Annual Report

103513 ADT Ann Rep Cover 10 23/11/10 10:09 AM Page 1

2011-2012

Annual Report

2011-2012

The Hon. Greg Smith, SC MPAttorney General and Minister for JusticeParliament HouseSYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Attorney

In accordance with section 26 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, I am pleased to present the 14th annual report of the Tribunal, covering the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012.

Yours sincerely,

Judge KEVIN O’CONNOR AMPresident

26 October 2012

Level 10, John Maddison Tower, 86 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW 2000Phone 02 9377 5711 Facsimile 02 9377 5723

Telephone Typewriter 02 9377 5859 www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adt

Contents

Table of Abbreviations 4

The Year in Review 5

Our Objectives 7

Services to Users 8

Membership 11

The Divisions and the Appeal Panel 14

-GeneralDivision 15

-GuardianshipandProtectedEstatesList 17

-RevenueDivision 18

-CommunityServicesDivision 19

-LegalServicesDivision 21

-EqualOpportunityDivision 23

-RetailLeasesDivision 25

-AppealPanel 27

Supreme Court Oversight 28

Alternative Dispute Resolution 29

Practice and Procedure 29

Appendices

AppendixAFinancialInformation 30

AppendixBListofMembers 31

AppendixCLegislation 34

AppendixDCaseLoad,TimeStandards 36

AppendixEStatistics 38

AppendixFSignificantAppealCases 47

AppendixGDecisionsorganisedintoDivisionandInternalandExternal 52AppealPanel,from1July2011

Table of Abbreviations

4

ADA Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

ADB Anti-DiscriminationBoard

ADT AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal

ADTAct Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

CCYPAct Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998

COAT CouncilofAustralasianTribunals

CSD CommunityServicesDivision

DAGJ DepartmentofAttorneyGeneralandJustice

EOD EqualOpportunityDivision

FHOGAct First Home Owners Grant Act 2000

GIPA Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

GD GeneralDivision

GT GuardianshipTribunal

HRIPA Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002

LPA LegalProfessionAct2004

LSD LegalServicesDivision

PPIPA Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

RD RevenueDivision

RLA RetailLeasesAct1994

RLD RetailLeasesDivision

SCA Supreme Court Act 1970

The Year in Review

In November 2011 the Attorney General andthe Minister for Finance referred the issueof consolidation of State tribunals to aParliamentaryCommitteeforinquiryandreport.ThisisanissuethatIhavecanvassedonseveraloccasionsinthisannualoverview.

I have supported the desirability of New SouthWales consolidating State tribunals alongthe lines seen in Victoria (1998), WesternAustralia (2004), the United Kingdom (2006),the Australian Capital Territory (2008), andQueensland(2009).

The Parliamentary Committee issued itsreport in March 2012, generally commendingthe desirability of broad consolidation, butsuggesting that the detail be developed byan expert committee. The broadest optioncanvassedinthereportproposedtheabsorptionof the ADT into a ‘New South Wales Civil andAdministrative Tribunal’ (NCAT) along with themajor civil tribunal in the State, the Consumer,Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, together with theGuardianship Tribunal and the various healthprofessionaldisciplinarytribunals.

The Parliamentary Committee rejectedcriticisms that a broad consolidation wasinappropriate, referring positively to theinterstate developments and the experience ofthe tribunals in NSW that already had a varietyof jurisdictions, such as the ADT and the CTTT.The Government announced its response to thereporton26October2012.TheGovernmenthasendorsed the broad NCAT options, with a startdateof1January2014.

In the period covered by this annual report, 1July2011to30June2012,theTribunal’slevelofactivityandspreadoffilingsremainedsimilartorecentyears.Thereweretwoareaswherefilingsincreasedsignificantly-applicationsforreviewofagencydecisionsmadeundertheGovernment Information (Public Access) Act 2009, andapplications for review of State revenuedecisions relating to land tax assessments. Thelevel of activity in other jurisdictions of the

Tribunalvariedupordownwithinasmallmargin.

Disposal rates were a littleslowerthanlastyear,butremainsatisfactory in most of theTribunal’sjurisdictions.

The main exception is the LegalServicesDivision,wheredisposalrates is slow. A new practiceguideline will be published laterin 2012 to assist in speeding upthe pre-hearing stages of theDivision’s cases. There has alsobeenaslowingintheCommunityServicesDivisionwhichisseenastransitory.

At the operational level, the Tribunal relocatedfrom its former premises at 15th floor, 111Elizabeth Street, Sydney to its new premisesat 10th floor, 86 Goulburn Street, Sydney (theDistrict Court building). The new premisesprovidegreatersecurityformembersandstaff,improved work spaces for the key part-timemembers, and better break-out meeting areasforhearingpanels.Thereareimprovedacoustics

in the hearing rooms. However, the fit-outproved unsatisfactory in numerous respects,leading to several months of disruptions at thenew premises while rectification works tookplace.

The Tribunal has updated its public website, aspart of a Department of Attorney General andJustice project. The public website includesmuch more detailed information than in thepast, and includes general guides as to howcases in the different areas of the Tribunal areconducted.Wewelcomefeedback.

The Tribunal has followed, since its inception,the practice of publishing on the Caselawwebsite all reserved decisions of the Tribunaland selected ex tempore decisions. TheCaselawsiteasitoperateduntiltheendof2010containedfeaturesofbenefittotheTribunalandour user population that have been lost in thetransitiontoanewCaselawsite.Theseproblems

5

Judge Kevin O’Connor AM President

6

areoutlinedmorefullyelsewhereinthisreport.I am hopeful that we will see the lost featuresrestoredbytheendof2012.

One of our part-time Divisional Heads steppeddownaftermanyyearsofservice,JaneNeedhamSC. May I thank her for her great contributionto the Tribunal, for the leadership she broughtto the State revenue jurisdiction and for herwider involvement in the work of the Tribunal,especially in the equal opportunity area. Soonafterthereportingyearended,herreplacementwas appointed - Rashelle Seiden, a barristerwith a specialist practice in tax. We welcomeMs Seiden to the Tribunal. Other changes inmembership are noted in the membershipsectionofthisreport.

Finally,mayIthankthemembersgenerallyandthe Registry staff for their work in maintaininghigh professional standards, and fostering an

environment which is seen to support the keyvalues of accessibility, respect, fairness andclarity.

JudgeKevinO’Connor,AMPresident

October2012

7

The Tribunal’s objectives are set out in theobjects clause of the legislation establishingthe Tribunal, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the ADT Act”). Section 3states:

3. Objects of Act

TheobjectsofthisActareasfollows:

(a)to establish an independent AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal:

(i) to make decisions at first instancein relation to matters over which it isgivenjurisdictionbyanenactment,and

(ii) to review decisions made byadministrators where it is givenjurisdiction by an enactment to do so,and

(iii)to exercise such other functions as areconferred or imposed on it by or underthisoranyotherActorlaw,

(b)ensure that the Tribunal is accessible, itsproceedings are efficient and effective anditsdecisionsarefair,

(c)to enable proceedings before the Tribunalto be determined in an informal andexpeditiousmanner,

(d)to provide a preliminary process for theinternal review of reviewable decisionsbefore the review of such decisions by theTribunal,

(e)torequireadministratorsmakingreviewabledecisions to notify persons of decisionsaffectingthemandofanyreviewrightstheymighthaveandtoprovidereasonsfor theirdecisionsonrequest,

(f) to foster an atmosphere in whichadministrative review is viewed positivelyas a means of enhancing the delivery ofservicesandprograms,

(g)to promote and effect compliance byadministrators with legislation enacted byParliamentforthebenefitofthecitizensofNewSouthWales.

Our Objectives

8

The Tribunal is committed to providing aforum accessible to all users. This includes acommitment to ensuring that proceedings arefair,informal,efficientandeffective.

Location and facilities

On 24 October 2011 the Tribunal relocated tothe 10th floor of the John Maddison Tower,86 Goulburn Street, Sydney. As noted in thePresident’s overview of the year, the floor hadanewfit-outbutthereweresomemajorissueswhichhadtoberectifiedwithfurtherwork.Threeof the four hearing rooms needed substantialalteration,asdidthemaintwomembers’rooms.Thehearingroomsdonotincludetheovaltableshaped style seen in two of the rooms at theformer premises. The Tribunal remains in needof more space, at least one more hearing roomaswellaspropermediationrooms,andgreaterRegistryworkandstoragespace.

