Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Musgrave v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWCATOD 41 Hearing dates: 17 December 2014 Decision date: 28 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: S Frost, Senior Member Decision: Decisions under review affirmed. Catchwords: Passenger transport – public passenger vehicle driver – fit and proper person – prior charges under the Crimes Act – prior suspensions under Passenger Transport Act – failure to address past behaviour – failure to persuade Tribunal that applicant respects the law and will comply with it Legislation Cited: Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW) Cases Cited: Musgrave v Director General, Ministry of Transport [2004] NSWADT 141 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Musgrave (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Kazi & Associates (Applicant) Smythe Wozniak Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420182, 1420268, 1420269 Reasons for decision Introduction 1. Mr Musgrave has applied under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW) (the PT Act) for an authority to drive taxis, buses and private hire vehicles. Each application was refused on the ground that Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is not satisfied that Mr Musgrave is a fit and proper person to be the driver of such vehicles. 2. Mr Musgrave applied for internal review of the refusal decisions but the original decisions were upheld. He has now applied to the Tribunal for review. The issue 1. The sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether Mr Musgrave is a fit and proper person to hold a public passenger vehicle driver authority. The legislation 1. Section 11(2) of the PT Act provides as follows: The purpose of an authority under this Division is to attest: (a) that the authorised person is considered to be of good repute and in all other respects a fit and proper person to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle, and (b) that the authorised person is considered to have sufficient responsibility and aptitude to drive the vehicle for vehicles to which the authority relates: (i) in accordance with the conditions under which a public passenger service is operated, and (ii) in accordance with law and custom. 1. That is the provision that applies in respect of bus driver authorities. There are separate provisions in the PT Act covering taxi drivers (s 33) and drivers of private hire vehicles (s 40) but they are relevantly identical to the provision set out above. Background 1. Mr Musgrave was first issued with a public passenger vehicle driver authority in 1991 and with operator accreditation in 2002. Since then he has held a driver authority at various times for taxi-cabs, buses and private hire vehicles and he has also held operator accreditation for private hire vehicles and buses. 2. However, over the years Mr Musgrave has had what may be described as a difficult relationship with RMS. Bus operator non-compliance 1. In 2003 his bus operator accreditation was suspended for a number of non-compliance matters arising from the operation of a public passenger service. Included in the matters of non-compliance were his failure to have a vehicle monitoring device installed in one of his buses, and the fact that the vehicle monitoring device installed in his other bus was not operational. Those matters eventually came before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) and the suspension of his accreditation was lifted: Musgrave v Director General, Ministry of Transport [2004] NSWADT 141. Charges – false or misleading statements – financial advantage 1. When that ADT matter was heard Mr Musgrave was facing 153 charges under s 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that by false or misleading statements or with intent to obtain for himself a financial advantage, Mr Musgrave made a statement which he knew to be false or misleading in a material particular. The charges arose as a result of Mr Musgrave's having claimed taxi subsidies for the transport of disabled passengers in a tourist vehicle (not a taxi). He was convicted on all counts in the Local Court but his appeal to the District Court was successful and the convictions were quashed. 2. The Local Court Magistrate explained the circumstances as follows (p 161ff of the s 58 documents): 3. The prosecution alleges that the trip in question occurred in a vehicle that was not a taxi, and was therefore a trip in respect of which a subsidy was not payable. The defendant's position is that, as far as he was aware, the trips undertaken were all in fact covered by the subsidy scheme even though a taxi was not used for them, and that none of the statements made was false or misleading in any material particular. 4. At issue are dockets produced under the auspices of the Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme Cab Charge (TTSSCC) scheme under which journeys undertaken by disabled passengers are eligible for a subsidy of up to $30 per trip. A typical example of such a docket became Exhibit 4. 