Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tsui v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATOD 143 Hearing dates: 4 August 2016 Date of orders: 21 November 2016 Decision date: 21 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: N S Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Home Building Act – endorsed contractor licence – general building category – relevant industry experience. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: lvanovski v Commissioner for NSW Fair Trading, Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 274 Locking v Department of Finance and Services [2013) NSWADT 239 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sunny Yuk Sang Tsui (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Sunny Yuk Sang Tsui (Applicant in person) Fair Trading Legal Services, Office of Finance and Services (Respondent) File Number(s): 1620029 Reasons for decision Background 1. On 20 August 2015, the Commissioner for Fair Trading, through NSW Fair Trading (the Agency), received an application from Mr Tsui for an individual contractor licence to enable him to carry out general building work pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 (the Act). 2. On 28 September 2015, the Agency issued Mr Tsui a letter informing him that his application had been assessed and refused. The Agency had determined that Mr Tsui had not satisfied relevant practical experience requirements and information submitted by the Applicant in relation to the dates on which he worked on various sites was "inconsistent and incorrect". 3. Mr Tsui requested the Agency to internally review the refusal decision. He attached to his request several references and other documents. 4. The Agency informed the Applicant by letter of 20 January 2016 that the refusal decision had been reviewed and was confirmed for reasons set out in the letter. 5. On 29 January 2016 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the internal review decision (the Decision). Jurisdiction 1. The Tribunal is empowered to review the Decision (s 83B(1) of the Act). Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (the ADR Act) requires the Tribunal, in determining an application concerning an administratively reviewable decision, to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it (including material not previously available to or considered by the administrator) and any applicable written or unwritten law, and authorises the Tribunal to affirm, vary or set aside the administratively reviewable decision. If the Tribunal sets aside that decision, the Tribunal is to either make a decision in substitution for that decision or remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator who made the decision. Material before the Tribunal 1. The Respondent relied on: 1. a bundle of documents filed under s 58 of the ADR Act (the s 58 documents); 2. a development application (DA) in relation to a property at Homebush West: 3. a DA in relation to a property at Surry Hills; 4. a Parramatta City Council document issued in respect of a DA for the construction of three townhouses at a property which is referred to in various documents as being at the same street address in both Dundas and Telopea. Neither party objected to any relevant document on the basis that the properties were not the same and the hearing proceeded on the basis that all such documents referred to the same property, described as the Telopea site or Telopea property; 5. the Commissioner's written submissions dated 3 August 2016 (RS); and 6. oral submissions made by Mr J Coss solicitor, on behalf of the Respondent. 1. All references in these reasons to paragraph numbers regarding submissions by the Commissioner are to paragraphs of RS unless stated to the contrary. 2. The Applicant relied on: 1. the application to the Tribunal (the Application); 2. documents filed by the Applicant with the Agency which were included in the s 58 documents. The section 58 documents include a referee's statement by Mr Shui Lung Au, licensed builder (referred to as Mr Au or the referee) dated 12 August 2015 (the 2015 reference); 3. a bundle of documents filed with the Tribunal on 16 March 2016; 4. a referee's statement by Mr Au dated 8 March 2016 (the 2016 reference); 5. oral evidence given by Mr Au during the hearing. All references to oral evidence by Mr Au refer to his evidence under cross examination; and 6. oral submissions made by the Applicant to the Tribunal. Consideration 1. During the hearing: 1. the Commissioner agreed that the application for an individual contractor licence had been dealt with by the Agency as if it was an application for an endorsed contractor licence (Licence). 