. The reason for this attendance was to get closure on everything that had happened to me with physical, sexual and emotional assault, from 8 yrs of age to 2 years ago, by a brother in law, friends of my family and by people who I thought were friends, and cared about me. Paragraph 8 police report I suffer from ptsd, depression, It states that in May 2015 my sister and 2 nieces bullied me. These dates are incorre4ct. it was not may, it was the 6th July 2016. It was my 2 nieces and my sister who didn't believe that my brother in law, who is married to my sister, had sexually assaulted me on several occasions. The reason I moved to Newcastle was not because I didn't want to be near my family, but because I was being bullied by my neighbour. I told her that her husband (name provided) had sexually assaulted me. Her husband denied that this had happened. Every time I left the house she would run outside and call me names like whore, slut. Tangent. Senior Constable Katie Morris states that I went on a tangent. No I didn't go on a tangent. I was distressed about bringing up events that happened to me. Going into the police station that day was a stressful event for me to do and having to relive everything again was an emotional trigger for me. 1. The Statutory Declaration and statement were admitted into evidence without objection. 2. In oral evidence and submissions, FBM denied that she provided the history that Ms Catalovski reported and she maintained that she saw Ms Catalovski shortly after she had attempted suicide and that the suicide attempt was prompted by the act of violence that was perpetrated by her neighbour. She also stated that she did report this act of violence to police, but that the police did not refer to it in the COPS report. 3. The respondent relied upon written submissions dated 9 December 2021. I note that these submissions focussed on the conflicting histories in the counselling reports and the fact that the police report did not refer to the relevant act of violence. On that basis, the respondent argued that an act of violence was not established on the balance of probabilities and that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision dated 1 March 2021. Consideration Act of violence 1. Section 23(1) of the Act provides that a primary victim of an act of violence is eligible for the support under the scheme described in s 26 of the Act. "Act of violence" is defined in s 19(1) of the Act as follows (relevantly): (1) In this Act, act of violence means an act or series of related acts, whether committed by one or more persons: (a) that has apparently occurred in the course of the commission of an offence, and (b) that has involved violent conduct against one or more persons, and (c) that has resulted in injury or death to one or more of those persons. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to an offence in subsection (1)(a) extends to conduct of a person that would constitute an offence were it not for the fact that the person cannot, or might not, be held to be criminally responsible for the conduct because of the person's age or mental illness or impairment… 1. The onus is on FBM to prove the allegation that she was the victim of sexual assault perpetrated by the alleged offender on the balance of probabilities. 2. While the reports from FBM's Approved Counsellors contain conflicting histories regarding the act of violence, the Assessor at first instance expressly found that act of violence was established on the balance of probabilities and that it was one of a series of related acts. 3. Upon internal review of that decision, the Senior Assessor determined that the requirements of s 39 of the Act were not satisfied with respect to this act of violence, but also found that FBM had previously received a category B recognition payment in which this act of violence was included. 4. It is clear that the Assessor at first instance erred in finding that the acts of violence were "related acts" for the purposes of s 19(4) of the Act, on the basis that they were committed by the same offender. In my view, having found that the act of violence was established to the required standard, the respondent erred in finding on 1 March 2021 that the act of violence was not established because the requirements of s 39 were not satisfied. 5. The respondent's argument regarding s 39 is based upon an evidentiary conflict between the histories reported by FBM's Approved Counsellors, Ms Catalovski and Ms Kelson. 6. In Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 (Mason), the Court of Appeal expressed the opinion that the contents of medical notes should be approached with care when determining the facts. Basten JA stated, relevantly: 2 First, the trial judge was invited to discount the appellant's oral testimony on the basis of accounts given to various health professionals, which appeared inconsistent either with each other, or with her oral testimony, or both. The difficulties attending this kind of exercise should be well-understood; as explained in the Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 at [8], such apparent inconsistencies may, and often should, be approached with caution for the following reasons, amongst others: (a) the health professional who took the history has not been cross-examined about: (i) the circumstances of the consultation; (ii) the manner in which the history was obtained; (iii) the period of time devoted to that exercise, and (iv) the accuracy of the recording; (b) the fact that the history was probably taken in furtherance of a purpose which differed from the forensic exercise in the course of which it was being deployed in the proceedings; (c) the record did not identify any questions which may have elucidated replies; (d) the record is likely to be a summary prepared by the health professional, rather than a verbatim recording, and (e) a range of factors, including fluency in English, the professional's knowledge of the background circumstances of the incident and the patient's understanding of the purpose of the questioning, which will each affect the content of the history. 