Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pillay v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 90 Hearing dates: 5 July 2022 Date of orders: 12 August 2022 Decision date: 12 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: S Higgins, Senior Member Decision: (1) The applicant's application for an extension of time is refused. (2) The applicant's application is dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - decision to refuse to reissue/renew the applicant's Class 1- Real Estate – Sales or Leasing licence – whether to extend time to lodge application for external review – in the absence of having duly applied for an internal review, whether it is necessary to deal with the applicant's application – s 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and s 55(4)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 (NSW) Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: CFA v Department of Family and Community Services [2016] NSWCATAD 32 CFZ v Department of Education [2015] NSWCATAD 231 Gad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 226 Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Pillay v Department of Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 29 (new citation [2022] NSWCATOD 174) Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Raman Pillay (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (self-represented) Department of Customer Service (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00082246 Publication restriction: Nil Reasons for decision 1. On 17 March 2022 the applicant, Raman Pillay, lodged an administrative review application seeking review of the decision of the respondent, the Commissioner of Fair Trading, to refuse to reissue/renew his Class 1 – Real Estate – Sales or Leasing licence (real estate licence or licence). The decision was made on 11 June 2021, pursuant to s 19 of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW) (PSA Act) and s 18(1) of the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 (NSW) (Uniform Procedures Act). 2. There is no dispute that the decision of the respondent is an administratively reviewable decision by the Tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) s 30(1), Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) ss 7 and 8 and PSA Act s 27. However, in order for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant's application for administrative review, the applicant must satisfy the matters prescribed in s 55 of the ADR Act, which includes: 1. having lodged his application within the time prescribed for making such an application: ADR Act s 55(2) and Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (NCAT Rules); and 2. having duly applied for an internal review under s 53 of the ADR Act: ADR Act s 55(3). 1. In this case the applicant lodged his application for administrative review some eight months outside the prescribed time and he did not make an application for internal review. However, the Tribunal is able to deal with the applicant's application if the Tribunal is satisfied that: 1. the time within which the applicant is to lodge his application should be extended under s 41 of the NCAT Act; and 2. pursuant to s 55(4)(b) of the ADR Act - in the absence of the applicant having made an internal review application, it is necessary for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant's application in order to protect his interests and his application was made within a reasonable time. 1. Both matters need to be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant's administrative review application. 2. These preliminary issues came before me, for hearing and determination, on 5 July 2022. After hearing from both parties, I reserved my decision. 3. For the reasons that follow, I have found that neither of the abovementioned matters are satisfied. Material before the Tribunal 1. In support of his case, on 27 May 2022, the applicant provided, under the cover of written submissions, the Tribunal and the respondent with two small bundles of documents which included copies of: 1. the licences previously issued to the applicant, courses he has undertaken in the past and his reissue/renewal application; 2. the published decision of the Tribunal concerning the application of the applicant's son seeking administrative review of the respondent's decision to cancel his son's real estate licence: Pillay v Department of Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 29 (Pillay); 3. an unsigned affidavit of the applicant, dated 24 June 2021, in support of his son's administrative review application; and 4. a signed declaration made by the applicant, on 28 August 2021, in support of his son's administrative review application. 1. In support of her case, the respondent provided the Tribunal and the applicant with: 1. the s 58 documents provided to the Tribunal and the applicant on 16 May 2022. Included in these documents was a copy of the decision of the respondent to refuse to reissue/renew the applicant's licence, and 2. an affidavit affirmed, on 27 June 2022, by Charlene Joyce, the Manager, Reviewable Decision of the respondent's Reviewable Decisions Unit, in which Ms Joyce said the Unit had not received an internal review application. 1. The respondent also provided written submissions. 