2. The Applicant agreed that he had intended that the application to the Agency be an application for an endorsed contractor licence rather than an application for an individual contractor licence, which was the term used in the Agency's application form. 3. The parties agreed that the Tribunal would make its decision on the basis that the Applicant was applying for a Licence for general building work pursuant to the Act. 1. The parties agreed that the Act required that, to be successful in his Application, the Applicant had to demonstrate that he had certain qualifications and experience. The Commissioner conceded that the Applicant had provided evidence of all relevant qualifications but submitted that the Applicant had not provided evidence of adequate experience. The Applicant submitted that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the evidence of his experience in his original application to the Agency. However, he submitted that the material before the Tribunal evidenced adequate relevant experience to enable him to be issued with a Licence. Issue for the Tribunal 1. The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant had adequate relevant experience to satisfy the statutory requirements for the issue of a Licence. Legislative scheme 1. The Act is part of the legislative scheme which regulates aspects of the home building industry in New South Wales. The scheme is concerned to provide consumer protection including regulating the issue, cancellation and suspension of contractor licences, supervisors' certificates and trades persons' certificates in the industry. 2. RS summarised several provisions of the Act including: 19 (1) The Secretary may grant contractor licences for the purposes of this Act. 20 (1) The Secretary must refuse an application for a contractor licence if: … (a1) the Secretary is not satisfied as to the matters of which the Secretary is required to be satisfied by sections 33B and 33C … 33C (1) A contractor licence must not be issued unless the Secretary is satisfied that … (b) the applicant, if also applying for an endorsement of the contractor licence to show that it is the equivalent of a supervisor certificate: (i) satisfies the requirements of section 33D for the issue of a supervisor certificate to the applicant, and … 33D A supervisor or tradesperson certificate must not be issued unless the Secretary is satisfied that the applicant: (b) has had experience of such a kind and for such a period as the Secretary considers would enable the applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which the certificate is required, and … 1. Relevantly, the Act provides that the "Secretary" is the "Commissioner". 2. On 5 January 2015, the then Acting Commissioner issued an Instrument setting out the "Qualification requirements for an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate for general building work" (the Instrument). 3. The Instrument relevantly states that the Commissioner considers the possession of experience necessary for an applicant for the issue of a Licence to do or supervise general building work is the experience specified in Column 2 of Table A to Schedule 1 of the Instrument. The experience specified in Column 2 is: At least two years' relevant industry Experience in a wide range of building construction work, where a majority of that Experience was obtained within 10 years of the date on which the application is made. 1. The Instrument defines "Experience" as: "Experience" means experience gained by the applicant as: an employee of; or a holder of a supervisor certificate and as a nominated supervisor for the contractor licence held by; or a holder of an endorsed contractor licence contracted to; or a holder of a supervisor certificate in the capacity of a nominated supervisor for a contractor licence held by an individual, partnership or corporation contracted to, the holder of a contractor licence authorising the holder to do the class of residential building work in which the experience was gained ("the Work"), where the applicant, during the relevant period, was: ● supervised and directed in the doing of the Work by the holder of an endorsed contractor licence or supervisor certificate authorising its holder to supervise the Work; and ● remunerated with money in accordance with law for Work which the applicant carried out. 1. The Applicant did not dispute the Commissioner's requirement that the Applicant's experience be determined with regard to the requirements of the Instrument. 2. The Commissioner submitted at [14] that the Applicant was required to demonstrate that he had "experience across all stages of building construction". This phrase was also referred to as a requirement in the reasons for the Decision. The Commissioner provided no authority to support the submission and it exceeds the requirements of the Instrument, which specifies experience in "a wide range" rather than "all stages" of building construction. Accordingly, I reject the submission. 3. The Commissioner submitted at [15] that applicants must use the Agency's approved "Referee's Statement" in order to prove their experience. No authority was provided to support the submission. Mr Cross submitted that the requirement was implied from the Instrument. The Agency may well prefer the use of its form for administrative reasons. However, I find that there is no statutory basis for the requirement. Accordingly I reject both the requirement and the submission that it is mandatory that the Agency's "Referee's Statement" must be used to evidence experience in an application for a relevant licence or certificate. Mr Shui Lung Au 1. There is no dispute that Mr Au is a licensed builder who works for Virich Construction Pty Ltd (the company) as its nominated qualified supervisor and the Commissioner accepts that Mr Au is qualified to supervise the Applicant and provide a reference in respect of relevant work. There is also no dispute that Mr Au became the nominated qualified supervisor for the company on 30 June 