Remote users and regional access

The Tribunal seeks to be accessible to remoteusers and those users who cannot attend theTribunalforotherreasons.

The Tribunal routinely sits outside Sydneywhen one or more parties live in a regionalarea.PanelsoftheTribunalsatoutsideSydney48 times in the last year. The usual venue forregionalsittingsisatthelocalcourthouse.

During the year, the Tribunal sat at Armidale,Ballina, Bourke, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, EastMaitland, Forster, Lismore, Newcastle, Nowra,Orange, Queanbeyan, Tamworth and Taree.The Legal Services Division of the Tribunalsat at the Industrial Relations Commissionpremises in Sydney eight times, usually forlegal professional discipline hearings. (TheDivisional Head is a judge of the IndustrialRelationsCourt.)

Where appropriate the Tribunal also allowspartiestoappearbyphoneorvideolink,ratherthaninperson.

At the directions and interlocutory stages, atleast one party uses a telephone link in about

a third of cases. Often both parties use atelephonelink.Suburbanandcountryresidentsandlegalpractitionerswelcomethisfacility.

The new premises have a hearing room withvideo link facilities. While these facilitiesare not used often, if the need arises they areavailable.

Access by persons with disabilities

The new Goulburn Street premises containthe following improvement as compared tothe Elizabeth Street premises: wheelchairaccessible public toilet. There is no similarprovisioninthemembers’andstaffarea.

As previously, the premises have: infra-red listening system (Hearing Loop) and atelephonetypewriter(TTY).Ontheotherhand,incontrasttotheElizabethStreetpremises,thelifts do not include Braille signage and voiceannouncements.

A review has been undertaken of the adequacyof the disability access arrangements atthe new premises, and further upgrades arebeing undertaken. They include the need toupgrade the entrance areas to the buildingand information signs and the like to moderndisabilityaccessstandards.

New Website

TheTribunal’snewwebsite(www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adt)wentliveon18May2012.Thenewsite has more information and an improvedformat.ThesitehaslinkstoADTlegislationandrules,dailylawlistsandpublisheddecisions.Italso provides information about each Divisionincluding Guidelines, Practice Notes andstandard forms. An electronic version of allAnnualReportscanbeaccessedonline.

Services to Users

9

Openness

The Tribunal, being a judicial body, sits and

hears most cases in public. All hearings are

notified in the newspaper and are open to the

public unless special orders are made to close

them.

Mosthearingsareconductedwithoutrestriction

astopublicationofnamesorotherinformation.

Where appropriate, the Tribunal may decide to

suppressthenamesofpartiesorwitnessesand/

orthecontentofevidence.

Publication of Decisions

The Tribunal’s policy is to publish on the

internet all reserved decisions and selected

oraldecisions.Widedisseminationofdecisions

promotes understanding of the Tribunal’s role

andreasoning,andcontributestoaconsistent,

predictableapproachtothemakingofdecisions.

Comprehensive publication of the Tribunal’s

decisions is undertaken by the Department

of Attorney General and Justice (DAGJ) on its

CaseLaw NSW website at www.caselaw.nsw.

gov.au/admin/index.html.

Comprehensive publication also occurs on

the AUSTLII (Australasian Legal Information

Institute)websiteatwww.austlii.edu.au.

A number of specialist reporting services cover

relevantdecisionsoftheTribunal.

During the reporting period, the Tribunal

publishedinthisway309decisionsmadeupof:

• 58 Appeal Panel decisions (of which 8

relatedtoexternalappeals)

• 251Divisionaldecisions.

TheDivisionaldecisionswerespreadasfollows:

General Division - 92; Equal Opportunity

Division-51;RetailLeasesDivision-33;Legal

Services Division - 36; Revenue Division - 26;

andCommunityServicesDivision-13.

New CaseLaw system

The new CaseLaw website commenced on 1

January 2011. Until the end of 2010 not only

wereTribunaldecisionspresentedinacollective

format(alphabeticalandbycasenumber),they

were also presented under Division headings

and Appeal Panel headings. The latter feature

hasbeenlost.

The result is a less searchable system than the

past, and greater difficulty for area specialists

in following theworkofaparticulardivisionof

the Tribunal. For example, in the case of legal

profession discipline, the old Blue Book that

appeared quarterly as a supplement to the Law

Society Journal until 1998 was discontinued

on the basis that a consolidated single site

presentation of those decisions would appear

onthepublicwebsiteoftheADT.It isexpected

thatthedivisionalpresentationwillberestored

bytheendof2012,andcoveralldecisionssince

1 January 2011. As an interim measure, in last

year’s annual report and in this year’s report

there is a table dividing the decisions into

the relevant streams (See Appendix G for the

presentreportingperiod).

Registry Report

The Registry has nine positions, including the

RegistrarandDeputyRegistrar.

Registry staff work in small teams specialising

incasemanagement,clientservicesandsupport

services. In order to develop and maintainindividualskills,officersarerotatedbetweentheteams.

TheRegistryprovidesthefollowingservices:

• enquiries;

• registrations;

• managementoflistings;

• support services for part-timemembers and, if required, hearingroomassistance;

• remunerationandotheradministrativesupportforpart-timemembers;

• maintenanceoftheTribunal’swebsite;and

• preparation and uploading of writtendecisions.

A separate position of Research Associate tothe President provides legal and researchsupport for the President, the full-timeDeputyPresidentandmembersgenerally.

Staff development

Staff receive training through the DAGJ’sLearning and Development Section and

through attendance at conferences andseminars.Staffalsoreceivein-housetrainingon new legislation and procedural changes.All staff prepare an Achievement Plan, whichis used as a tool to identify opportunities forindividualofficerstodevelopandconsolidatethe skills they require to effectively deliverservicestomembersandTribunalusers.

Budget and financial information

TheTribunalisanindependentstatutorybodythat for budgetary purposes is a businesscentrewithintheDAGJ.TheTribunalhasthreesourcesoffunds:

• GovernmentRevenue,

• PublicPurposeFundand

• RetailLeaseBondInterestAccount.

TheDAGJprovidesthegovernmentfunding.

The Trustees of the Public Purpose Fundprovide funds to meet the cost of operatingtheLegalServicesDivisionoftheTribunal.ThePublic Purpose Fund is derived from interestearned on solicitors’ clients’ funds held incompulsory trust account deposits under theLegal Profession Act 2004.

The third source of funds is the interest frombonds held by the Director-General of theDepartmentofTradeandInvestment,RegionalInfrastructure and Services on behalf oftenantsundertheRetail Leases Act 1994.Themoney received from the Interest Account isused to meet the cost of operating the RetailLeasesDivisionoftheTribunal.

Appendix A is a summary financial statementfor the reporting year. The DAGJ’s annualreportwillalsoincludeabudgetreport.

10

11

Themembershiphasthreecategories:

• presidential judicial members, i.e. thePresident and the Deputy Presidents,usuallydescribedbythelattertitles;

• non-presidential judicial members,usually described by the title ‘judicialmember’;and

• non-judicial members, known by thatdescription.

Asat30June2012,therewere:

• 8presidentialmembers;

• 30judicialmembers;and

• 50non-judicialmembers.

Inadditionthereweretwonon-judicialmemberswhoserenewalswerestillbeingprocessed.

Thegenderdivisionoverallis52male/38female(23-15 at presidential and non-presidentialjudicialmemberlevel;and29-23atnon-judicialmember level), counting for this purpose thetwo renewals pending at 30 June 2012. Thegenderdisparityhasonly developed in the lastthreeyears,andhopefullyisashorttermone.

AllmembersexceptforthePresidentandoneoftheDeputyPresidentsserveonasessionalbasis.Wehavestandingarrangementswithtwoofthejudicial members to serve for a fixed numberof days each week. Most of the presiding anddecision-writing work is done by a small groupofmembers,namelythetwofull-timemembers-thePresidentandDeputyPresidentHennessy,andthefollowingpart-timemembers-DeputyPresidentsHigginsandChesterman,andJudicialMembersMontgomeryandMolony.

