Azzi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2016] NSWCATOD 112

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Azzi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2016] NSWCATOD 112 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 25 August 2016 Decision date: 25 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: A Scahill, Senior Member Decision: Mr Azzi is to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force in the sum of $13,571.21 within 28 days of the date of this decision. Catchwords: Costs - Special circumstances- frivolous Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Security Industry Act 1997 Security Industry Regulations Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) Cases Cited: Azzi v NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATOD 47 Beadle v Director General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176 Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38 Topp and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 99 Category: Costs Parties: Michael Azzi (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Bartier Perry (Applicant for costs) File Number(s): 1520193

Reasons for decision 1. This is a decision about the Commissioner of Police's application for the costs of the review of the Commissioner's decision to refuse the original Applicant Mr Azzi certain security licences. On 20 April 2016 the Tribunal published its decision which affirmed the Respondent's decision to refuse Mr Azzi licences under the Security Industry Act 1997. That matter is referred to as Azzi v NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATOD 47 2. The substantive matter, Mr Azzi's application matter was heard in the Tribunal on Monday 18 January 2016. 3. The Respondent to Mr Azzi's application, seeks its costs of the review in NCAT, pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CATA). 4. Mr Michael Azzi made his application for the Tribunal to review a decision made on internal review by the Respondent on 18th of September 2015. The decision was to refuse him a class 1EF2ABD security licence under the provisions of the Security Industry Act 1997 (SIA). Mr Azzi's application was refused by the Commissioner on the basis that he did not hold prescribed competencies and experience approved by the Commissioner. Further he had not provided information and particulars as required by the Commissioner in respect of the application and the Commissioner determined that the information provided by him in his application was false or misleading in a material particular. 5. Mr Azzi made his application on 23rd of March 2015 to the security licensing and enforcement directorate (SLED) to add subclasses 1EF2ABD to his existing class 1AC security licence which expired on 20th of December 2015. 6. On 25 March 2015 the SLED wrote to Mr Azzi requesting further documents and information from him to be provided by 15 April 2015. 7. Mr Azzi provided the SLED with correspondence which included a resume on the 9 July 2015. The Respondent alleges that there was information in the documents provided on 9 July 2015 by Mr Azzi which contradicted previous information held on the government licensing system in relation to Mr Azzi. 8. On 25 August 2015 the Respondent notified Mr Azzi that he was refused a grant of licence 1EF2ABD for a number of reasons set out in the SIA and Regulations. * The Respondent was not satisfied that he held the prescribed competencies and experience in respect of the class of licence sought. * The Respondent was not satisfied that he had provided such other information and particulars as required by the Commissioner in respect of the application; and * The Respondent was satisfied that the information provided in his current application was false or misleading. 1. On 1 September 2015 Mr Azzi sought internal review of the decision to refuse him the additional class 1EF2ABD licence. Mr Azzi's application was refused on internal review on 18 September 2015. Mr Azzi lodged his application for review in the Tribunal on 30 September 2015. 2. In this matter the Tribunal will refer to the applicant for costs, the Commissioner of Police, the Respondent to the original substantive application, as "the Respondent." The Tribunal will refer to Mr Azzi the original Applicant and the Respondent to the costs application, as "the Applicant." 3. The Respondent seeks costs on the basis that there were special circumstances warranting the award of costs (s.60 (2)). 4. The Tribunal set a timetable for the filing of written submissions by both parties. Mr Azzi did not file any submissions in relation to the Respondent's costs application. The Tribunal dealt with the application for costs on the papers.