2007. There is no evidence that prior to 30 June 2007 Mr Au was engaged by the company to carry out supervision of the Applicant on any relevant building site. 2. The parties agree that the Applicant is and was at all relevant times a director of the company. Experience in evidence before the Tribunal 1. The Applicant relied on evidence of his experience in carrying out residential building work at identified sites in Homebush, Surry Hills and Telopea. That evidence and the Commissioner's evidence are considered below. Homebush 1. The 2015 reference describes the work as the construction of 43 units being multi-dwelling housing or residential flat buildings. The Applicant's roles and responsibilities are described as: 1. carpentry works, 2. contacting and organising contractors, 3. ordering job site materials, 4. supervise the work site events, 5. communicate with different trades, and 6. reading and interpreting plans and specifications. 1. The 2016 reference uses an identical description of the work and an almost identical description of the Applicant's roles and responsibilities as the 2015 reference. 2. The 2015 reference estimated that the Applicant carried out building work at the site for 27 months between April 2009 and October 2011. 3. The 2016 reference estimated that the Applicant carried out building work at the site for 36 months between 10 March 2006 and 14 November 2009, and the referee orally confirmed those dates. 4. The referee said: 1. the Applicant's role in relation to the basement carpark involved carpentry and brickwork with contractors. 2. the Applicant carried out work in respect of the internal frame and trusses. In relation to this evidence Mr Cross suggested that the building had a flat roof and the referee said that he could not recall whether the roof was pitched or flat. 3. other work carried out by the Applicant was as bricklayer, he organised the bricks, he was in charge of plumbing and his carpentry work was skilful. The referee could not recall who was the supervising builder. 4. the Applicant supervised the site, organised payments and was "pretty much in charge" and was "hands on". 1. Subject to my comments below, I find that if the Applicant had carried out all the work described above by the referee, that work would comprise part, but not all, of a wide range of relevant experience. 2. The Commissioner's documentary evidence comprised minutes of an item addressed at a planning committee meeting of Strathfield Council and associated documents. I observe that the Council's evidence was neither objected to nor referred to by the Applicant. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant accepts the accuracy of the document's contents. 3. The council document shows that the DA was an application for a modification by way of alterations and additions to 2 residential flat buildings. The introduction states: Approval is sought for alterations and additions to two (2) Residential Flat Buildings (RFB), undertaken without Council consent. For each RFB, key amendments comprise of the removal of 50% of aluminium sliding louvers (sic) from the north east elevation, removal of mail boxes at the front of the site, construction of two (2) mechanical ventilation stacks, new column is added to south western balconies, new pergola over roof top terraces and internal reconfiguration. … The proposed amendments do not result in any increase to building height and bulk and are unlikely to result in adverse amenity impacts for occupants and adjoining landowners. 1. The council's document: 1. provides for new timber pergolas over roof top terraces. 2. includes conditional approval in respect of the proposal in the DA. 3. shows that the DA was lodged on 9 June 2009 and the planning committee meeting took place on 13 October 2009. 1. I observe that the statement "43 units" which appears in both the 2015 and 2016 references is in answer to the question "Construction of new multi-dwelling housing or residential flat buildings, specify type". I also observe that an alternate category of work, which the referee left blank, appears under the heading "Additions/Alterations to an existing dwelling, specify type". 2. I prefer the council's documentary record to the referee's unsupported recollection. Accordingly, I find that the work on the site substantially involved additions and alterations rather than the construction of 43 residential units as was stated in both written references relied on by the Applicant. 3. The council's documents state that the DA was lodged with the council on 9 June 2009 and the council gave conditional approval for the work on 13 October 2009. The documents show that the architect's site plan was not received by council until 1 October 2009. 4. I find it unlikely that any relevant work was carried out at the property before 13 October 2009 when the Council gave conditional approval to the DA. 5. I am not satisfied that a sufficient amount of substantial building work was carried out, between the date of approval of the DA and the date the referee stated the Applicant's supervised work concluded, so as to provide 36 months' relevant experience. 