5. The prosecution asserts that these dockets are misleading in that, by omission of the letters "TV" in the box labelled "Taxi number" they imply that the vehicle used to transport the disabled passenger was a taxi (which has a licence plate commencing with just the letter "T", and for which a subsidy is payable) and not a small bus (which has a "TV" licence plate and for which a subsidy is not payable). It is further alleged that the docket is misleading in that there is a figure entered in the box marked "Meter" under the heading "Fare", implying that the vehicle had a meter (and was therefore a taxi). … … 10. As the defendant has always denied any criminal intent or reckless disregard on his part, the prosecution's case on this point is entirely circumstantial. And it must be remembered that anything which is not prohibited by law is permitted. To support the [prosecution's] assertion that the defendant knew that the TTSSCC scheme only provided subsidies for taxi travel, and not travel in other public passenger vehicles, Mr O'Donnell drew attention to a number of facts that were not disputed in the transcript of evidence. 11. First, he noted that the defendant was an experienced taxi operator with 15 year experience, and experience of carrying TTSSCC participants in a taxi [T15]. He was aware that metropolitan taxis had numberplates with a "T" prefix, whilst country taxis had a "TC" prefix [T16-17]. The defendant conceded that an "M50" number was code for a wheelchair booking that could not be issued in relation to a bus booking [T17]. He agreed that all NSW taxis had meters [T17] and that his bus TV 2645 did not have a taxi meter [T18]. 12. When challenged on the fact that the docket referred expressly to "Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme", the defendant replied, not unreasonably, that the name did not alert him to it being only for taxis: he had operated a company called "Taxi Credit" whose vouchers were usable on taxis, taxi buses and hire cars. As the bard commented, "What's in a name?" 13. However, it seems to me that one crucial question is why the defendant omitted the letters "TV" from the "Taxi Number" box. When asked about this in cross-examination he responded: "A. … what I'm saying is that if I wrote TV-2645 that it became illegible, we initially did that and it became – because the box is so small – that is an amplified copy of the docket [referring to Exhibit 4]. Because the docket is so small, it was squashing everything up and it didn't quite fit so it was suggested by GM Cabs that I just put 2645 because that uniquely identified me. Q. So who in GM cabs made this suggestion to you? A. Mr George Mikhail (?) the owner and operator of GM cabs. Q. And what exactly did he say to you? A. That it was coming out illegible it wasn't – when they copied them it was very hard to make them legible so we dropped it and just put 2645." [T19:52-20:9] 14. I do not accept this explanation. Mr Mikhail was not called to give evidence, and it seems open to conclude that, if he had seen nothing wrong with the course proposed, he would have had no objection to supporting it. … (original emphasis) 1. The Magistrate found all offences proved. 2. However, on appeal, Blanch CJDC allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions, saying: … what is required is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew that the statement that he was making was false or misleading in a material particular. … The particular problem in this case is that the appellant was not driving a taxi, he was driving a tourist vehicle with the number plate TV2645 and when he filled in the vouchers which he was required to do in relation to these various journeys, in the spot in the box which required a taxi number he simply wrote 2645 and not TV2645. He said he did that because he had at some stage tried to put in the TV2645 number but there was not enough room in the box and he simply wrote in 2645. These vouchers are not processed by the department, they are processed by another company and they are processed in very large numbers. The number 2645 is not the identity of a taxi. In other words the 2645 number which belonged to the tourist vehicle of the applicant was a unique identifier, however it was a unique identifier unlikely to be identified as not belonging to a taxi when the vouchers were being processed in very large numbers by a company and not by the department which would have had access to registration numbers. Arising from that the prosecution here contends that because of that omission in putting in a number that is clear evidence that the appellant knew he was not entitled to use the scheme and that it is clear evidence of him intending to mislead the people responsible for paying out on the scheme by omitting the letters TV before the number. It is also submitted that on the vouchers there is a space for putting in the meter cost and tourist vehicles and hire cars for that matter do not have meters and that that also is a factor that should have alerted or did alert him to the fact that he had no entitlement to use the scheme. On the other side of the equation the appellant is a person of good character and he gave evidence that he thought he was entitled to use the scheme and there was nothing false or misleading or