3 The fact that, in the present case, none of the health professionals was called to give oral evidence as to the matters in issue may not itself be a point of significance. It is unlikely that cross-examination would have advanced any issue in dispute; the witness being likely to have no relevant recollection of taking the history, the oral testimony would be largely limited to an assertion of usual practice. 4 Thirdly, and more significantly, it was quite possible that the elements of florid expression and exaggeration in the applicant's oral testimony (and in some of the recorded histories) may have been a function of her psychological state. This was not something that the trial judge could readily assess without expert assistance, but it was a possibility that should not have been ignored. On one view, the pre-attack records (particularly the notes of Dr Hamad) were devoid of the flamboyant language found in post-attack accounts. 5 As Simpson J notes, the trial judge received less assistance than he might have by way of diagnoses of the applicant's current psychological condition. The fact that she may have been vulnerable to psychological deterioration before the attack would not preclude a relevant causal link between the attack and her current condition; the 'eggshell skull' principle may encompass a vulnerable psyche. That in turn may require discounting of damages to take account of the possibility that the applicant would have suffered psychological deterioration independently of the tortious conduct at some future time and in any event: see Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; 169 CLR 638 and Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 13. Similarly, it might have been necessary to consider to what extent the motor vehicle accident in 2006 contributed to the appellant's psychological state at the date of trial. 6 None of these issues was adequately addressed. Rather, as Simpson J explains, the trial judge was distracted from the real issues, perhaps in part by the search for inconsistency in the appellant's statements, first pursued by Dr Samuell, particularly in his second report. Indeed, closer attention to the rules of evidence governing the admissibility of expert opinion might have led to a greater focus on the weaknesses of Dr Samuell's reports, on which the trial judge placed some reliance, in relation to questions of psychiatric injury and diagnosis… 1. In the event that I am wrong in my view that the respondent erred in overturning its original finding that the act of violence was established on the balance of probabilities, it is necessary to consider the reasoning in Mason. I note that FBM denies that she provided the history that Ms Catalovski reported and states that she provided an accurate history to Ms Kelson. Unlike the Assessor and Senior Assessor, I had the benefit of hearing from FBM during the hearing and I was impressed by her forthrightness and candour. 2. In applying the reasoning in Mason to this matter, I am prepared to accept that FBM's report to Ms Kelson is sufficient to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of s 39 of the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that an act of violence is established on the balance of probabilities. Recognition payment 1. FBT has previously received a category B recognition payment of $10,000, on the basis that she was the victim of a sexual assault, sexual touching or sexual act or attempted sexual assault involving violence that is one of a series of related acts. Further, the act of violence that is the subject of the current application was one of those "related acts". 2. Section 35(3)(a) of the Act provides that a category C recognition payment is payable in respect of an act of violence that involves a sexual assault other than one referred to in ss (2)(b). 3. Accordingly, in my view, if the Assessor had correctly determined that the acts of violence in this matter and claim no 304414 were not related acts, FBM would have been eligible for a category C recognition payment in the sum of $5000 in respect of each of those claims. 4. In my view, the Senior Assessor properly decided not to review the approval of the $10,000 award made in claim no 304414 as has FBM has received that payment. 5. For these reasons, I find that FBM has no further entitlement to victims support in the form of a recognition payment in respect of the act of violence that is the subject of this application. Section 44 considerations 1. There are no relevant s 44 considerations. Orders 1. I make the following orders: 1. The decision of the respondent dated 1 March 2021 is set aside and I make the following decision by way of substitution: 1. FBM is a primary victim of an act of violence on the balance of probabilities for the purposes of ss 19 and 20 of the Act. 2. FBM was the victim of a sexual assault other than one referred to in ss (2)(b) of the Act. 3. But for the approval in matter no. 304414, FBM would have been eligible for a category C recognition payment under s 35(3)(c) of the Act and cl 14(d) of the Victims Rights and Support Regulation 2019 in respect of this act of violence. 4. However, as FBM has previously received a category B recognition payment of $10,000, on the basis that this act of violence and that in claim no. 304414 were "related acts", she has no further entitlement to victims support in the form of a recognition payment in respect of this act of violence. ********** 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 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 January 2022