The Appeal Panel and some Divisions (notably,the Legal Services Division, the EqualOpportunity Division and the CommunityServices Division) normally hear cases in theform of multi-member panels. On the otherhand, the General Division and the RevenueDivisionnormallyhaveasinglememberhearthematter.

Retirements from the Tribunal

Members to retire during the reporting periodwere:

• DeputyPresidentJaneNeedhamSC;

• Judicial Members: Robbert Fox,Penelope Goode, Simon Rice, WendyRobinsonSC;and

• Non-Judicial Members: Maree Gill,MauriceO’Sullivan.

Many of these members were very activecontributors to the work of the jurisdictions inwhichtheysat,andseveralhadservedformanyyearsextendingbacktotheTribunalsthatweremergedintotheADT.

Notable in that regard is Penny Goode. Herservice as a hearing member in the equalopportunity jurisdiction commenced in 1991.She will remain active in the Tribunal as amediator, the role in which she has specialisedwithgreatdistinctionnowforanumberofyears.Similarly Simon Rice (equal opportunity) andRobbertFox(legalprofessiondiscipline)servedwith distinction on the predecessor tribunalsbeforetheywereabsorbedintotheADT.

New Appointments

There were no new appointments during thereportingyear.

Following an expressions of interest process,in July 2012 the following members wereappointed: Rashelle Seiden, part-time DeputyPresident and Divisional Head, RevenueDivision; Geoffrey de Q. Walker and NormanIsenberg,part-time judicialmembers,RevenueDivision; Peta Drake and Matt Foldi, part-timenon-judicial(advisory)members,RetailLeasesDivision.

Annual Conference

TheTribunalhelditsannualmembers’conferenceon16September2011attheAustralianMuseum.ThisistheTribunal’smajorcollegiateevent,andmostoftheTribunal’smembersattended.

11

Membership

1212

TheconferencewasopenedbythenewAttorneyGeneral, the Hon. Greg Smith SC MP. JusticeAlan Robertson of the Federal Court gave thekeynote address. Justice Robertson was, formanyyearspriortohisappointment,aleaderofthe administrative law bar in Australia, and hadappearedattheADT.

Otherpresentationsincluded:‘NeurobiologyandDecisionMaking’byDrHayleyBennett,barristerand formerly a clinical neuropsychologist;‘MakingHumanRightswork:theoryandpractice- the David Jones’ case, the Patricks’ case’ byRachelFrancois,barrister;‘TheModernContract’by Judge Peter Johnstone of the District Court;‘The Maverick Litigant’ by Dr Simon Smith ofMonash University, Victoria; ‘SuppressionOrders: Some Observations’ by Michael Sexton,SC,NSWSolicitorGeneral.

Council of Australasian Tribunals

Tribunal service in Australia is carried on by awidearrayoffull-timeandpart-timemembers,withadiversityofskillsandbackgrounds.COATis the umbrella professional organisation fortribunalmembersinAustraliaandNewZealand.

The ADT’s President, Judge O’Connor, was theConvenor of the NSW Chapter of COAT from2007 to 2011; has served on the NSW Chaptercommitteesinceitsfoundationin2002;andhasalsoservedontheNationalExecutive.

NSWCOATconducts twomajorcollegiateeventseach year - a Conference and the WhitmoreLecture. Due to a change in the schedulingof these events there were two WhitmoreLectures in the period of this annual report andno Conference, with the conference moved infuture to September. The presenter of the 2011Whitmore Lecture (given in September 2011)was the Hon Ronald Sackville QC AO, a formerFederal Court judge, academic and head ofvarious law reform bodies and public inquiries.Histopicwas ‘TheConstitutionalisationofStateAdministrativeLaw’.

The presenter of the 2012 Whitmore Lecture(giveninMay2012)wastheHon.MichaelKirbyAC CMG, retired High Court judge and also aformerlawreformhead.Histopicwas‘TheDutytoGiveReasonsRevisited’.

Submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry on Consolidation of Tribunals

This was a major activity during the last year.The Committee’s proceedings and report, theTribunal’s submissions and the oral evidencegiven by the President and Deputy PresidentHennessy can be found by following the linksontheParliamentofNSWwebsitetoLegislativeCouncil Law and Justice Committee then toOpportunities to Consolidate Tribunals inNSW (Inquiry). As noted in the overview, theGovernmenthasdecidedtoestablishaCivilandAdministrative Tribunal (‘NCAT’), with a view to

itcommencingoperationson1January2014.

13

DrJaneGoodman-Delahunty

RachelFrancois

DrHayleyBennett

JusticeAlanRobertson

GregSmithSCMPAttorneyGeneral

MichaelSextonSCSolicitorGeneral

Speakers included

2011 ADT Member’s Conference

14

The ADT Act dividesthe work of theTribunal into twocategories:

• the‘reviewofreviewabledecisions’;and

• themakingof‘originaldecisions’.

A ‘reviewable’decision refers toan administrativedecision made by apublicbodysuchasa

governmentagencyoraMinisterinrelationtoamatterofcontroversybetweenacitizenandtheStatethatisinturndeclaredtobereviewablebytheTribunal.

Theterm‘originaldecision’referstoanymatterwhere the Tribunal is specified as the maker ofthe first legally binding decision on the matterofcontroversy.

An ‘original’ decision is any application to theTribunal where the Tribunal makes the firstbindingdecision.ApplicationsheardintheEODand the RLD fall into this category. They areanalogoustocivilsuits.

When disciplining lawyers, veterinarians,architects and accredited certifiers, moreserious matters are usually dealt with by anapplication from the relevant occupationaldisciplinary body. In some less serious cases,an applicant can apply to the Tribunal for areview of a decision made by the occupationaldisciplinarybody.

The ADT Act establishes six Divisions and anAppeal Panel. Of the six Divisions, three haveas their principal or only business the hearingof applications for review of ‘reviewabledecisions’. Those divisions are the GD, the RDandtheCSD.

TheTribunalhasamixtureofpublicandprivatelaw functions, a structure which is possibleunder State law but unconstitutional under

Commonwealth law. Consequently the Tribunalhas several jurisdictions which could at theCommonwealth level only be carried out by a‘court’madeupexclusivelyofjudges.

Administrative or ‘public law’ divisions

• GD: operative 6 October 1998. ThisDivision hears most applications bycitizens for the review of administrativedecisions or administrative conduct.Disciplinary matters, whether originalapplications or review applications, butnot involving lawyers, are heard in thisDivision;

• CSD: operative 1 January 1999. ThisDivision hears applications for review ofvarious administrative decisions madein the Family and Community Servicesportfolio and for exemption from astatutory prohibition on being engagedinchild-relatedemployment;

• RD: operative 1 July 2001. This Divisionhears applications for review of variousStatetaxationdecisions;and

• LSD: operative 6 October 1998. ThisDivision hears complaints against legalpractitioners.

The Civil or ‘private law’ divisions

• EOD: operative 6 October 1998. ThisDivision hears complaints of unlawfuldiscrimination,harassment,victimisationandvilification;and

• RLD: operative 1 March 1999. ThisDivision hears claims by parties to retailshopleases.

Appeal Panel

The Tribunal’s upper tier, the Appeal Panel,hears‘internal’appealsagainstdecisionsbytheDivisions of the Tribunal and ‘external’ appealsagainst certain decisions by the GuardianshipTribunal (‘GT’) and the Mental Health ReviewTribunal.

The Divisions and theAppeal Panel

From left: Deputy Presidents Nancy Hennessy, Michael Chesterman, President Kevin O’Connor, Deputy President Sigrid Higgins.

(Deputy President Wayne Haylen was unavailable.) - as at 30 June 2012 -

15

•PresidentoftheADTsince1998

•Judge,DistrictCourtofNSWsince1998

•DeputyChair,InterpolDataProtectionCommittee,Lyon2005-11

•LawReformCommissioner,NSW(part-time),2007-2010

•Chairperson-FairTradingTribunal1999-2001;CommercialTribunal1997-98

• InauguralFederalPrivacyCommissionerandCommissioner,AustralianHumanRightsCommission1988-1996

The President is, in addition, the DivisionalHeadoftheGeneralDivision.