intentionally false or misleading in the way he filled in the form. For the prosecution what [it] has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that he did know what he was saying was false or misleading in a material particular. It is pointed out that he had a taxi driver's authority for fifteen years and had driven a taxi regularly during that time so that he was a person who had a distinct knowledge of the industry. He gave evidence that when he had previously conveyed in a taxi someone entitled under the scheme he put the full numberplate of the taxi and he accepted that the words "Taxi Subsidy Scheme" were on the voucher. It is said on that basis that he did know that the statements were false. There is obviously force in the argument put by the prosecution that he has omitted the letters TV in front of the number required and there could be the explanation that he knew that these documents were processed in bulk and that there was no real possibility that the persons processing these vouchers would wake up to the fact that he was not a taxi and was not entitled under the scheme. … One worrying aspect of the magistrate's conclusion was the fact that he quoted in some detail the fact that the appellant had said that he had been told to write just the numbers in the box by a George Mikhail and Mikhail was not called to give evidence. I am not sure that the magistrate was entitled to draw a conclusion about that on the evidence before him. … The question then for me is how do I react to the evidence and I can say that there is some force in the argument put by the prosecution to the extent that on the balance of probabilities I would conclude that the appellant did know that his statements were false. However what I need to decide is whether I am satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt. … When I consider all of those matters together I find myself in a situation of having a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the applicant made the statements knowing them to be false or misleading. In that situation the only conclusion that I can come to is that the appeal should be allowed. I allow the appeal. I quash the conviction and the orders in the magistrate's court. 1. There followed a discussion about a possible award of costs, as follows: DAVID: Your Honour in relation to the orders in the Local Court, that includes the orders in relation to costs? HIS HONOUR: Yes. DAVID: Thank you your Honour. Would your Honour hear an application for costs in relation to this appeal? HIS HONOUR: I will but in order for you to obtain an order for costs you need to establish that it was unreasonable to bring the prosecution in the first place. I have tried to expose in very plain terms my reasoning which includes a finding that probably he did know and I believe that in those circumstances it simply is not open to me to make an order for costs in favour of the appellant. DAVID: Please the court. Accredited bus operator – alleged unauthorised activities 1. Marvin J Acme Pty Ltd (the company) is a company of which Mr Musgrave holds himself out to be the managing director. It is an accredited bus operator under the PT Act. Mr Musgrave's wife, Teresa Musgrave, is the "Designated Manager" of the company. 2. The company's accreditation was suspended in March 2010 when RMS became aware that it was conducting what was considered to be an unauthorised regular passenger service between Homebush Bay and Strathfield station. 3. Section 16 of the PT Act prohibits the carrying on of a regular passenger service except under a contract entered into between an accredited service provider and Transport for NSW. 4. Section 3 of the PT Act contains the following definitions: regular passenger service means a public passenger service conducted according to regular routes and timetables, but does not include a tourist service or a long-distance service. public passenger service means the carriage of passengers for a fare or other consideration: (a) by motor vehicle (other than a light rail vehicle) along a road or road related area, or along the whole or part of a transitway route, or (b) by vessel within any New South Wales waterway. tourist service means a public passenger service provided by a bus or ferry or another vehicle prescribed by the regulations, being: (a) a pre-booked service designed for the carriage of tourists to destinations listed on a publicly available tour itinerary, or (b) a service designed for the carriage of tourists where all passengers' journeys have a common origin or a common destination, or both. long-distance service means a public passenger service conducted according to one or more regular routes, in which each passenger is carried for a distance of not less than 40 kilometres. 