Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Solaris v Health Care Complaints Commission [2024] NSWCATOD 97 Hearing dates: 19 March 2024 and 7 May 2024 Date of orders: 11 July 2024 Decision date: 11 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: K Ransome, Principal Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 49 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the hearing of this application, insofar as it relates to the Confidential Material filed by the respondent, be conducted in the absence of the applicant, his representative (if any) and the public. (2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the publication of the Confidential Material or matters contained in the Confidential Material is prohibited. (3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the disclosure of the Confidential Material or matters contained in the Confidential Material is restricted to the respondent, the respondent's legal representatives and the Tribunal. (4) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b) and 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the publication or reporting of the hearing of this application insofar as it relates to the Confidential Material, including any evidence given in the hearing, is prohibited. (5) The application by the applicant for non-publication orders is refused. (6) The application by the applicant for a stay of the decision under review is refused. (7) The application is listed for further directions at 10:30 am on 23 July 2024 by AVL. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – interim prohibition order – whether order validly made – whether applicant provides a health service – whether administration of Ayahuasca a health service ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – application for stay – stay refused. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Community and Health Services Complaints Act 1993 (ACT) Health Care Complaints Act 1993 Public Health Regulation 2022 Cases Cited: AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) (1983) 154 CLR 120 Hanna v Commissioner for Community and Health Services Complaints [2002] ACTSC 111; (2002) 171 FLR 185 QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAP 113 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Soulore Solaris (Applicant) Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented) N Case (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/00459831 Publication restriction: Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the material filed by the respondent on a confidential basis, to the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and to the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49. That material is not to be released to either the applicant, his representatives or to the public. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Citation: NA Date of Decision: 03 August 2023 Before: T Simon, Principal Member File Number(s): 2023/00149775 REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 21 November 2023 the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) made the following interim prohibition order under section 41AA of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (the Act): Mr Soulore Solaris must not under any circumstances provide, or cause to be provided, any health services, either in paid employment or voluntary, to any member of the public. 1. The order was made in accordance with provisions in the Act that permit the making of an interim prohibition order in respect of a "non-registered health practitioner" while an investigation of a complaint is undertaken. The order was effective for a period of 8 weeks from 21 November 2023. 2. The brief background to the interim prohibition order is that Mr Solaris provides services through and runs the Dreaming Arts Foundation. A "music and meditation ceremonies & retreat" was held in northern NSW by the Dreaming Arts Foundation in October 2021 during which a participant, Jarryd Antonovich, died. It is alleged that Mr Solaris was the facilitator of the retreat. An autopsy report lists the cause of death as being a perforated oesophagus which may have been caused by excessive vomiting. The postmortem toxicology report for Mr Antonovich showed N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) in his blood. It is alleged that he had consumed Ayahuasca administered by Mr Solaris. Ayahuasca contains DMT and can induce hallucinations and nausea. It is also alleged he was administered Kambo, a toxic excretion of the Kambo species of frog, by another person. Kambo induces vomiting. Kambo and DMT, the active component in Ayahuasca, are prohibited substances under Schedule 9 of the Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard – July 2023) Instrument 2023 made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth). 3. A coronial inquest into the death commenced in May 2023. Evidence given at the inquest was that Mr Antonovich was distressed and in pain from about 10:00 am on 16 October 2021 until his death the following morning. An ambulance was called when Mr Antonovich went into cardiac arrest at about 11:30 pm on 16 October 2021. 4. The HCCC is of the view that Mr Solaris provides "health services" and poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public. 