Case Load

The General Division is the main merits reviewdivision of the Tribunal. There were 371 newapplicationsfiledthisyearanincreaseof27onlastyear.Theycomprised39%of theTribunal’sfirstinstancefilings.

The Division’s business falls into two mainstreams-

• reviews of adverse occupational andrelatedlicensingdecisions;and

• reviewsconnectedwiththeinformation-handling obligations of governmentagencies - access to governmentinformation and protection of personaldata.

There were 176 filings in the occupational andrelated licensing stream, a decrease of 24 onlastyear.

In the ‘information law’ stream there were 150filings, 49 more than last year, with 102 in the‘freedom of information’ GIPA Act category (45up).Therewere48ontheprivacyside,4more,with39underPPIPAand9underHRIPA.

Theremaining45filingswereacrossascatterofActs,themaingroupbeingreviewsofdecisionsof the office of NSW Trustee and Guardianaffecting the affairs of protected persons. Thiscategoryofbusinessisdealtwithfurtherinthesection of the annual report dealing with theGuardianshipandProtectedEstatesList.

We noted last year that in the period 2007-2011wehadseenasignificantdropinFOI/GIPAfilingsfrom117in07-08to57in10-11.

It can be seen that filing activity has nowreturnedtothehigherlevel.GIPAresultedfromareviewoftheFOIAct,andismoregenerousinitsapproach to the grant of access to information.ItalsoallowsforreviewofaspectsoftheagencyresponsetorequestswhichwerenotreviewableunderthepreviousAct(forexample,sufficiencyofsearch).

While the primary filings level has returned toahighlevel,incontrasttotheTribunal’searlierexperience, more matters are settling withoutgoingtofullhearing,andtherearesignificantlyfewerappealstotheAppealPanel.

Asinpreviousyears,thedominantoccupationallicensing category involved public highwaydriverauthorities,72publicpassengerauthoritycases (mainly taxi drivers) and 10 tow truckauthority cases. There were 53 Commissionerof Police licensing cases (mainly security andfirearms); and 41 Fair Trading licence cases(mainlybuildingtradesandrealestateagents).

InrecentyearstheDivisionhasdealtwithmanydisputes over withdrawals of the accreditationof privately operated vocational educationcolleges whose main student body has beenoverseas students. This jurisdiction has nowshiftedtotheCommonwealth.

The General Division

Judge Kevin O’Connor AM President

16

Case Management

The case management practices in the Divisionhave remained the same as reported in the lasttwoyears’annualreports.

Timeliness

Wenotedinthe2009-10annualreportamarkedimprovement in the General Division disposalrate,from33weeksdownto26weeks,andlastyearafurthersmalldecreaseto24.5weeks.Thedisposalratehasslippedbackto28.5weeksthisyear,butremainsreasonable.AsIdidlastyear,may I thank the Members for their contributiontothisoutcome.

Legislative Developments

There were no significant legislativedevelopmentsaffectingtheroleandworkoftheDivisioninthelastyear.

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

General Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

17

Guardianship and Protected Estates List

Deputy President Hennessy manages theGuardianshipandProtectedEstatesList.

The Tribunal hears appeals from certaindecisionsoftheGuardianshipTribunalincludingthe making and reviewing of guardianshipordersandthemakingandreviewingoffinancialmanagement orders. The Tribunal also hearsappeals from decisions of the Mental HealthReviewTribunalthataperson’sestatebesubjecttomanagement.

These appeals are known as ‘external’ appealsbecausetheyareappealsfrombodiesotherthantheTribunal.

TheTribunalalsohasameritsreviewjurisdictionto:

• Review decisions made by the NSWTrustee in connection with the exerciseof the NSW Trustee’s functions whenmanagingestates;

• Review decisions made by the PublicGuardianinconnectionwiththeexerciseof the Public Guardian’s functions as aguardian;and

• Review decisions by the NSW Trusteein relation to the functions of a personappointedasamanager.

These external appeals and merits reviewdecisions make up the Guardianship andProtected Estates List. Members with specialistexpertiseinthisareaconductthehearings.

Case load

External appeals

Therewerefourexternalappealspendingatthebeginningofthereportingyear.Duringtheyear10 new appeals were lodged, all from decisionsof the GT. Ten appeals were finalised, leavingfour appeals pending at the end of the year. Inthreecasestheappealwasupheldeitherinpartorinfull.Sevenappealsweredismissed.

The time standards for appeals is 80% to befinalised in six months and 100% in 12 months.These standards were not quite met this yearwithsix(60%) disposedof in under sixmonthsand a further three (30%) finalised in lessthan 12 months. One appeal took more than 12months to finalise. The average disposal timeforallmattersislessthansixmonths.

Review decisions

There were nine review applications pending atthebeginningofthereportingyear.Duringtheyear 26 new applications were lodged and 30were finalized, leaving five review applicationspendingattheendoftheyear.

Of the 30 applications that were finalised, theadministrator’sdecisionwassetasideorvariedin two cases and affirmed in 14 cases. In theremaining 14 cases, the matter was dismissedfor various reasons either with or without ahearing.

The time standard for merits review decisionsis that 85% should be finalised in less than sixmonths and 100% in less than a year. Twenty-fourofthethirty(72%)tooklessthansixmonthstocomplete;afurtherfour(84%)tooklessthan12monthsandtwotookover12months.

Significant cases

AFM v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012]NSWADTAP17(29May2012)

TheGThaspowertomakeafinancialmanagementorderinrelationtoaperson’sfinances.Ithasaseparate power to appoint a financial managerfor the financial management order. Eitherthe NSW Trustee or a private person can be thefinancial manager. In this case the GT made afinancial management order in relation to ayoungwomanwithadisabilityandappointedherfatherasthefinancialmanager.TheGTorderedthe financial management order be reviewedin two years. When reviewing the order, theGT revoked the appointment of the father asfinancial manager and instead appointed theNSWTrustee.

The Appeal Panel decided that the GT hadno power to revoke the appointment of thefather because the review power it relied ononly related to the making of the financialmanagement order, not to the appointment ofthe manager. The GT could have reviewed theappointment on its own motion but because itdidnotdoso,thenewappointmentdecisionwassetasideandthematterremittedtotheGT.

18

Divisional Head

MsJaneNeedhamSCcompletedadistinguishedperiodofservicewiththeTribunalon2November2011. She had served as a part-time DeputyPresidentandDivisionalHead,RevenueDivisionfor six years. Prior to that she had served forthree years as a part-time Judicial Memberassigned initially to the Equal OpportunityDivision. Soon after the end of the reporting

year, in July 2012,a new DivisionalHeadwasappointed,Rashelle Seiden,an experiencedbarrister whospecialises intaxation.

We welcomeRashelle to theTribunal, andthank Jane for hercontribution to thework of the Tribunal

inmanyofitsjurisdictions,notonlytheRevenueDivision.

The President managed the Division in theperiod between Ms Needham’s departure andtheappointmentofMsSeiden.

Case Load

ThecaseloadoftheRevenueDivisionincreasedfrom108filingslastyearto138filingsthisyear,the main area of increase involving disputes inrelation to land tax assessments. The disposalratecontinuedtobeslowerthantherate in theother merits review divisions of the Tribunal.Theaveragedisposaltimeis8.2months,andhassatatthatlevelnowforsomeyears.

The delay appears mainly to be a function ofthe preliminary conference system used inthe Division. At the first directions hearing aview is sought from the parties as to whethera matter should be referred for preliminaryconference, and that course is adopted inmost cases. Often the preliminary conferenceprocess leads to referral back of issues to the

Office of State Revenue. If that process doesnot resolve the dispute the matter is relistedand further directions made. During the year,greateremphasiswasgiventothedesirabilityoffixingafinalhearingdateatthefirstdirectionshearing,evenifthematterwasreferredouttoapreliminaryconference.Itishopedthatasystemofthiskindwillreducethenumberofrelistingsand bring matters on for hearing more quickly,where they are not resolved by the preliminaryconferenceprocess.

The main category of business continues tobe land tax disputes, comprising exactly 50%of primary filings in the last year. The mainareas of dispute concern the interpretation andapplication of the primary place of residenceexemption and the primary productionexemption. First home owner grant filingsdeclined markedly, reflecting the phasing outof that legislation. The recent State budgetintroducedanewfirsthomeownergrantscheme.