6. It may be that the date on which the company, and perhaps the Applicant, carried out work at the property ended in October 2011 rather than November 2009 and that the correct finishing date was as stated in the 2015 reference. However, the Applicant chose to rely on the 2016 reference and Mr Au's oral recollection rather than the 2015 reference and he chose not to provide detailed written evidence of work carried out such as tax invoices or other documents from sub-contractors or material suppliers to support the referee's recollection. 7. Having regard to the above discrepancies I am concerned as to the accuracy of the Applicant's evidence. I prefer the documents from the council, rather than relying on the referee's recollection and the misdescription in the 2015 and 2016 references, as to the nature of the work carried out pursuant to the DA. 8. It may be that the Applicant did carry out construction work on the site. However, it is difficult to give him any substantial credit for such work for particular periods having regard to discrepancies in the evidence he is relying on and inconsistencies between that evidence and council records. 9. The Commissioner submitted at [33]: Third party checks indicate that the units and basement carpark were completed as at 14/11/2009. There is no evidence of any new construction work being undertaken after 14/11/2009. Fair Trading therefore cannot accept the 11 months' experience being claimed from May 2009 to June 2011 as no new construction work was carried out during the period as stated by the referee. 1. The Commissioner's submission in relation to the "third party checks" is of interest. However, no evidence was provided in support and I cannot rely on it. The Commissioner also submitted, as though it was a fact, "no new construction work was carried out during the period as stated by the referee". This submission also needs to be supported by evidence for it to be relied on by the Tribunal. Surry Hills 1. The 2015 reference describes the work as the construction of a new single dwelling house or dual occupancy. The Applicant's roles and responsibilities are listed as: 1. carpentry works, 2. managing daily on-site proceedings, 3. order and organise material delivery on-site, 4. communicate between contractors of different trades, 5. read and interpret plans and specifications. 1. The 2016 reference describes the Applicant's roles and responsibilities using almost identical wording to that of the 2015 reference. Both statements use the same DA reference. 2. The referee said "in his memory" the building work involved a two-storey house. The first work carried out at the site was excavation and stabilisation. The land was built up and footings were laid. He said this work took a long while but he could not recall how long. 3. Mr Coss put to the referee that the building was not completed for one year. The referee could not recall the duration of the work but said that there were several jobs and work was not carried out at the site all day every day. The referee said that after the slab was laid the Applicant carried out steel levelling, termite work, concreting, and footings then bricklayers were engaged. The Applicant also carried out work on trusses. The Applicant was involved in the whole plan of the building. The referee said that he did not supervise all day every day as he had breaks. No details of the duration of the breaks was provided. The referee said the Applicant did the flooring and supervised and helped a bricklayer and concreter. As the site was small the Applicant did the tiling and waterproofing. Plumbers were engaged for the plumbing and a licensed electrician was engaged for the electrical work. 4. The Commissioner made specific submissions to the work at the Surry Hills site at [44] to [46] in RS. These paragraphs copy [31] to [33] of the internal review reasons. The paragraphs in RS are: 44. Third party checks reveal that demolition, infill and ground work was carried out between 10/2012 and 11/2013. This is not considered to be relevant experience as the applicant has not satisfactorily carried out a wide range of building construction work or supervised and co-ordinated different trades on site. 45. A search of Council records indicates that DA/2013/37 was lodged with Council on 15/1/2013 for proposed construction of an infill part two, and part three storey residential dwelling. The DA was only approved by Council on 15/5/2013; therefore no work could have commenced on the site prior to 15/5/2013. 46. Fair Trading cannot accept the 11 months' experience being claimed as. infill and ground work is not considered to be a wide range of building construction of work, as claimed by the applicant, and as stated by the referee; nor was the DA approved until 15/5/2013. 1. No evidence was provided to support the submission in the first sentence of [44] and the "third-party" was not identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot rely on the submission. 2. The evidence in support of the submission at [45] is a two-page printout of an Internet search of the property using the same DA as appeared in the 2015 and 2016 references. The printout, on City of Sydney letterhead, describes the project as "proposed construction of an infill part two, part three storey residential dwelling". The property is also identified by its address. The printout states the DA proposal was lodged on 15 January 2013 and conditionally approved by the Council on 15 May 2013. The printout did not provide a practical completion date. 3. I accept the submission at [45] to the extent that no relevant work could have legally commenced prior to 15 May 2013. 