5. On 19 December 2023 Mr Solaris sought administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of the decision of 21 November 2023 to make the interim prohibition order. On the same date Mr Solaris applied to stay the interim prohibition order. 6. Due to a series of events the hearing of the stay application did not proceed until 19 March 2024. On that day an application by Mr Solaris for an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act) restricting the disclosure of his identity and documents filed by him in these proceedings was also heard. In addition, I heard an application by the HCCC for confidentiality orders in relation to certain documents filed in the proceedings. Decision under review 1. An issue arises in the proceedings in that the interim prohibition order the subject of the application by Mr Solaris has in fact expired. 2. Interim prohibition orders have been issued by the respondent to the applicant under s 41AA of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (the Act). The first such order was issued on 4 August 2023. By virtue of s 41AA(4) of the Act an interim prohibition order remains in force for a maximum of 8 weeks. The respondent has made further interim prohibition orders since the expiry of the first order which, in effect, causes the order to continue. The most recent order was made on 2 May 2024. Each order that has been made is in the same terms. 3. Mr Solaris asks that his proceedings in the Tribunal be taken to be an application in relation to the most recent interim prohibition order in force at the relevant time. The HCCC has no objection to this approach and has evinced an intention to continue to make such orders for the foreseeable future. In the interests of justice I made an order on 7 May 2024 pursuant to s 53 of the NCAT Act that the application made by the applicant on 19 December 2023 which seeks review of the interim prohibition order made on 21 November 2023 is amended to seek review of the interim prohibition order in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision (presently the order made on 2 May 2024). Jurisdiction 1. The power to issue an interim prohibition order arises under s 41AA of the Act. Relevantly, that section provides: 41AA Interim prohibition orders (1) The Commission may, during any investigation of a complaint against a non-registered health practitioner, make an interim prohibition order in respect of the non-registered health practitioner. (2) The Commission may make an interim prohibition order only if— (a) it has a reasonable belief that the health practitioner has breached a code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners, and (b) it is of the opinion that— (i) the health practitioner poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public, and (ii) the making of an interim prohibition order is necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public. 1. A "health practitioner" is defined in s 4 of the Act to be a natural person who provides a health service (whether or not the person is registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law). A "health service" is defined in s 4 to include the following services: (a) medical, hospital, nursing and midwifery services, (b) dental services, (c) mental health services, (d) pharmaceutical services, (e) ambulance services, (f) community health services, (g) health education services, (h) welfare services necessary to implement any services referred to in paragraphs (a)–(g), (i) services provided in connection with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practices and medical radiation practices, (j) Chinese medicine, chiropractic, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology services, (j1) optical dispensing, dietitian, massage therapy, naturopathy, acupuncture, speech therapy, audiology and audiometry services, (k) services provided in other alternative health care fields, (k1) forensic pathology services, (l) a service prescribed by the regulations as a health service for the purposes of this Act. 1. The HCCC states that Mr Solaris is subject to the Code of Conduct for non-registered health practitioners set out in Schedule 3 to the Public Health Regulation 2022. Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct provides that a health practitioner "must provide health services in a safe and ethical way". 2. There does not appear to be any dispute that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 41C of the Act to review a decision to make an interim prohibition order. However, in his submissions Mr Solaris states that the HCCC had no power issue the interim prohibition order as he does not provide a "health service" in relation to Ayahuasca. He states he is a ceremonial leader of spiritual practices and his practice is safe. The spiritual practices he refers to include spiritual ceremonies which include "participants partaking communion with the Holy Sacrament known as Ayahuasca". He states he does not administer Kambo and never has done so. Mr Solaris acknowledges that he does provide other health services in that he offers "counselling, healing and body work" but states he should be free to conduct his spiritual practice. 