2. The applicant and the respondent also made brief oral submissions at the hearing. Relevant legislation 1. Section 30(1) of the NCAT Act provides that the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator in the circumstances provided for in the ADR Act. These circumstances are set out in s 9 of the ADR Act which relevantly provides as follows: 9 When administrative review jurisdiction is conferred (1) The Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision (or class of decisions) of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for an administrative review under this Act of any such decision (or class of decisions) made by the administrator: (a) in the exercise of functions conferred or imposed by or under the legislation, or (b) in the exercise of any other functions of the administrator identified by the legislation. (2) If enabling legislation makes provision for applications to be made to the Tribunal in respect of an administratively reviewable decision subject to certain conditions, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the enabling legislation only if those conditions are satisfied. 1. In this case, the enabling legislation (defined in s 4(1) of the ADR Act) is s 27(a) of the PSA Act which provides that a person may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review under the ADR Act of a decision of the respondent to 'refuse to grant a licence or certificate of registration to the person (including such a decision pursuant to an application for the reissue or restoration of a licence or certificate of registration).' The PSA Act does not otherwise contain any conditions concerning the administrative review of a decision falling within that section. 2. An 'administratively reviewable decision' is defined in s 7(1) of the ADR Act to be a decision of an administrator over which the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction. As I have already noted, there is no dispute that the 11 June 2021 decision of the respondent is an administratively reviewable decision. ADR Act 1. Chapter 3 of the ADR Act makes provision for the processes for the administrative review of administratively reviewable decisions. Part 2 in that Chapter sets out the processes for administrative review by the administrator and Part 3 sets out the processes for administrative review by the Tribunal. 2. The relevant section in Part 2 is s 53 which makes provision for 'internal reviews' by the administrator of an administratively reviewable decision. That section relevantly provides as follows: 53 Internal reviews (1) Who may apply for an internal review If an administrator makes an administratively reviewable decision, an interested person may apply for an internal review of that decision under this section. (2) Requirements for an application An application for an internal review is: (a) to be in writing, and (b) to be addressed to the administrator concerned, and (c) …, and (d) to be lodged at the office (or an office) of the administrator within 28 days (or such later date as the administrator may allow) after the person: (i) … (ii) … was notified of the making of the administratively reviewable decision, and … … (9) When an internal review is finalised An internal review is taken to be finalised if: (a) the applicant is notified of the outcome of the review under subsection (6), or (b) the applicant is not notified of the outcome of the review within 21 days after the application for the review is lodged (or such other period as the administrator and person agree on). Note— Section 55 provides that an interested person may apply for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision once an internal review of the decision is taken to be finalised under this subsection. 1. The relevant section in Part 3 is s 55 which makes provision administrative review by the Tribunal. That section relevantly provides as follows: 55 Making of applications (1) An application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision may only be made by an interested person. (2) Subject to enabling legislation, an application is to be made in the time and manner prescribed by the procedural rules. … 3) If the interested person was entitled to seek an internal review of the administratively reviewable decision, an application may not be made unless the person has duly applied for such an internal review and the review is taken to have been finalised under section 53 (9). (4) However, the Tribunal may deal with an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision even though the applicant has not duly applied for an internal review to which the applicant was entitled if the Tribunal is satisfied that: (a) …, or (b) it is necessary for the Tribunal to deal with the application in order to protect the applicant's interests and the application to the Tribunal was made within a reasonable time following the administratively reviewable decision of the administrator concerned. 1. There is no dispute that the applicant is an interested person for the purpose of s 55(1). NCAT Act and Rules 1. Section 40 of the NCAT Act provides that an application to the Tribunal is to be made in the time and manner prescribed in the enabling legislation of the procedural rules. 