4. To the extent that the Commissioner impliedly submitted in [44] and [46] that infill and ground work are not part of a wide range of building construction work, I reject the submission. It is not supported by evidence and has no basis of which the Tribunal is aware. 5. The 2015 reference provides that the Applicant carried out building work at the site for 11 months during the period October 2012 to November 2013. 6. However, the referee orally agreed that the building work actually took place between February 2014 and January 2015, the dates in the 2016 reference. That reference estimated the Applicant worked under supervision for 12 months during that period. 7. I find that if the Applicant carried out both the work referred to in the 2015 and 2016 references and the work referred to orally by the referee, then that work, while not comprising the whole of a "wide range of building construction work" did form part of a wide range of such work. 8. However, I also observe that the referee was uncertain as to when the work was carried out; he could not recall how long it took to carry out the excavation, stabilisation, infill and lay footings; he was involved in several other jobs at the same time, and he could not recall how long work was carried out at the site after the slab was laid. Accordingly, I cannot, with any certainty, determine a particular period in respect of which the Applicant carried out relevant supervised work at the site other than that any work legally carried out must have been for less than 12 months. Telopea 1. The 2015 reference lists the Applicant's roles and responsibilities in relation to the construction of three townhouses as: 1. supervise and manage daily work progress, order and organise materials delivery on site; 2. carpentry works; 3. reading plans and specifications; and 4. communicate and organise other contractors. 1. The 2015 reference estimates the total period that the Applicant carried out building work at the site was 11 months during the period May 2009 to June 2010. The 2016 reference did not refer to this site. 2. The referee said the carpentry work he referred to in the 2015 reference included carpentry after the footings, timber to the roof and timber truss(es). Some work was carried out by the Applicant and some by subcontractors. On many days, the Applicant worked five days a week at the site. The Applicant looked after concreting, laid the footings, laid steel with a helper, capped the main beam, laid a termite barrier, carried out flooring work, bricklaying, worked on a "planter", and filled up the available space. 3. Parramatta City Council records, in the s 58 documents, show that the DA was lodged 26 July 2006, an Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 26 February 2009 stating that the building was suitable for occupation or use and an Amended Critical Stage Inspection Certificate stating that a final inspection was found to be satisfactory was issued 16 June 2009. 4. At [42] the Commissioner submitted: Third party checks indicate that the three townhouses at … TELOPEA were completed as at 20/10/2009. There is no evidence of any new construction work being undertaken after 20/10/2009. 1. Other than the certificate issued on 16 June 2009 there is no evidence before the Tribunal to support the statement in the first sentence of the above paragraph. Whether any construction work was undertaken after 16 June 2009, let alone until June 2010 as stated by the referee is in dispute. 2. I have regard to changes in the referee's evidence in respect of the other two properties. I prefer to rely on documentary evidence from the council to the effect that a final inspection was found to be satisfactory on 16 June 2009 rather than the referee's unsupported recollection of dates on which work was carried out. Other than that recollection, no evidence has been presented by the Applicant as to any construction work being undertaken after June 2009. 3. It may well be that relevant work experience was gained by the Applicant on the site after June 2009. However, I find that there is insufficient evidence before me to support the Applicant's submission to that effect either in relation to the nature or duration of the supervised work. Submissions and additional evidence Disputed dates 1. In his request for an internal review the Applicant stated that there was a misunderstanding as to the dates on which work was carried out at different sites. He provided some signed references. I had regard to those references in making my above findings and note that the references identified neither particular trade work either carried out or supervised by the Applicant nor the dates that such work was performed at relevant sites. 2. Mr Coss submitted there was a temporal overlap in the Applicant's evidence in that between May and November 2009 the referee's evidence was that the Applicant was working at both Homebush and Telopea. I agree that it was not possible for the applicant to be in two places at once. This was not explained by the Applicant. 3. Mr Coss noted that the referee was not appointed nominated supervisor of the company until 30 June 2007. He submitted that the referee did not provide a reasonable explanation as to how he could have supervised the Applicant for 15 months (from 10 March 2006 to 30 June 2007) as stated by the referee in both the 2016 reference and in oral evidence. I agree with Mr Coss' submission. 