Revenue Division

Deputy PresidentRashelle Seiden

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Revenue Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

19

Community Services Division

• Part-timeJudicialMemberoftheADTsince2001,DeputyPresidentsince2010

• Barristersince1999

• Part-timeMemberDefenceHonoursandAwardsAppealsTribunalsince2008

• PatentandTradeMarksAttorneysDisciplinaryTribunal2005–2012

• ExecutiveSecretary,InternationalCommissionofJurists,Geneva,1995-1997

• Manager,FairTradingDivision,NewZealandCommerceCommission,1991-1994

The Divisional Head is part-time DeputyPresidentSigridHiggins.

Structure and functions

The Division has both an original jurisdictionandareviewjurisdiction.

The Division’s review jurisdiction covers awide range of administrative decisions ofa community welfare kind, especially childwelfare. For example the Tribunal can hearreview applications in relation to variousdecisions affecting the licensing and grantof care authorities to foster carers, out-of-home carers, and the operators of child carecentres, family day care centres and homebased child care; the accreditation of adoptionservice providers. It can also hear applicationsfor review of grants of financial assistancefor disability services; and the licensing ofresidential centres for handicapped persons.During the last year the review jurisdictionhas comprised about 80% of the filings in theDivision, and the cases have mainly related

to the removal of children from an authorisedcarer, and the (often subsequent) decision toremovethecarer’sgeneralauthorization.

The Division’s original jurisdiction concernspersons with a sex offence history who wishto work in child-related employment (seeCommission for Children and Young People Act 1998). They must obtain a formal exemptionfrom the prohibition that ordinarily applies tothem. The Commission for Children and YoungPeople, the Industrial Relations Commissionor the Tribunal may grant an exemption. Theapplicant must prove that he or she does notposearisktothesafetyofchildren.

Case load

Forty-two new applications were filed in theDivision during the year, 34 ‘review’ and 8‘original’. In each category the filings were alittlelowerthanthepreviousyear.

Forty-twoapplicationsweredisposedofduringthe year (34 review applications and 8 originaldecision applications). Of these 59% weredisposedofwithinsixmonthsoftheapplicationhaving been made. A further 21.4% were

disposedofwithin12monthsoftheapplicationhavingbeenmade.

Four applications (5.4%), all ‘original’applications for a child-related employmentexemption, were disposed of in more than 12months but less than two years. The remainingapplication was dealt with in more than twoyears;delayed,withtheconsentoftheparties,duetoaninterveningcoronialinquiry.

Mediation continues to be used to resolvedisputes involving decisions about authorisedcarers and the children in their care. Twelveapplications (an increase of 50% from theprevious year) were referred to mediation andofthese,threeapplicationssettledatmediationandeightsettledaftermediation.

Appeals

Child-relatedemploymentexemptiondecisionscan only be appealed to the Supreme Court,whereas review decisions can be appealed to

Deputy PresidentSigrid Higgins

20

the Appeal Panel. There was one appeal to theSupremeCourtandtwototheAppealPanel(twoofwhicharepending).

In the decided appeal, the Appeal Panel heldthat the Division did not have jurisdiction tomake orders for ongoing contact between anauthorisedcarerandaremovedchild.

Significant cases

In most cases the decision of the administratoris affirmed, and similarly sex offenderapplications to allow them to engage in child-related employment are not granted. Thefollowing are two illustrations of differentoutcomes:

• A local council removed the reviewapplicant’s name from its register offamily day carers, thus preventing herfrom operating that kind of business.The reason given was conduct said tohavebeenengagedinbytheapplicant’sson towards children in her care. TheTribunal did not consider that theCouncil had acted on any credibleevidence. Because of the absence ofevidence, itheld that itwasnotable tomakeapositivefindingastowhetherornot a risk of harm existed at [88]. Norcould it, in thecircumstances, findthattherewasanunacceptableriskofharm.Thedecisionisthesubjectofapendingappeal before the Appeal Panel. WI v Fairfield City Council [2011] NSWADT279.

• A nurse applied for an exemption topermit him to engage in child-relatedemployment,thoughhehadaconvictionfor aggravated indecent assaultimposed in June 2008. After reviewingthe circumstances and his subsequenthistory, the Tribunal granted theexemption subject to two conditions:one,thathenotpracticeclinicalnursinginvolving children under the age of 18

years; and two, the applicant was toprovide a copy of the Tribunal’s orderto the hospital or medical practice inwhichheworked.Thisdecision isbeingappealed to the Supreme Court. ADV v Commission for Children and Young People[2012]NSWADT8.

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Community Services Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

21

• Judgeofthe

IndustrialCourtsince2001

• Barrister1976-2001;QC,1991

• Part-timeDeputyPresidentofADTsince2008

• Previously,Chair,RacingAppealsTribunal;Chair,AustralianConsumersAssociation;Member,NSWPrivacyCommittee

TheHon.JusticeWayneHaylenoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWalesisDivisionalHeadandapart-timeDeputyPresident.

Structure and functions

TheprimaryfunctionoftheDivisionis:

• To hear applications for disciplinaryorders to be made against legalpractitioners for alleged professionalmisconduct or unsatisfactorymisconduct.

Applications can be initiated by the Council ofthe Law Society (in relation to solicitors), theBar Council (in relation to barristers) or theLegalServicesCommissioner.

TheDivisionalsodealswith:

• Client claims for compensation arisingfrommisconduct;

• Practitioner applications to allowemploymentintheirpracticeofpersonswith convictions for serious offences;and

• Practitioner applications for reviewof minor disciplinary orders made bythe disciplinary committees of the LawSocietyortheBarAssociation.

Hearings in the Division are conducted by apanelofthreememberscomprisingtwojudicial

members (being a judge, a retired judge,barristers or solicitors) and a non-judicialmember from the general community. A seniorjudicial member presides and the hearings arenormally conducted in public. The ability tobring disciplinary matters concerning legalpractitionersbeforetheDivisiondoesnotaffectthe inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Courtto control and discipline local lawyers. TheDivision, like the Supreme Court, has availabletoitawiderangeofsanctionsformisconduct.

Case load

DetailedstatisticsarefoundinAppendixD.

During the reporting year there were 34applicationsfiledand34matterswerefinalised.Therewere50matterspendingattheconclusionofthereportingyear.

Disciplinary outcomes

The 34 applications divided into 31 originalapplications and three review applications. All31 original applications related to the conductof solicitors. There were no applicationsaffecting barristers in the reporting period.OtherstatisticsaregiveninAppendixE.

Inrelationtooutcomes,therewere15fines,14reprimands, seven removals from the Roll and13otherorders(sevenplacingconditionsonthepractising certificate, six requiring a course offurther education). The total number of ordersis greater than the number of practitionersthe subject of discipline as a case may resultin multiple orders. Compensation was grantedin one case. Three matters were dismissedfollowingahearing.

Case management

ThedisposalrateintheDivision(thetimefromoriginal filing to final determination) has satbetween12and18monthsforsometime.

All disciplinary applications are preceded byan investigation and decision-to-refer by theinitiating body. Consequently the originatingapplication to the Tribunal will be relativelyparticularised, and the practitioner should beable to furnish a considered and responsive

Legal Services Division

Deputy President, the Honourable Justice

Wayne Haylen

22

Reply. Yet it is common for a matter to appearmany times in the monthly Directions Listwithout any Reply. It is often the case thattherearegoodreasonsforthisdelay.However,in cases with no satisfactory explanation theTribunalwillconsidersimplysettingthematterdownforhearingwithoutfurtheradjournments.A new case management guideline is expectedtotakeeffectbytheendof2012.

Two illustrations of numerous party-relateddelaysinbringingthematteronforfinalhearingare the cases of Legal Services Commissioner v Keddie [2012] NSWADT 106, commenced2009; and Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sheehan [2012] NSWADT100, commenced 2010. In the latter case thepractitioner did not co-operate at any pointwith the proceedings, leading the Tribunal tomakeadversefindingsas toa rangeofmattersbased entirely on the applicant’s material andoninferencesdrawnfromlackofco-operation.