2. Rule 24 of the NCAT Rules sets out the requirements for making an administrative review application to the Tribunal, including the time within which such an application is to be made. That rule relevantly provides as follows: 24 Administrative review applications … (3) Unless the Tribunal grants an extension under section 41 of the Act, an application must be made— (a) in the case where enabling legislation specifies the period within which the application is to be made—within the period specified, or (b) in any other case—by the end of the default application period. (4) The default application period for the purposes of subrule (3)(b) is— (a) in the case where the applicant has duly applied for an internal review of the administratively reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997—the period of 28 days after the day on which the internal review is taken to have been finalised under section 53(9) of that Act, or (a1) …, or (b) in any other case—the period of 28 days after— (i) if the applicant has requested reasons under section 49 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 for the administratively reviewable decision—the day on which the applicant was either provided with a statement of reasons under section 49 of that Act or notified under section 50 of that Act of a refusal to provide reasons, or (ii) if the applicant has not requested reasons under section 49 of that Act—the day on which the applicant was notified of the making of the administratively reviewable decision. 1. Section 41 of the NCAT Act provides as follows: 41 Extensions of time (1) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or on application by any person, extend the period of time for the doing of anything under any legislation in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction despite anything to the contrary under that legislation. (2) Such an application may be made even though the relevant period of time has expired. 1. I have dealt with the legal principles relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to extend time below. Evidence 1. The sequence of events relevant to this application are not disputed. The respondent's 11 June 2021 Notice of decision 1. The respondent's Notice of decision (Notice) is a two page document that is addressed to the applicant at his email address. 2. On page one of the Notice, the respondent set out the grounds on which the decision was made and the applicant's right to seek an internal review as follows: Fair Trading record shows that you were a director of Arvind Pillay Realty Pty Ltd which was cancelled 19 March 2021 as a result of misappropriation of trust fund monies. It is noted that trust money from the agency's Sales Trust Account was transferred to your personal account and business account. Considering the above, your application for a Class 1 licence is refused under s 14(1)(b) of the Act [PSA Act]. … Can I request a review of the decision? You may apply for an internal review of this decision within 28 days from notification of this decision. An information sheet with details on how to apply for an internal review is attached. 1. Additionally, at the bottom of the first page of the Notice are two tick boxes concerning a refund of the person's application fee. The first tick box applies if the person to whom the Notice is issued does not intend to apply for an internal review and the second tick box applies if the person does intend to apply for an internal review. 2. Also attached to the Notice is a 'Fact Sheet' explaining how to make an internal review application, the processes involved in determining that application and when an application for external review can be made to the Tribunal. 3. There is no evidence that the applicant ticked either box. However, at page 51 of the s 58 documents there is a copy of an email, sent by the applicant to the respondent, on the day he was notified of the respondent's decision (11 June 2021), at 2:40 pm, in which the applicant said: Hello, Pls find attached the form to refund my money. Regards Raman Pillay. The applicant's administrative review application 1. In his administrative review application, lodged on 17 March 2022, the applicant said he was seeking review of the decision of the respondent on the following grounds: Why my licence not renewed What I did. I want to know Son did mistake no need to punish me I want my licence 1. The applicant also ticked the box on the front of the application form to indicate that his application was urgent. He also said that the reason why his application was late was because: 'no job- now want to start my business'. The administrative review application of the applicant's son 1. On the material before the Tribunal, it would appear that the circumstances giving rise to the respondent's refusal to reissue/renew the applicant's licence are the same as those that gave rise to respondent's decision to cancel the real estate licence of the applicant's son: Pillay at [13] to [16], [27], [30] to [34] and [39] to [45]. In summary, those circumstances, as identified in the decision of the Tribunal, are as follows: 1. between August 2017 and February 2018, a number of unauthorised withdrawals were made from the trust account of the real estate business of the applicant's son (Arvind Pillay Realty Pty). The amounts withdrawn were repaid into the trust account between September 2017 and February 2018; 2. in July 2020, the applicant's son was charged with nine offences of fraudulent conversion of trust monies in regard to these withdrawals (s 211(2) of the PSA Act), or alternatively as an accessory to the commission of corporate offences (s 218(2) of the PSA Act); 3. in September 2020, based on a signed Statement of Agreed Facts (Agreed Facts), the applicant's son pleaded guilty to each of the charges. In the Agreed Facts, the applicant's son admitted to procuring the commission of the corporate offences by transferring the trust money, at the request of his father and one of the company's salesmen. The applicant was convicted of six counts of fraudulent conversion, alternatively as an accessory to the commission of corporate offences; 4. in August 2020, the respondent commenced disciplinary action against the applicant's son under s 195 of the PSA Act; 