3. The issues that arise for determination are: 1. Whether Mr Solaris provided a "health service" within the meaning of s 4 the Act; 2. Whether the HCCC had proper grounds upon which to issue the interim prohibition order in the sense that it: 1. had properly formed a "reasonable belief" on which to issue the order on the basis that Mr Solaris did not "provide health services in a safe and ethical way"; and 2. could properly be of the opinion that an interim prohibition order was required for the protection of the public as required by s 41AA(2) of the Act. 1. The HCCC submits that Mr Solaris did provide a health service and that the evidence is capable of supporting the reasonable belief that he has contravened s 41AA(2) and of supporting the opinion that an interim prohibition order was necessary to protect the public. The HCCC concedes that if I find in favour of Mr Solaris on either issue, the appropriate order would be to set aside the interim prohibition order. 2. The HCCC has not identified which service set out in s 4 is provided by Mr Solaris, but it is apparent that the only relevant provision is paragraph (k) concerning "services provided in other alternative healthcare fields". Does Mr Solaris provide a health service? 1. Mr Solaris refers to himself as a "spiritual guide, healer, artist and musician". He states he studied medicine in Brazil and "has a close relationship to nature and the spirit world and has extensive experience guiding others to heal and reconnect with their higher-self and spiritual reality". He states he studied psychology and sociology at the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years in "integrative therapies, including narrative therapy, counselling, shamanic ritual, spiritual healing, community development and social and environmental ecology projects in Australia and Brazil". He further states he is "a counsellor and psychologist" who "brings special attention and significance to the healing journey, understanding complex traumas, recovery from addictions, spiritual growth and development and effectively guiding and supporting the integration process of the medicine work". 2. The website for the Dreaming Arts Foundation indicates that the Foundation provides healing services: Led by Lore Solaris, our integrative, trauma-informed healing services include a diverse range of cutting edge and traditional healing practices. Dreaming Arts has well developed services designed to facilitate profound healing and self-awareness. Participants may have their well-being plan tailored to their individual needs in a non-judgemental and non-denominational care environment. 1. The website refers to "Ceremonial and Ritual Healing" in which "music, meditation and cleansing processes" are used to "heal and honour spirit". "Energetic and Metaphysical Healing" is used to "reconnect, integrate and strengthen health, well-being and conscious awareness through the body and mind". It is stated that the programs provided by Dreaming Arts Foundation help people to discover new experience of: * Inner peace and self-confidence * Healthy relationships * Connection to community and spirituality * Expression through creative arts and music * Life purpose and direction * Emotional balance * Physical health and vitality. 1. An information guide for the October 2021 retreat published by Dreaming Arts Foundation states that participants will have the opportunity to drink the "sacred plant medicine known as Ayahuasca". It is further stated that, while the "ceremonial work" with Ayahuasca is essentially a spiritual practice, "it may have many positive and sustained benefits in the healing of mind, body, emotions, relationships, soul retrieval, ancestral connection and spiritual growth". The guide goes on to state that Ayahuasca "is medicine and it is here to help and to heal and that often things that need to be addressed in your mental, physical and emotional health will present themselves prior to the ceremony". The substance is said to play a powerful complementary role in health and wellbeing. 2. The guide states there will two Ayahuasca "ceremonies" during the retreat. The timetable also provides for a "Kambo ceremony" each day of the retreat. The guidelines for preparing to take Ayahuasca refer at several points to the healing nature of the ceremony and the process of healing, purging and cleansing. 3. Included in the material provided by the HCCC is a brochure from Cam Kite, the person who administered Kambo during the retreat. Kambo is described as a "powerful medicine" that can help "on an energetic, physical and spiritual level". The brochure refers to Kambo clearing bodies of unwanted toxins, clearing minds of negative thoughts and preparing people for spiritual evolution. It states that Kambo works with "our physical hearts and all our soft tissue organs". It is stated that Kambo "invites": * the release of "panema" (bad energy) depression and anxiety, * detoxification, * a deeper connection with your true self knowing and your purpose, * resolution of trauma and blocked emotions, * removal of obstacles to reaching your life purpose, * increased physical well-being and healing, * relief from pain and suffering, and * increased awareness. 1. Evidence and statements given to the coronial inquest by witnesses refer to the "cleansing" and "healing" processes of Kambo and Ayahuasca and that they are used to "expel toxins from the body". One witness refers to Kambo providing a "deep internal cleanse". There are other references to hallucinations, to detoxification and purging and to the "release of toxins in internal organs". 