4. I am not satisfied that I can rely on the accuracy of the dates when the referee stated he was supervising the Applicant at the 3 specified sites. Authorities relied on by the Commissioner 1. Mr Coss referred to the decisions in Locking and Ivanoski. Excerpts from these decisions were included by the Commissioner at [30] and [31]. They are: 30. In respect to what is a wide range of residential building work in the matter of Locking v Department of Finance and Services [2013) NSWADT 239 Deputy President, Magistrate Hennessy, held: 17. This experience in carpentry and joinery work is not the equivalent of "a wide range of building construction work" as required by the Instrument. Carpentry and joinery work is a sub-category of building. It is only one aspect of the work required to be done in order to complete the construction of a residential dwelling. 18. A building contractor has the overall responsibility for a site and must be able to supervise all of the trades required to complete any type of dwelling. Additionally a builder must be able to determine that all trades have complied with all standards and requirements. There are many gaps in Mr Locking's trade supervisory experience and therefore his understanding of certain trades. Those trades include flooring, bricklaying, stonemasonry, wet plastering, painting, decorating, general concreting, tiling, demolishing, fencing, glazing and waterproofing. 19 A building contractor is also able to contract with the public, and must therefore be able to negotiate a contract, quote for a project and co­ordinate the trades to be able to complete the project on time and within budget. He or she must also be able to negotiate and discuss the jobs with council and private certifiers to ensure that the work is passed fit when appropriate. 31. In lvanovski v Commissioner for NSW Fair Trading, Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 274, Judicial Member Scahill stated [37]: This experience in roof plumbing work and as a site manager is not the equivalent of "a wide range of building construction work" as required by the Instrument. Roof plumbing work is a sub-category of building. It is only one aspect of the work required to be done in order to complete the construction of a residential dwelling 1. I observe that in Locking and Ivanovski the reasons for the decisions indicated that carrying out work of a relatively few trades is not the equivalent of "a wide range of building construction work". I agree with that position. 2. However, neither of these decisions, nor the Instrument that the Commissioner relies on, require that an Applicant must demonstrate, on every site on which an applicant has worked, personal experience in every aspect of work required to complete the construction of a residential building in order to obtain a licence. Relevant supervision 1. Mr Coss submitted that supervision of the building work on the three sites was by the referee, not by the Applicant. Mr Coss provided no evidence in support of this submission which is contrary to the express and repeated evidence of the referee. Accordingly, I prefer the referee's evidence to Mr Coss' unsubstantiated submission. Direct evidence by the Applicant 1. In his closing submissions the Applicant made oral statements as to his experience, range of skills, and details of work he carried out on the sites. 2. During the hearing the Applicant had been given the opportunity to provide oral evidence and was informed that he would be subject to cross-examination. The Applicant declined to give evidence. Accordingly, I can give no weight to the Applicant's submissions except to the extent that they are supported by evidence either in documents before the Tribunal or in the oral evidence of the referee, the sole witness. Findings 1. In order to find in favour of the Applicant it would be necessary for the Tribunal to prefer the conflicting uncorroborated evidence of the referee over the councils' documents, none of which were challenged by the Applicant, as to the dates on which work was carried out and, in respect of Homebush as to the nature of the work required by the DA. 2. I have referred to my findings in relation to the lack of accuracy of the referee's evidence concerning the dates on which he was supervising the Applicant's work. I have also made findings regarding the difference between the type of work being carried out as expressed in the references and in council documents. Accordingly, I have reservations as to the accuracy of the referee's uncorroborated evidence concerning the details of the Applicant's work under supervision at the 3 nominated sites and when the work took place. Decision 1. Having regard to the material before the Tribunal, and the findings I made as set out above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has at least two years' relevant industry experience in a wide range of building construction work where the majority of that experience was obtained within 10 years of the date on which the application was made. 2. The correct and preferable decision of the Tribunal is that the decision under review is 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: 21 November 2016