Over-charging has been a central issue insome key cases in the Division in the lastyear, for example, the Keddie’s case alreadymentioned,andtherelatedcaseLegal Services

Commissioner v Scroope [2012] NSWADT 107.While these cases had a protracted history, atthebeginningofatwo-weekhearingthepartieswere able to tender an Agreed Statement ofFacts that admitted to gross overcharging. Ontheevidencesubmittedtherewasnoallegationby the Legal Services Commissioner that theoverchargingwasdishonest.

However, the evidence did demonstrate officepracticesthatwereinadequatelysupervised:

• Numerousentriesweremadeonthebillwithout clearly indicating the level ofcharge-out;and

• There was virtually no checking ofwhether work was indeed performed orappropriatelyperformed.

There were other practices that led to grossovercharging.

The cases are significant for two reasons.Firstly, in confirming that dishonesty orcriminal intent is not a requirement inestablishing professional misconduct for grossovercharging. Secondly, for the fact that theTribunal specifically left open the question ofwhetheranemployedsolicitorcouldbeguiltyofprofessionalmisconductforoverchargingwherea senior partner was otherwise responsible fortheconductofthematter.

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Legal Services Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

23

Equal Opportunity Division

• Full-timeDeputyPresidentoftheADTsince2001;previouslypart-timeDeputyPresident1999-2001;

• AppointedMagistrate,2002

• President,CommunityServicesAppealsTribunal1997-1999

• SeniorLegalOfficer,Anti-DiscriminationBoardofNSW1990-1997

The Divisional Head is Magistrate NancyHennessy,full-timeDeputyPresident.

Structure and function

The Division exercises jurisdiction conferredby the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA). Itsmainbusinessis:

• To resolve complaints referred by the

President of the Anti-DiscriminationBoard (ADB) relating to allegeddiscrimination, harassment, vilificationandvictimisation.

TheDivisionalsodealswith:

• Applications for leave to have heardcomplaints declined by the ADBPresident;

• Applications for the registration ofconciliation agreements made at theADB;

• Applicationsforinterimorders;and

• Reviews of ADB decisions relatingto applications for exemption fromdiscriminationlaws.

Panel

A panel of three sits on most hearings – onejudicial member and two non-judicial memberswho have expertise in various areas of anti-discriminationlawandpractice.

Outcomes and disposal rates

Therewere73matterspendingatthebeginningof the year. One hundred and seventy-fivenew applications were received. Of those,141 were referred complaints and 23 wereapplications for permission to proceed. Therewere four applications for the registration of aconciliation agreement and seven applicationsforaninterimorder.Noapplicationforareviewofanexemptiondecisionwasreceived.

TheDivisionfinalised144matters,31fewerthanitreceived.Atthecloseofthereportingperiodtherewere104applicationspending.

This year 94 (86%) referrals were finalisedwithin12monthsand11(10%)withintwoyears.Theremainingfive(5%)mattersweremorethantwo years old when they were finalised. Theaveragedisposal timesforallmattershasbeensteadilydecreasingsince2008fromahighof48weekstoalowthisyearofabout30weeks.

The outcomes for each category of applicationarediscussedbrieflybelow.

Referred complaints/Mediation

Ofthe110referredmatters,28wenttohearing,withordersbeingmadeintheapplicant’sfavourin 10 cases, the application being dismissedafterhearingin15casesandthreeapplicationsbeing summarily dismissed. Eighty-two cases(75%) were dismissed for reasons includingthat they had been settled or withdrawn, manyat mediation. Of the 110 matters mentioned,after consultation with the parties, 48 went tomediation,with42settlingatoraftermediation,andthebalanceproceedingtohearing.

Deputy President , Magistrate Nancy Hennessy

24

There is a significant incentive for parties toresolve complaints without having a hearingbecause of time and cost considerations. Inparticular, if parties are legally represented,legal costs can consume a considerableproportion of any compensation that mightultimatelybeawarded.

Grounds of complaint

A complaint can allege more than one groundof discrimination. The most frequently citedgrounds of discrimination were disability (43),race (30), sex discrimination (14), sexualharassment (18) and carer’s responsibilities(11). This distribution is broadly consistentwith the pattern over the last ten years, withdisabilitybeingthedominantcategory.

Other categories of business

The statistics are given in Appendix E. Thebalance of the new filings (65) had as its maincomponent 23 leave applications. Most leaveapplications are unsuccessful, the TribunalagreeingwiththeADBPresidentthatthematterlackssubstance.Inthelastyear,onlytwoofthe24leaveapplicationsweresuccessful.

Significant cases

QZ v Sydney South West Area Health Service and QY[2012]HCATrans164.

The High Court refused leave for QZ to appealagainstadecisionoftheCourtofAppeal:Sydney Local Health Network v QY and QZ[2011]NSWCA412 (20 December 2011). The Court of Appealdecided that discrimination against a persononthegroundsofthedisabilityofanassociateof that person, who was dead at the time thediscriminationissaidtohaveoccurred,doesnotbreachtheADA.

Sunol v Collier (No 2)[2012]NSWCA44

The Court of Appeal found that the homosexualvilification provisions in the ADA were notunconstitutional. While those provisions doaffect freedom of political speech, preventinghomosexual vilification is a legitimate goal ofgovernment.Theprovisionsareaproportionatewaytoattainthatgoal.

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Equal Opportunity Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

25

•Part-timeDeputyPresidentofADTsince2002

•ActingJudge,DistrictCourtofNSW1998-2008

•EmeritusProfessor,UniversityofNewSouthWalessince2001

•ProfessorofLaw,UNSW1979-2001;DeanofLaw1990-95

•LawReformCommissioner,Commonwealth1983-86(full-time),1987-92(part-time)

•LawReformCommissioner,NSW1993-96,1999-2006(part-time)

The Divisional Head is Emeritus ProfessorMichael Chesterman, part-time DeputyPresident.

Structure and functions

TheRetailLeasesDivisionexercisesjurisdictionconferred by the Retail Leases Act 1994 on theTribunal to determine applications relating to‘retail shop leases’ as defined in this Act. TheSupreme Court, the District Court and the LocalCourt may also exercise jurisdiction in civilproceedingsbroughtunderthisAct.Butsection75(2)oftheRLAestablishesageneralprinciplethat retail tenancy disputes ‘should be dealtwithbytheTribunalratherthanbyacourt’.

On11August2011,theTribunalpublishedanewGuidelinefortheDivision.ItreplacesaPracticeNotethatcameintooperationinNovember2001.Usingsimpleterminologysofarasisfeasible,itdescribes the kinds of application that may befiled in the Division, the types of legal remedythat may be granted and the steps to be takenby parties in commencing proceedings andpreparing for a hearing. It also contains anoutline of the requirement in section 68 ofthe RLA that, subject to limited exceptions,parties must attempt to settle their dispute bymediation before any application is filed in theTribunal.

A separate Practice Note (No 20), publishedin July 2006, deals with applications for theappointmentbytheTribunalofaspecialistretailvaluer.

The decision of the Appeal Panel in Torchia v Swanton [2012] NSWADTAP 5, deliveredin February 2012, made reference to anotherGuidelineoftheTribunal:theGuideline on Costs(Practice Note No. 22, published in October2009). Clause 9 of the Guideline ‘encourages’parties to advise the Tribunal at the end of thehearing of their case if they wish to apply forcosts and states that in such event they shouldfile and serve a statement showing the amountof costs that they are claiming. The AppealPanel in Torchia v Swanton held, however, thata failure to take these steps in proceedingsin the RLD does not necessarily preclude alater application for costs. It pointed out that,particularly in cases of significant length orcomplexity, it will often not be feasible for theTribunal to hear the evidence and argumentrelatingtocostsduringthesubstantivehearingof the matter. In substantive decisions givenby the Division, directions for any question ofcosts to be determined on the basis of writtensubmissions filed later are given frequently,thoughnotineveryinstance.

Case load

In last year’s Annual Report, it was noted thatfor the second year running the number of newapplications filed in the Division had declinedsignificantly. This marked trend downwards didnotcontinueinthereportingperiod.Thenumberofnewapplicationswasjustonelessthanintheprecedingyear.

At the beginning of the reporting period, 67applications under the Retail Leases Act werepending.Duringthereportingperiod,thenumberof new applications filed was 197. The numberof applications disposed of was 194, leaving 69pendingapplications at theendof the reportingperiod.TheDivisionfellonlyjustshortofkeepingupwiththeinflowofapplications.