1. The circumstances surrounding the suspension of the company's accreditation are as follows, as outlined in a memorandum prepared on 23 March 2010 by a compliance officer with NSW Transport & Infrastructure: BACKGROUND Information received by NSW Transport & Infrastructure (NSWTI) from two sources concerning allegations of a bus service between Homebush Bay and Strathfield Station in the morning and afternoon, Monday to Friday, with a similar service between Homebush Bay and Strathfield Station plus Rhodes shopping Centre on a Saturday. The first source was from the State Transport Authority (STA) alleging that a bus service was operating to regular published timetables; these timetables were affixed to two of their bus stops (J Poles with STA information on them). Photographic evidence was also provided. The second source was from an interested person asking if another operator was allowed to operate bus services in competition with the STA. FINDINGS On Wednesday, 17 March, 2010 two compliance officers, made observations on the movements of the vehicle registration ABLE 7 were undertaken. At 8:02 am in Hill Road, south of Stromboli Strait outside the Waterfront Apartments, the STA J Pole bus stop was being observed from within an unmarked vehicle. A white bus, ABLE 7, with accreditation signage Marvin J Acme Pty Ltd, accreditation 35069, pulled up at the stop and picked up three passengers. On the same day at 8:36 am the same bus drove straight past the bus stop and had one passenger on board. Again at 9:03 am there were ten persons at the bus stop, the vehicle ABLE 7 stopped and picked up three passengers. The STA bus 401 route was observed at various times stopping at this bus stop. Photos were taken of the two STA J Poles showing adverts of the timetable for the "Homebush Bay to Strathfield Charter Service". In addition, two other timetables were noted; one on a street sign post on the corner of the Piazza and Bennelong Road and on a "60kms" sign post outside 29 Bennelong Rd and photos were taken of these. On Thursday, 18 March, 2010 two compliance officers again were on duty at the same location outside the Waterfront Apartments. At 7:30 am the same white bus ABLE 7 pulled up at the bus stop where 11 persons were waiting, four passengers got on the bus. At 8:01 am at the same stop five people were waiting and all got on the white bus ABLE 7 and there was at least one passenger already on the bus. At 8:24 am, I went to the bus stop outside the Waterfront Apartments where two persons were waiting. At 8:31 am the white bus pulled up at the stop and I boarded the bus behind three ladies. I observed the driver taking money from two of the ladies and gave money back to one of them. I asked the driver for a Travel 10 and asked how it worked. He told me that he will give me a pass for ten trips and this trip is free. I gave him a $50 note; he gave me a laminated ticket which he hole-punched and then $25 change. I asked for a receipt which he handed to me after he dealt with the other passengers. Approximately nine passengers got on at this stop. We departed and the next stop was the Piazza where the bus pulled up at the street sign post where the timetable was affixed. There were five passengers who got on the bus, two paid money and three showed the driver a card. We picked up one more passenger outside 29 Bennelong Road. At 8:45 we pulled up outside Strathfield railway Station in Everton Road, wholly on the roundabout with most of the front of the bus on a pedestrian crossing, where we all alighted. On the bus it was observed there was a holder for a driver authority but no authority card, there was no passenger information signage but there was a sign saying seatbelts must be worn. This service comprehensively advertised on the Web at [web address] and the signs on the abovementioned J Poles and road signs. 1. In a written submission to NSWTI requesting an internal review of the suspension decision, Teresa Musgrave stated: As the service is a Private Charter Service provided solely for the Residents, Staff and Servants of the Wentworth Point Community, it is noted that a member of NSWTI falsely misrepresented themselves to the Driver as a Resident of the Wentworth Point Community in order to purchase a Trip Pass from the Driver on a date which has not been provided in the correspondence of 30 March 2010, which they were not entitled to do. It is further noted that it is claimed that further complaints was received on 25 March 2010 from persons unidentified that the service continued to operate. This service has operated almost continuously since Monday October 1st, 2007. Firstly under contract to Payce Consolidated Limited who contracted our company to operate a Community Bus Service for the Residents of the now Wentworth Point Estate (Waterfront, Harbourside and Mariner's Cove) until December 18th, 2009. This contract was terminated on 18 December 2009 when the contract with Payce Consolidated advised it had sold their interests in the future development of the property to another Developer and they subsequently discontinued the funding of the services for and on behalf of the Residents. … The Wentworth Point Bus Users Group was formed and we were contracted to provide Bus and Driver on a Charter Basis from 6:30 am to 9:15 am, then 4:00 pm to 7:45 pm inclusive Monday to Friday and 7:30 am to 1:15 pm inclusive on a Saturday to operate on a Schedule operating a loop service between Wentworth Point, Strathfield Station and Rhodes Shopping Centre (Rhodes on Saturdays only) for Member's use. … Due to the sheer logistical nightmare of collecting payments from the 120 plus Wentworth Point Bus Users Group Members, we agreed that the cost of the Charter Services we provide to them be split evenly between all Wentworth Point Bus User Members (1/100) who utilise the service equally. 