2. Mr Solaris has provided a document published by Dreaming Arts Foundation which is titled "Risk Mitigation and Safety Protocol". This document is concerned with "the safe and ethical use" of Ayahuasca. This and other documents produced by Dreaming Arts Foundation refer to Ayahuasca as the "Holy Sacrament". The document states that Ayahuasca is not a substitute for medical, psychiatric or psychotherapeutic treatment but may complement a therapeutic process. 3. Mr Solaris states that the ceremonies including partaking in Ayahuasca are spiritual/religious. He states that his spiritual practices are protected under s 116 of the Constitution of Australia. Section 116 provides, among other things, that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. The HCCC submits that the evidence does not establish that Mr Solaris's practices are religious in nature as they do not form part of the practice of a "religion" by reference to the criteria set out in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) (1983) 154 CLR 120 (the Scientology case). 4. In that case Mason ACJ and Brennan J said at 136: … for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion. 1. There is nothing in the material before me that would indicate the practices engaged in by Mr Solaris meet the definition of a religion for the purposes of the Constitution. While the literature provided by him suggests that the practices have an association with shamanic practices or beliefs from Brazil, there is nothing to support a conclusion that the ad hoc retreats and ceremonies organised by Mr Solaris meet the two-fold criteria set out above such that the practice could be described as a religion. In any event, even if they did, Mr Solaris could not avail himself of the constitutional protections as the practices of concern are unlawful. As noted above, both Kambo and the active component of Ayahuasca, DMT, are prohibited substances. 2. In any event, whether a religion is involved in the delivery of the services provided by Mr Solaris is not determinative of whether he provided a "health service" within the meaning of the Act. It seems that the term "health service" in the Act has not been considered previously. The HCCC refers to a decision of the ACT Supreme Court in Hanna v Commissioner for Community and Health Services Complaints [2002] ACTSC 111; (2002) 171 FLR 185. In Hanna the Court considered the meaning of the term "health service" in the Community and Health Services Complaints Act 1993 (ACT) (now repealed), legislation similar to the Act in NSW. 3. Hanna concerned a notice served by the Commissioner for Community and Health Services Complaints requiring the production of documents and information concerning a practice of the Church of Scientology known as the "Purification Rundown". The Purification Rundown is a regimen including exercise, sweating and the taking of vitamins and mineral supplements intended to replace lost nutrients. In Hanna it was not in question that Scientology is a religion nor that the Purification Rundown is a ritual of that religion. The only question was whether its performance nonetheless involves the provision of a "health service" as defined in the ACT legislation. That legislation defined health service to be "a service provided or to be provided in the ACT for, or purportedly for, the benefit of the health of a person". Like in the NSW Act, this included services in an alternative health care field. 4. The Court stated at [19] that the word "health" as used in this definition must refer to the state of being sick or well and noted that the Act is concerned with services provided for the treatment and care of physical or mental illness or injury and no doubt extends to services such as inoculations carried out in order to prevent illness. At [26] the Court stated: In my opinion, the definition of the term "health service" is not limited to services that are of direct benefit to a person's health. It would extend to the provision of pathology tests or other services of an exploratory or diagnostic nature. However, as mentioned earlier, the benefits or ostensible benefits must relate specifically to the treatment and care of physical or mental illness or injury or to services such as carried out in order to prevent illness. Furthermore, they must ultimately be directed, or purportedly directed, toward achieving such health benefits by virtue of the intrinsic therapeutic value of the service itself or of those further services that might be provided as a consequence of the diagnosis made or information ascertained. Hence, the question of whether a procedure constitutes a health service requires a judgment as to whether the dominant purpose or purported purpose is to cause or facilitate some benefit to a person's health by means of the service itself rather than by the invocation of divine intervention or by means of spiritual development. 1. The Court was satisfied that, overall, the Purification Rundown is essentially a religious ritual and not a health service. However, the Court went on to state at [31] the fact that a ritual extending over a period of some hours is essentially religious in character does not exclude the possibility that some particular activity undertaken as a constituent element of the ritual may itself constitute a health service. The Court found that the provision of advice to use the stipulated vitamins and minerals constituted such a service. 