Among the 197 new applications, 45 (23%) wereapplications for the appointment of a specialistretail valuer to determine the current marketrent under a lease, or for the appointment oftwo valuers to review such a determination;110 (56%) were retail tenancy claims in othercategories; one (0.5%) was an unconscionableconduct claim; and 40 (20.4%) were ‘combined’

Retail Leases Division

Deputy PresidentMichael Chesterman

26

claims, involving bothretail tenancy claimsand unconscionableconductclaims.

Ofthe194applicationsthat were disposedof, the outcomeswere as follows:65 (33.5%) werewithdrawn/dismissedon the ground of noappearance,orsettledwithout orders beingmade; 30 (15.5%)were settled withconsent orders beingmade; nine (4.6%)were dismissed afterahearing;one(0.5%)was dismissed on the

groundoflackofjurisdiction;andin89(45.9%),orders(non-consensual)weremade.

The rate of disposal of claims (49%) withouta determination by the Tribunal (other than aconsentorder)waslowerthanlastyear’srateof56.2%.

During the reporting period, Appeal Panelsdelivered nine decisions (the same number aslastyear)relatingtoappealsfromfirst instancedecisions within the Division. Only one appealraising a substantive question of law on retailtenancieswasallowedinfull.Inconsequence,thecostsordermadeatfirstinstancewassetasideina second decision, and another costs order wassubstituted.Intwoothercases,thePanelallowedtheappeal to theextentof reducingtheamountofdamagesawardedatfirstinstance.Inanotherappeal,dealingonlywithcosts,theAppealPanelreachedthesamedecisionastheTribunalatfirstinstance, but by a distinctly different route. Inone case, the Appeal Panel delivered a decisionextendingtheappealtothemeritsandpermittingfurther evidence to be adduced, but has yet todecide the final outcome of the appeal. In twoAppealPaneldecisions,theappealwasdismissedoutrightandinoneofthesecases,thePanelgavea subsequent decision containing a costs orderagainsttheunsuccessfulappellant.

Timeliness

According to time standards adopted by theDivision, 85% of the applications made to itshould be disposed of within six months and100%withinoneyear.Asisfrequentlythecase,it has not proved possible to adhere to thesestandards.Outofthe194applicationsdisposedof in the reporting period, 151 (77.8%) weredisposed of within six months and 183 (94.3%)within 12 months. This does however representa faster disposal rate than was achieved in thepreceding reporting period, when only 81% ofthe disposals occurred within 12 months of theapplicationbeingfiled.

Significant themes

The many matters dealt with this year in thecasesdecidedbytheDivisionincluded:

• What must be proved to obtain damagesunder section 10 of the RLA (pre-leasemisrepresentations) or section 62D(misleading or deceptive conduct) onthegroundofamisrepresentationastoafutureevent;

• Theeffectofaclauseinaretailshopleasepurportingtopreventa lessee’sclaimfordamages under section 34 (disruption oftrading) or for abatement of rent undersection 36 (damage to premises) beingset off against the lessor’s claim forarrearsofrent;

• Assessment of damages for a lessor’sbreachofacontractualpromiseto‘discussin good faith and fair consideration’ arequestbythelesseeforanewlease;

• Whether a provision for rent relief in aleasewasreplicatedinanewleasearisingontheexercisebythelesseeofanoptiontorenew;

• The Common Law and statutoryrequirements for the creation of a retailshoplease;

• Thenecessaryfeaturesofavalidnoticeunder section 29 of the Conveyancing Act 1919requiringalesseetoremedyabreachofalease;

• The necessary features of a relocationnotice under section 34A of the RLAand of a demolition notice undersection35;and

• The definition of ‘key money’ undersection14oftheRLA.

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Retail Leases Division - Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

27

The President manages the operation of theAppealPanelandthelistingofappeals.

Structure and functions

Normally,theAppealPanelforinternalappealscomprises a presidential member (i.e. thePresident or a Deputy President), a judicialmember and a non-judicial member. The ADTAct requires that at least one of the first twomembersbefromtheDivisiongivingrisetotheappeal,andthethirdmemberalwaysbefromtheDivisiongivingrisetotheappeal.Inthecaseofexternal appeals, the usual panel comprises apresidential member, a judicial member anda non-judicial member. The Act requires thenon-judicialmembertobeapersonendorsedashaving experience in dealing with persons withadisability.

The presiding member in internal appeals is,ordinarily, either the President or the relevantDivisionalHead.Inthecaseofexternalappeals,the Deputy President responsible for managingthe Guardianship and Protected Estates Listusuallypresides.

A presidential member may preside aloneto consider the grant of leave to appeal anddisposeofthesubstantiveappeal.

Case Load

DetailedstatisticsarefoundinAppendixE.

There were 57 appeals filed (47 internal, 10external), a significant decrease on last year(57; 13 total 70). During the year 66 appealswere finalised. The pending business as at 30June 2012 was 24 (internal), four (external),total28.

The Appeal Panel published 58 decisions: 50(internal)andeight(external).

The new filings were distributed as follows -GeneralDivision(19),CSD(three),theRLD(11),the EOD (seven), the RD (seven); GT (10). TheInternalAppealsdistribution,broadlyspeaking,issimilar to the ratioofunderlyingbusiness inthevariousDivisions(theLSDisnotappealabletotheAppealPanel).

These figures include interlocutory appeals.There were eight new applications. The leavehearing for interlocutory appeals is conductedaspartoftheshortmatters list.Thisprocedureintroduced last year has helped to move thisbusinessmorequickly.

Themes

Appendix F gives a short catchword account ofnineoftheAppealPanelcases.

Appeal Panel

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

Internal Appeals- Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

.5

1

0

6

12

18

11-1210-1109-1008-0907-0806-0705-0604-05

External Appeals- Average Disposal Time

Mon

ths

Year

28

Most Divisional decisions of the Tribunal areappealable to the Appeal Panel. Appeal PaneldecisionsareappealabletotheCourtofAppeal.

InsomeinstancesthereisnorightofappealtotheAppealPanelfromaDivisionaldecisionbutthere isadirectappealallowedtotheSupremeCourt, often confined to a question of law. Forexample, LSD appeals go direct to the SupremeCourt. It is also possible for parties to proceeddirectlytotheSupremeCourtbywayofjudicialreview at any point while a matter is before aDivisionoranAppealPanel.

During the reporting period there were twoproceedings determined on originatingsummonses in the Common Law Division of theSupremeCourt.OneoriginatedintheGDandtheotherintheEOD.Bothwereunsuccessful.

During the reporting period there were nineCourt of Appeal decisions dealing with sevenseparate proceedings that arose from theTribunal. One each related to the CSD and RLD,two related to the EOD and three related to theGD.Theappellantsweresuccessfulintwoofthedecisionsandunsuccessfulintheremainder.

In addition to providing for rights of appeal tothe Supreme Court, the ADT Act also providesfor referrals of questions of law to the Court.In Assadourian v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Northern Region) [2011]NSWSC 1052 the Court commented on theproper procedure for referral of a question oflaw from the Tribunal to the Court. In that casethe referral-proceeding was first heard by aRegistrar of the Court of Appeal. By consentthe proceedings were then referred to a judgeoftheCommonLawDivision.Howeverwhentheproceeding came on for hearing the presidingjudge queried the correctness of the referral-by-consent. In the reasons for its decision theCourtconfirmeditsoppositiontotheprocedureused. Any referral from the Court of Appeal toa trial division of the Court must be made by ajudgeoftheCourtofAppeal.

Wecontinuetobeunabletoreportonthenumberof applications filed in the Supreme Court andCourt of Appeal that arise from the Tribunal.

It has proved increasingly difficult to trackoutward Supreme Court activity affecting theTribunal. There is no procedure of notificationfrom the Supreme Court Registry or from theparties.Werelyoninformalnotificationsforthemostpart,exceptwheretheTribunalisnamedasaparty.Wenowrelyentirelyonareviewofthepublished decisions of the Supreme Court andCourtofAppealtotrackactivitythereaffectingthe Tribunal. Accordingly the statistics nolongerseektoreportnumbersofapplicationsattheSupremeCourtaffectingtheTribunal.