1. The reference in those submissions to a "charter service" is presumably in the context of the definition of that expression in s 3 of the PT Act, as follows: charter service means a public passenger service in which a bus or ferry or another vehicle prescribed by the regulations, and the services of a driver of the vehicle, are pre-booked for hire to take passengers for an agreed fee, but only if, according to the terms of the hire: (a) the hirer is entitled to determine the route for the journey and the time of travel, and (b) all passengers' journeys have a common origin or a common destination, or both, and (c) individual fares are not payable by the passengers (either to the operator of the service or to the driver of the vehicle), and (d) service is not provided according to regular routes and timetables. 1. At pages 43-44 of the respondent's third bundle of documents is a document which cannot be described as anything other than a timetable for the service provided by the operator. Indeed, page 43 itself bears the heading "Timetable". 2. Although the service is described as a "charter service", that is plainly not what it is. Page 46, evidently printed from the website, includes the instruction "Pay as you enter the Bus" and sets out the single trip fare and the price of a 10 Trip Pass. 3. The dispute eventually found its way to the ADT. The matter was resolved upon Mr Musgrave's undertaking as follows: I, David Kevin Musgrave, Managing Director of Marvin J Acme Pty Limited, make the following undertakings: 1. That Marvin J Acme Pty Limited, will cease all bus services, being charter, tourist, long distance and/or free shuttle services, between Wentworth Point and Strathfield station as of 12 noon Saturday 17 July 2010. I make this undertaking on the understanding that the respondent will not oppose the setting aside of the current Operator Accreditation Suspension for Accreditation number 35069, in the name of Marvin J Acme Pty Limited. I am authorised by Marvin J Acme to make this undertaking. In using the term 'bus services' includes all Public Passenger services. The parties' submissions 1. Mr Killalea, representing Mr Musgrave, submits that on the basis of the material before me I should be satisfied that Mr Musgrave is a fit and proper person to be issued with an authority to drive buses, taxis and private hire vehicles. 2. He notes that Mr Musgrave's conviction for the 153 charges relating to the taxi subsidy scheme was quashed, and that Blanch DCJ found Mr Musgrave to be a person of good character. 3. Mr Killalea also submits that the matter pertaining to the activities of Marvin J Acme does not in any way operate to the detriment of Mr Musgrave. The accreditation was not his; nevertheless as a director of the company he dealt expeditiously with the concerns raised by the regulator and undertook to have the company cease the activities concerned. 4. Mr Wozniak, for RMS, focused on those aspects of Mr Musgrave's history that Mr Musgrave has not addressed in these proceedings. He noted that Mr Musgrave had failed to provide any response or comment in relation to a number of matters that he has known about for many years and which he was aware RMS would be relying on. 5. For example, Mr Wozniak drew my attention to a "Fact Sheet" at page 85 of the s 58 documents in which the following appears, relating to Mr Musgrave's prosecution for his claiming on the taxi subsidy scheme: A number of TTSS participants in whose names the vouchers were presented, were interviewed and in each case those participants stated that they had been conveyed in a Suburban vehicle fitted with a taxi meter and had paid the driver by way of TTSS voucher. In each case this situation had existed for some time. 1. Mr Musgrave has provided no evidence to contradict the assertion that his vehicles, not being taxis, were nevertheless improperly fitted with taxi meters. 2. Next, Mr Wozniak noted Mr Musgrave's evidence to the Local Court that Mr Mikhail from GM Cabs had told him that the method of completing the forms was in order. The magistrate had drawn an inference, adverse to Mr Musgrave, because he had not called Mr Mikhail to give evidence in support of that claim. In fact, Mr Wozniak noted the statement of Mr Mikhail at page 281 of the s 58 documents in which Mr Mikhail denied having ever had a conversation with Mr Musgrave "in relation to TV plates being recorded on vouchers (TTSS dockets)". Mr Mikhail also stated that only taxis and wheelchair taxis are entitled to use TTSS dockets and "the dockets do not apply to buses and hire cars". That document, together with all other documents contained in the first two bundles lodged under s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, had been provided to Mr Musgrave in July 2014 (the third bundle in September 2014). Mr Musgrave made no attempt to challenge Mr Mikhail's statement and he gave no explanation for having failed to do so. 3. Added to that is the specific finding of Blanch DCJ in Mr Musgrave's appeal that "probably he did know" that the statements on the subsidy vouchers were false. That is a serious matter, involving as it does the behaviour of Mr Musgrave in the very activity – passenger transport – for which he is seeking a driver authority. Consideration 1. I share RMS's concern about Mr Musgrave's failure to address past issues of non-compliance with the passenger transport legislation. 