2. The Hanna case demonstrates that the fact that a practice may primarily be a religious or spiritual practice does not prevent an aspect of the ritual or practice being a health service. After considering the evidence presented in the case, the Court said at [32]: Considered overall, the evidence establishes that the advice concerning the use of Niacin is given for the purpose of facilitating the removal of toxic substances from the body of participants, albeit in conjunction with running and sweating, and to alleviate allergies. It also establishes that the advice to take minerals is given to facilitate other health benefits including, in the case of calcium, a healing effect on the nervous system. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the provision of advice to take vitamins and minerals does constitute a "health service" as defined… 1. In Hanna the evidence was that the church promoted the health and healing properties of the vitamins and mineral supplements it advised be taken during the Purification Rundown. Concerns had been raised about the high doses of the vitamins which had been prescribed, particularly niacin which was alleged to be 250 times the daily recommended intake. The court found that the issue was one that the Commissioner for Community and Health Services Complaints was entitled to investigate. 2. In this matter, the evidence is clear that Mr Solaris offered Ayahuasca to participants at the retreat. He disavows any responsibility for the administration of Kambo but it is clear that it formed an integral part of the retreats held under the Dreaming Arts Foundation name. 3. The purpose of the administration of Ayahuasca and Kambo on the retreats organised by Mr Solaris was to have a cleansing effect upon the body, described as detoxification or purging, which was the dominant purpose behind their administration. In the case of Ayahuasca there was also a psychoactive effect. While the purgative and other effects of the substances are said to be an aid to future spiritual development or enlightenment, this does not detract from their immediate health benefits which are said to be physical, mental and emotional. Both substances are described as "medicine" and are said to be administered as part of "healing" processes. 4. The HCCC submits that the entire retreat organised by Mr Solaris is a health service provided by him to improve mental and emotional health. The program for the October 2021 retreat shows that there were a variety of activities held over the days of the retreat. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the nature of the activities but many such as zoom calls to persons in Brazil and dance, song and didgeridoo sessions, would not appear to come within the meaning of a health service. 5. In relation to the Ayahuasca "ceremony" during which the substance was administered to participants by Mr Solaris, I am satisfied that the administration of the substance was a health service provided by him. The evidence demonstrates that the purpose of administration of Ayahuasca was to primarily improve mental and emotional health and which could also have physical benefits. Reasonable belief and opinion 1. Before it could issue an interim prohibition order the HCCC had to have a reasonable belief that Mr Solaris has breached the Code of Conduct for non-registered health practitioners (s 41AA(2) of the Act). The HCCC also had to be of the opinion that Mr Solaris poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public and that the making of an interim prohibition order is necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public. 2. The HCCC was of the view that Mr Solaris had breached clause 1 of the Code of Conduct for non-registered health practitioners as he did not provide health services in a safe and ethical way. It was also of the opinion that an interim prohibition order was required for the protection of the public. 3. In its submissions the HCCC refers to sub-clauses (l) and (m) of clause 1(2) of the Code of Conduct which state that a health practitioner must comply with the following principles: (l) a health practitioner must ensure appropriate first aid is available to deal with misadventure during a client consultation, (m) a health practitioner must obtain appropriate emergency assistance, for example, from the Ambulance Service, if there is a serious misadventure during a client consultation. 1. Mr Solaris refers to a document titled "Risk Mitigation and Safety Protocol". In that document responsibility is conferred on "guardians" to support participants during the Ayahuasca ceremony. The ceremonial leader and the guardians are tasked with a range of things, including being aware of medical risks and following a protocol for dealing with potential medical risks. 2. Mr Solaris states he was not involved in the administration of Kambo. He states that Mr Antonovich was being cared for during the day by Kambo practitioners and an Aboriginal elder. Mr Solaris states that Mr Antonovich did not wish to go to hospital. He also states that he did not have enough information himself to consider calling an ambulance. Mr Solaris states that he instructed another person to call an ambulance when he observed Mr Antonovich to have difficulty remaining conscious. 