Macedo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 193

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Macedo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 193 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 22 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Verick Senior Member Decision: The Chief Commissioner's application to revoke leave granted to the applicant to be represented by an agent is refused. Catchwords: STATE REVENUE – Stamp Duties - Representation by agent – Also principal witness – Interlocutory Proceedings to revoke leave previously granted - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 45 and Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014, Rule 32 Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Stamp Duties Act 1920 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Haddad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Unreported) 11 November 2009 (NSWADT) Marshall v Dental Décor Pty Ltd t/as Westmead Gentle Dental [2010] NSWADT 173 Department of Justice and Attorney-General v AY (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 17 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Deirdre Macedo (Applicant) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Rider (Respondent)

Solicitors: R Ross (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410611

Reasons for decision 1. On 16 December 2014, the Applicant granted her brother, Mr Raymond Ross, consent to represent her and he has proceeded to act as agent for her pursuant to the provisions found in s 45 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ("the Act"). 2. However, the Chief Commissioner now seeks an interlocutory order to revoke the leave previously granted to the Applicant to be represented by her brother. 3. The principal matter is fixed for a hearing on 6 October 2015. It concerns an assessment made by the Chief Commissioner in relation to a copy of a Trust Deed pursuant to the provisions of the Stamp Duties Act 1920. The Applicant's case is that the copy was not tendered for stamping but merely tendered in error in a land tax matter concerning her brother, Mr Raymond Ross. 4. Mr Ross has, prior to this application, attended on behalf of the Applicant the direction and preliminary hearings relating to the principal matter. 5. The Applicant, on 28 May 2015, filed and served her evidence in the principal matter, which solely comprised an affidavit sworn by her brother, Mr Ross.