2. The finding of the Chief Judge of the District Court that Mr Musgrave "probably … did know" that the statements he made on the taxi subsidy forms were false or misleading is a matter that Mr Musgrave really needs to address. It is not good enough for him to continue to maintain, as he seems to do, that his eventual acquittal means that he has done nothing wrong. The judge's finding is a very serious one, and it was made in relation to Mr Musgrave's activities in the very industry in which he now seeks an authority to operate. Mr Musgrave has not accepted that fact. He has not at any stage said "I was wrong. I now know that what I did was not authorised. I should not have done it. I will be more careful in future." 3. During the conduct of the criminal proceedings, Mr Musgrave formed the view that the prosecution was "malicious" (page 302 of the s 58 documents). He does not appear to have moved from that view. In particular, he has not taken the opportunity to address Blanch DCJ's finding against him. That makes it difficult for me to accept that he has taken on board the judge's comments and findings, has acknowledged his shortcomings, and has committed to full and unqualified compliance with the Passenger Transport legislation. 4. The same applies with respect to the bus service carried on by Marvin J Acme. Mr Musgrave cannot hold himself out as the managing director of the company and yet at the same time disclaim responsibility for the activities of the business. The bus service operated between Homebush Bay and Strathfield station was simply not authorised. Mr Musgrave and his wife should have known it was not authorised. It was not a charter service, and there was no justification for a claim that it was. 5. Indeed, his behaviour and comments in the context of the Marvin J Acme activities cast some light on Mr Musgrave's attitude to compliance. A file note at page 55 of the respondent's third bundle of documents, dated 18 March 2010, reports on a conversation between Mr Musgrave and a Transport compliance officer after notification to the company that its activities were not authorised as part of its accreditation. The file note includes the following in relation to Mr Musgrave: He also went on to say that he was not going to stop the service as he felt he was under an obligation to pick up the passengers who would otherwise be left stranded. I told him that the operation was deemed illegal so it must cease. 1. Court Attendance Notices at pages 82-93 allege that the service was still operating on 7 April 2010 even though the accreditation had been suspended on 30 March 2010. Statements of compliance officers at pages 232 and 238 support the allegation. Further statements of compliance officers at pages 144 and 148 of the bundle are to the effect that the service was still operating on 25 June 2010, and still on the fare-paying basis described by compliance officers in March. The undertaking that Mr Musgrave made on 15 July 2010 suggests that the service continued to operate for three and a half months after the accreditation was suspended. 2. In summary, Mr Musgrave disregarded the regulator's instructions and allowed the service to continue. During these proceedings Mr Musgrave has failed to acknowledge the unacceptable nature of that stance, not offering any explanation for it and not indicating that he now regrets having acted in that way (if indeed that is the case). 3. Instead, Mr Musgrave's attitude seems to be that in all his dealings with the regulator and despite these instances of dispute, he is entirely without fault. 4. He has submitted a number of character references in support of his applications. As expected, his referees speak favourably of him. 5. Ultimately, though, the references are insufficient to persuade me to "attest" – as the legislation requires – that Mr Musgrave is a fit and proper person, and has sufficient responsibility and aptitude, to be the driver of a public passenger vehicle. It is his failure to accept responsibility for what he has done wrong in the past that renders me incapable of making that attestation. If he has learnt anything from his previous disputes with the regulator, there is no acknowledgement of it. There is no apparent acceptance of the authority of the legislation and the constraints imposed by it but, instead, an unshakeable belief in his own interpretation of it and a rejection of any alternative position that may be taken by the regulator. 6. Members of the public are entitled to expect that authorised drivers of public passenger vehicles respect the law and will comply with it. I am not persuaded that Mr Musgrave will meet the public's expectation. The decisions under review are affirmed. 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: 28 April 2015