3. The evidence before the HCCC was that Mr Solaris was the organiser and facilitator of the retreat in October 2021 at which Mr Antonovich died. The evidence is that Mr Antonovich was administered Kambo by another person on the morning of 16 October 2021. Mr Antonovich was in pain and distressed from about 10:00 am on 16 October 2021. He was assisted by others to attend a ceremony at around 7:00 or 8:00 pm where he was administered Ayahuasca by Mr Solaris or his assistant. During the ceremony Mr Antonovich was heard making sounds that he was in pain. Mr Solaris continued with the ceremony. An ambulance was called when Mr Antonovich went into cardiac arrest at about 11:30 pm. People at the retreat administered CPR to Mr Antonovich while being instructed by an ambulance radio operator. During this time Mr Solaris continued with the ceremony. Mr Antonovich died prior to the ambulance arriving. 4. Mr Solaris strongly disputes that Ayahuasca can cause DMT toxicity and lead to death. He also disavows any responsibility for the administration of Kambo during the retreat as he was not involved in that process. In his statements made in support of this application Mr Solaris, in effect, states that he did what he could in the circumstances but responsibility for seeking medical attention for the participant rested primarily with others. 5. I am satisfied, however, that the evidence before the HCCC was such that it provided a proper basis upon which it could form a reasonable belief that Mr Solaris failed to provide health services in a safe and ethical way by: * administering a prohibited substance; * failing to understand the gravity of Mr Antonovich's health crisis following his consumption of Kambo and Ayahuasca; * failing to provide appropriate first aid; and * failing to obtain emergency assistance in time to save Mr Antonovich's life. 1. Information obtained by the HCCC is that Mr Solaris has conducted or proposed to conduct Ayahuasca ceremonies since October 2021 and most recently in December 2023. 2. The HCCC submits that, considered together with the reasonable belief that Mr Solaris had delivered health services contrary to the Code of Conduct, the fact that he proposed to continue to deliver services provides a proper factual basis for the formation of the opinion that he posed a risk to society and that it was therefore necessary to issue an interim prohibition order to protect the public. I agree with that submission. 3. I am therefore satisfied that the HCCC had power to issue the interim prohibition order. Non-publication orders sought by Mr Solaris 1. Mr Solaris seeks orders that any submissions he makes in the current proceedings and his identity be confidential. He states that the application is made for the following reasons: 1. The HCCC is working with Counsel Assisting the Coroner and has passed submissions made by Mr Solaris in an earlier Tribunal application that he withdrew to Counsel Assisting. Mr Solaris states that this is an attempt to influence proceedings in the Coroners Court. 2. The family of the deceased are going to the media at every opportunity and are using the interim prohibition orders to gain media attention for their attacks on Mr Solaris. He has received threats of violence and there is a risk to his safety. 3. Any submissions or material he supplies in these proceedings may be used to interfere with witnesses in the coronial inquiry or used against him against him in that inquiry. 1. The HCCC opposes the order and points out that Mr Solaris has brought this application to the Tribunal himself. It is submitted that no evidence has been provided to support any allegation of collusion or misconduct on the part of the HCCC. In relation to information previously supplied to the Coroner, the HCCC points to s 99B of the Act which permits disclosure of information to various bodies, including a court. The HCCC also submits that there is a strong public interest in the interim prohibition order as its purpose is public safety. 2. It is clear that Mr Solaris has been involved in concurrent proceedings before the Coroners Court and the Tribunal. I accept that the coronial inquest and the issuing of the interim prohibition order by the HCCC may have drawn adverse attention to Mr Solaris, particularly from the deceased person's family. The inquest has attracted media attention and Mr Solaris has been identified in that process. His identity is therefore well known. 3. Since the last hearing in relation to this application, the inquest has been suspended. In circumstances where the coronial inquest was held in public and where there does not appear to be any restriction on the disclosure of Mr Solaris's identity, it is not clear why orders should be made in this matter suppressing his identity or documents submitted. Other than making a general statement that information supplied in these proceedings may be used against him in the coronial inquest (or, I assume, now that the inquest has been suspended, in any other proceedings involving Mr Solaris), Mr Solaris has not given any detail of what that information may entail or why it should be suppressed. I note that, if necessary, the privilege against self-incrimination would be available to Mr Solaris in these proceedings. 