5. on 18 March 2021, the respondent decided to take disciplinary action against the applicant's son and cancelled his licenced and disqualified him for a period of 10 years from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of a real estate business; 6. on 15 April 2021, the applicant's son made an application for internal review of the respondent's decision. On 26 April 2021, the respondent determined the internal review application of the applicant's son and decided to affirm the original decision; 7. subsequently, the applicant's son made an administrative review application to the Tribunal seeking administrative review of the decision of the respondent to cancel his licence and to disqualified him for a period of 10 years. The administrative review application of the applicant's son was heard by the Tribunal on 26 November 2021; 8. as I have noted above, in support of his son's administrative review application, the applicant provided an affidavit and a declaration in which he explained that he had set up the real estate business for his son and that it was he who withdrew the money from the trust account of his son's business. He explained that he had done so, as a signatory to the trust account; and 9. on 31 January 2022, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent to cancel the real estate licence of the applicant's son and the decision to disqualify him for 10 years. Submissions 1. The applicant's written submissions of 27 May 2022 do not specifically address why he failed to lodge his internal review application within the prescribed time or why he did not make an application for internal review. However, he did say that when he received the letter from the respondent refusing to renew/reissue his licence, he approached the Office of Fair Trading to ask why his licence was not renewed. He said that he was told by the Office that he 'stole money from my son acc Arvind Pillay Realty' which he said was 'too abrupt' as he had not done this – he said 'yes' his son gave him the money, but he paid it back within two months. 2. In his submissions of 29 June 2022, the applicant reiterated that he was not a director of his son's business at the time of the withdrawals, but he had his own company called Ray Castle Realty Pty Ltd. 3. At the hearing, the applicant said that, at the time he received Notice of the respondent's decision, his priority was his son, as any father would do in the same circumstances. In his written submissions the applicant contended that the prosecution of his son and the subsequent cancellation and disqualification were harsh and not what he had wanted for his son. 4. In her written submissions, the respondent reiterated her contentions that, in the absence of the applicant having made an internal review application, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. I asked Mr Coss, solicitor for the respondent as to whether a late internal review application would be accepted, to which Mr Coss answered 'no'. He went on to say that at no time had the applicant requested to make a late application. 5. Mr Coss also submitted that in the absence of the applicant providing a satisfactory explanation as to why his application was lodged eight months out of time, an order to extend time was not justified. Consideration 1. I note, my determination of the preliminary matters the subject of this application do not involve a determination of the applicant's substantive administrative review application. That is, I make no finding as to whether the respondent's decision to refuse to renew/reissue the applicant with a licence is the correct and preferable decision: ADR Act s 63(1). My task is to determine, on the material before me and the applicable law whether time should be extended for the applicant to lodge his administrative review application and if so, whether I am satisfied of the matters set out in s 55(4)(b) of the ADR Act. If I am not satisfied of either matter, I must find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction (i.e. cannot deal) with the applicant's application. Extension of time 1. The PSA Act does not prescribe a time within which an administrative review application is to be lodged with the Tribunal. Hence, the relevant time prescribed in rule 24(2)(b)(ii) of the NCAT Rules applies (i.e. within 28 days after the applicant was notified of the respondent's decision). 2. In this case, the applicant has acknowledged that he was notified of the respondent's decision on 11 June 2021, which on my calculation was a Friday. If I am correct, the 28 days expired on Monday 12 July 2021. Yet the applicant did not lodge his application until eight months later, on 17 March 2022. 3. The applicant did indicate on his Administrative Review application that his application was lodged late and that he needed an extension of time within which to lodge his application. 4. In Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 at [18], the Appeal Panel noted that s 41 of the NCAT Act confers an unfettered discretion on the Tribunal to extend the time for the making of an application to it. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially. At [22], the Appeal Panel set out the following considerations that it considered to be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to extend time under s 41 of the NCAT Act (citations omitted): 22 The considerations that will generally be relevant to the Appeal Panel's consideration of whether to grant an extension of time in which to lodge a Notice of Appeal include: (1) The discretion can only be exercised in favour of an applicant upon proof that strict compliance with the rules will work an injustice upon the appellant - …; (2) The discretion is to be exercised in the light of the fact that the respondent (to the appeal) has already obtained a decision in its favour and, once the period for appeal has expired, can be thought of as having a "vested right" to retain the benefit of that decision - … and, in particular, where the right of appeal has gone (because of the expiration of the appeal period) the time for appealing should not be extended unless the proposed appeal has some prospects of success - …; (3) Generally, in an application for an extension of time to appeal the Appeal Panel will be required to consider: (a)The length of the delay; (b)The reason for the delay; (c) The appellant's prospects of success, that is usually whether the applicant has a fairly arguable case; and (d) The extent of any prejudice suffered by the respondent (to the appeal), - …; and (4) It may be appropriate to go further into the merits of an appeal if the explanation for the delay is less than satisfactory or if the opponent has a substantial case of prejudice and, in such a case, it may be relevant whether the appellant seeking an extension of time can show that his or her case has more substantial merit than merely being fairly arguable - … 1. The Tribunal has also noted that, in administrative review applications, there is a public interest component to the evaluation of the discretion as well as the timeliness or delay in the antecedent administrative processes: CFA v Department of Family and Community Services [2016] NSWCATAD 32 at [28] to [29] and CFZ v Department of Education [2015] NSWCATAD 231 at [9] and [10]. Length of the delay 1. As I have already noted, the length of the delay is eight months. In my opinion, this is a very substantial delay and does not weigh in favour of time being extended. Reason for delay 1. In my opinion, the applicant's explanation as to why his application was lodged late are self-serving and do not weigh in favour of time being extended. 2. I accept that, at the time the applicant was notified of the respondent's decision, his son was a priority, which included a priority to ensure that his son's administrative review application was lodged within time. As noted above, the applicant's son had lodged his application for administrative review with the Tribunal sometime in May 2021, which predated the date of the respondent 11 June 2021 decision. 3. Even though the applicant appears to consider that his son was dealt with unfairly, he was nevertheless fully aware of the grounds on which the respondent had decided to cancel his son's licence, and the process available to his son for internal review and administrative review of the respondent's decision. This included a knowledge of the time within which an internal review and an administrative review application were to be made. 4. In my opinion, the fact that no work was available until March 2022, does not explain why there has been a delay. The availability of work, to the knowledge of the applicant, is not a relevant factor in deciding whether to issue or reissue/renew a licence. The relevant factors being those set out in s 14 of the PSA Act (see below). 5. Hence, in the absence of identifying any misunderstanding of the decision that was made, or what he needed to do if he was dissatisfied with the decision, I find that the applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Prospects of success 1. In Gad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 226 at [46] the Tribunal said: 46. It is not the role of the Tribunal, when deciding an application for an extension of time to make a finding as to whether the applicant is likely to be successful in the proceedings. The test of whether an applicant has a fairly arguable case is designed to avoid such speculation. … 1. As I have noted above, the respondent's Notice of decision noted that the decision was made under s 19 of the PSA Act on the grounds set out in s 14(1)(b) of the PSA Act. 2. Section 19 of the PSA Act provides as follows: 19 Certain applications to be refused An application must not be granted unless the applicant is eligible to be granted the licence or certificate of registration concerned (as provided by section 14). 1. Section 14 relevantly provides as follows: 14 Eligibility for a licence or certificate of registration (1) An individual is eligible to hold a licence only if the Secretary is satisfied that the individual— (a) is at least 18 years of age, and (b) is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and each person with whom the individual is in partnership in connection with the business concerned is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and (c) has the qualifications required for the issue of the licence or class of licence, and (d) is not a disqualified person, and (e) has paid such part of any contribution or levy payable under Part 10 (Compensation Fund) as is due and payable on the granting of the licence. 1. As I have noted, the findings of the respondent were that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence for which he sought renewal, and this finding was made on the basis of the applicant having been a director of his son's company when trust fund monies were misappropriated and transferred to his personal and business accounts. 2. In his oral evidence, the applicant said he was not a director of his son's company at the relevant time, which is supported in the decision of the Tribunal in Pillay at [12]. However, the applicant does not dispute that he, as a signatory to the trust account of his son's company, withdrew the amounts in issue and deposited them into his own accounts and that of a sales officer of his son's real estate business. 