4. I am not satisfied that it is desirable because of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, that orders should be made under s 64 of the NCAT Act prohibition the disclosure of the name of Mr Solaris or any evidence provided by him. Confidentiality orders sought by HCCC 1. The HCCC sought confidentiality orders in respect of several documents filed in support of the stay application. One of those documents (Tab 13) was withdrawn during the hearing. Mr Solaris opposed the making of the orders on the basis that any such orders were abuse of his rights and would mean that the case he is required to meet is prejudiced. 2. After hearing from the HCCC in a confidential session, I was satisfied that the orders sought should be made. I was satisfied that release of the information would reveal personal information of third parties, disclose confidential sources of information, disclose information received in confidence and may prejudice an ongoing investigation. Stay application 1. I now turn to consider the stay application made by Mr Solaris. Section 60 of the ADR Act empowers the Tribunal to stay a decision under review. The principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion are set out in QLD Protection Security Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAP 113. Those principles can be summarised as follows: 1. whether the order is appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the determination of the application for review 2. whether the order is desirable taking into account: 1. the interests of any persons who may be affected by the determination of the application for review 2. any submission made by or on behalf of the administrator who made the decision to which the application relates 3. the public interest. 1. the applicant's prospects of success on the application for review. 1. The circumstances that are relevant in any particular case to the considerations identified above may well overlap or be interrelated. 2. In AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 81 at [129] the Court of Appeal held that securing the effectiveness of the determination of the application involves matters such as ensuring that the lapse of time before the determination is actually made does not deprive the review of practical point. The Court went on to say that it also involves considering the possibility that the result of the review might be that the decision is affirmed, with the consequence that, if stay is granted, the decision has not been implemented during the period of the stay. 3. In my view a stay is not necessary to secure the effectiveness of the review. While Mr Solaris wants to be able to continue to conduct his retreats and ceremonies and states he has lost income, he has not provided any evidence that if he is ultimately successful on review, he could not once again conduct retreats or provide other individual services. That is, there is no suggestion that the review would lack utility. I accept that he has lost income. Mr Solaris has not, however, provided any financial or other information to shed light on any adverse impacts upon him or others associated with him if a stay is not granted. 4. The submissions of the HCCC primarily go to the protection of the public. In relation to the public interest, there is a strong public interest in protecting members of the community from those who ignore their statutory and other obligations. While the facts in this matter are yet to be determined, there are strong allegations made against Mr Solaris. I do not consider that there is any public interest factor in favour of granting a stay. 5. It is always difficult to assess without a full hearing on the merits an applicant's prospects of success in the substantive case. In this matter quite a deal of evidence has already been filed, most of which is not favourable to Mr Solaris's case. This is not a case where it could be said that the applicant has excellent prospects of success. 6. On balance, I am not satisfied that a stay should be granted. Orders 1. Pursuant to s 49 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the hearing of this application, insofar as it relates to the Confidential Material filed by the respondent, be conducted in the absence of the applicant, his representative (if any) and the public. 2. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the publication of the Confidential Material or matters contained in the Confidential Material is prohibited. 3. Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the disclosure of the Confidential Material or matters contained in the Confidential Material is restricted to the respondent, the respondent's legal representatives and the Tribunal. 4. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b) and 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, until further order of the Tribunal, the publication or reporting of the hearing of this application insofar as it relates to the Confidential Material, including any evidence given in the hearing, is prohibited. 5. The application by the applicant for non-publication orders is refused. 6. The application by the applicant for a stay of the decision under review is refused. 7. The application is listed for further directions at 10:30 am on 23 July 2024 by AVL. ********** 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: 11 July 2024