3. Mr Coss submitted that, leaving aside whether the applicant was or was not a director of his son's company, the applicant's admissions concerning the withdrawals were sufficient to find that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence and, on this basis alone, he could not succeed in his administrative review application. 4. In this case, neither party has been required to put on evidence in support of their respective case. However, the applicant has been given an opportunity to identify the grounds on which he would rely in the event time were extended. He has failed to do so and continues to rely on his dissatisfaction as to how his son was dealt with. Hence, given the seriousness of the offences in ss 211 and 213 of the PSA Act concerning the conversion of trust money held by a licensee and the admissions of the applicant in regard to his involvement in those offences at a time when he was the holder of a real estate licence, I am satisfied that the applicant will have some difficulty in succeeding in his review application. Hence, on the material before the Tribunal, I am unable to find that the applicant has an arguable case. Prejudice 1. The respondent does not claim that it will suffer any prejudice if the extension of time is granted. Public interest consideration 1. The applicant is not a disqualified person and is able to make a fresh application for a licence under the PSA Act, if he can satisfy the respondent of the matters in s 14(1)(b), (c) and (e). 2. Hence, in my view, there is a public interest in not expending funds to allow an application that has been lodged so late and is unlikely to succeed, especially where the applicant is entitled to make a fresh application for a licence should he wish to do so. Timeliness or delay in antecedent administrative processes 1. The applicant has not identified any delay in the antecedent administrative purposes, and appropriately so. Whether strict compliance with the rules will work an injustice upon the applicant 1. Given the applicant's involvement in his son's administrative review application and his ability to make a new application for a licence, strict compliance with the prescribed 28 day period to lodge his administrative review application will not, in my opinion, work an injustice upon the applicant. I appreciate, this will involve him again paying the application fee, which under s 22 of the Uniform Procedures Act is to be refunded (other than any processing charges) in the event his application is refused. The same provision applied to the reissue/renewal application the applicant made in 2020. Conclusion 1. For the reasons set out above, I have formed the view that the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his application should be refused. No internal review 1. Given my findings above, it is unnecessary to consider this issue. However, for completeness I will briefly do so. 2. First, as the respondent's decision is an administratively reviewable decision, the internal review provisions in s 53 of the ADR Act apply. This is because, the PSA Act does not place any conditions on the review processes contained in the ADR Act: ADR Act s 9. 3. In accordance with s 53(6)(c) of the ADR Act, in her Notice of decision, the respondent informed the applicant of his right to seek internal review and the time within which an application for internal review should be made. On the same day, the applicant requested a refund of his application fee. This, as indicated in the Notice of decision, suggested that the applicant did not seek to make an internal review application. Nor has he done so subsequently. 4. Hence the question is whether: 1. the applicant's application has been made within a reasonable time following the 11 June 2021 decision of the respondent, and 2. it is necessary for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant's application to protect his interest. 1. For the reasons I have already given, the applicant's application was not lodged within a reasonable time. It was lodged well outside the prescribed time and no satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay. 2. Nor am I satisfied that it is necessary to deal with the applicant's application to protect his interests. The applicant has been unlicensed for more than a year and has not identified any relevant existing interest. 3. As I have explained, it is open to the applicant to bring a fresh application. 4. Hence, in the event I am wrong in my findings concerning the applicant's application for an extension of time, I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant's application under s 55(4)(b) of the ADR Act. Conclusion and orders 1. For the reasons I have given above, I have formed the view that: 1. the applicant's application for an extension of time should be refused, and 2. in the event I am wrong concerning (1) above, in the absence of the applicant not having duly applied for an internal review, I am not satisfied that it is necessary to deal with the applicant's application under s 55(4)(b) of the ADR Act. 1. Accordingly, I make the following order: 1. The applicant's application for an extension of time is refused. 2. The applicant's application is dismissed. ********** 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 Amendments 16 December 2022 - Cases cited: new citation [2022] NSWCATOD 174 noted. 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: 16 December 2022