Appendix F includes a summary of relevantCourtofAppealandsinglejudgerulingsforthereportingperiod.

Supreme CourtOversight

29

Mediation is one form of alternative disputeresolution available to parties under the ADTAct. The other form, neutral evaluation, is notcurrentlyinuse.

Mediationisastructurednegotiationprocessinwhichthemediator,asaneutralandindependentparty, assists the parties to achieve their ownresolutionofthedispute.Amattermayonlybereferredtomediationifallpartiesconsent.Itisprovidedatnocosttotheparties.

Seven trained mediators comprise the list ofmediators. The list is at the end of the list ofmembers in Appendix B. Two of the seven arealso members of the Tribunal. Those membersdonotsitifthemattergoesontoahearing.

Mediation is most widely used in the EOD. It isalsoused,toalesserextent,intheCSDandtheGD.

There were 67 mediations conducted this yearwith the following outcomes: 56 were resolvedat or after mediation, and only 11 went tohearing. The precise figures for this year areEOD: 48 mediations, with 42 settled at orfollowing mediation; GD: seven mediations,withfivesettledatorfollowingmediation;CSD:12 mediations, with 11 settled at or followingmediation.

The primary technique used to resolve casesprior to hearing in the Information Law streamin the GD is the planning meeting or caseconference. This process is very effective innarrowingtheissuesindisputeandcontributestoagoodpre-hearingsettlementrate.Referralsforreconsiderationbytheagencyisatechniquecommonly used in the RD. The statistics showthat over 60% of RD filings do not proceed tohearing. This figure tends to suggest that thepre-hearingprocedureissuccessfulinachievingagreedresolutions.

In the RLD, attempts at mediation are requiredof the parties prior to filing. Where theyfile directly to seek an urgent interim order,the practice is to deal with the interim orderapplication and then refer the dispute back totheRetailTenancyUnit.

The practice of the Tribunal is formallydocumented in its Act, Practice Notes andRules. The Rules of the Tribunal are found inthe Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules 1998. The experience of the Tribunal has beenthat it is more practical to deal with practiceand procedure issues via Practice Notes orGuidelines. The Parliament has recognised thevalue of using Practice Notes, and given theirusestatutoryforce.

Section91AoftheADTActprovides:

91A Practicenotes

(1) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal,thePresidentmayissuepracticenotesfortheTribunal inrelationtoanymatterwithrespecttowhichrulesmaybemade.

(2) A practice note must be published intheGazette.

(3)Sections40and41oftheInterpretation Act 1987 apply to a practice note in thesamewayastheyapplytoastatutoryrule.

The Tribunal has five operative Practice Notesand13operativeGuidelines.Thenewguidelinesthathaveissuedthisyearare:

• Appointing a Guardian Ad Litem:Guideline

• Publication, Anonymisation andSuppression:Guideline

• RLD:Guideline

• VETABReviews:Guideline

TheTribunalhasfiveusergroups:

• FreedomofInformation

• Privacy

• GuardianshipandProtectedEstates

• LSD

• RD

The LSD and Revenue groups met twice duringthe year. There were also meetings with theInformation Commissioner in connection withthechangesflowingfromtheGIPAreforms.

Legislative amendments

TherewerenoamendmentstotheADTActinthereportingperiod.

Practice andProcedure

Alternative DisputeResolution

30

Appendix A: Financial Information Administrative Decisions Tribunal & Legal Services Division Financial Information as at 30 June 20121

ADT LSD2 TOTAL

Actual Budget Variance Actual Actual

$ $ $ $ $

EmployeeRelatedPayments

(includingCrownLiabilities) 3,581,334 3,258,199 (323,135) 208,977 3,790,311

OtherOperatingExpenses 591,744 580,698 (11,046) 15,664 607,408

Depreciation 59,427 69,724 10,297 59,427

ExGratiaPayments 509 0 (509) 509

Maintenance 762 4,171 3,409 762

Total Expenditure 4,233,776 3,912,792 (320,984) 224,641 4,458,417

TotalRevenue3 (629,294) (958,516) (329,222) (224,641) (853,935)

Net Cost Of Services 3,604,482 2,954,276 (650,206) 0 3,604,482

Notes

1ThisappendixisbasedoninformationsuppliedbytheDAGJ.TheAuditOfficehadnotcompletedtheauditoftheDepartment’sfinancialstatementswhenthisinformationwassupplied.

Correction

Inthe2010-11AnnualReportitwasreportedthattheTribunalreceived$2,086,065inrevenueincludinganamountof$1,019.080recoupedfromtheRetailLeasesSecurityBondsInterestAccount.WhilstthisamountagreedtheamountactuallypaidinJune2012was$759,425.70includingGST.ThiswasapartialcontributionforthecostsofoperatingtheRLDfor2010-11.

LSD

2TheLSDisfundedbythePublicPurposeFund.AglobalamountiscontributedtowardstheoperatingcostsoftheTribunalandisincludedinthe”actual”and”budget”columnsoftheADT.Additionally,thecostsofmembers’feesandassociatedcostsandtranscriptionservicesprovidedtothatDivisionareseparatelyrecouped.ThesearetheamountsshownintheLSDcolumn.

Revenue

3TheTribunalreceived$853,935inrevenue.Ofthis,$815,948wasrecoupedfromthePublicPurposeFundforthecostofoperatingtheLSD.Thebalancewasgeneralrevenueitems.

Appendices

31

Appendix B: List of Members and Mediators

ThisisalistofmembersoftheTribunalduringthereportingperiod,organisedbyDivisions.Inthecaseof new members appointed during the current reporting period, their date of appointment is shownnexttotheirname.Inthecaseofacontinuingmember,theirfirstdateofappointmentisshownintherelevantpreviousannualreportunlesstheyheldappointmentstoformertribunalsandwerecontinuingundertransitionalprovisions.

IfamemberhasbeenassignedtomorethanoneDivision,thereisacorrespondingentryineachDivision.

ThePresidentisassignedtoallDivisionsinaccordancewiths21(1)oftheADTAct.

PRESIDENT JudgeKEVINPATRICKO’CONNOR,AMto9February2013DEPUTYPRESIDENT(Full-time)MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSYto7March2013Assignedassetoutbelow.

GENERAL DIVISION Current Expiry date

Divisional Head JudgeKEVINPATRICKO’CONNOR,AMPresident 09.02.13Deputy Presidents PETERRAYMONDCALLAGHAN,SC 31.10.13MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 07.03.13SIGRIDHIGGINS 09.05.13Hon.ActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC 31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.12JANEANNABELDARLINGNEEDHAM,SC 02.11.11

Judicial Members CATHERINELOUISEFITZGERALD 31.10.13STEPHENEDWARDFROST 31.10.12GAILBARTONFURNESS,SC 31.10.13CAROLYNHUNTSMAN 31.10.14NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.12SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.12PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13STEPHENHENRYMONTGOMERY 31.10.13

Non-judicial MembersZITAROSEANTONIOS 31.10.14MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13ROSSANDREWEDWARDFITZGERALD 18.12.12PETERCHARLESGOUDIE 31.10.13JANETTEBELVAMcCLELLAND 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13PHILIPPAJUDITHSMITH,AM 31.10.13MICHAELVONKOLPAKOW 31.10.13

Presidential Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 07.03.13 Judicial Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list LOUISEANNRACHELGOODCHILD 31.10.12PENELOPEHELENGOODE 31.10.11CAROLYNHUNTSMAN 31.10.14SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.12JULIANJOSEPHMILLAR 31.10.12PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13Non-judicial Members assigned to Guardianship and Protected Estates list MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13BARBARARUTHFIELD 31.10.12JENNIFERGREEN 31.10.12RALPHWILLIAMFRANCISMERRELL 31.10.14BRUCEGEOFFREYTHOMSON 31.10.14ANNDOMINICAWUNSCH 31.10.12Non-judicial Members, Accredited Certifier PETERGABRIELFRIEDMANN 31.10.12PHILIPARTHURHAYWARD 31.10.12GRAHAMJOHNMALLISON 31.10.12Non-judicial Members, Architects JANEMARGARETJOSE 31.10.13PATRICKJOHNO’CARRIGAN 31.10.13PETERROYWATTS,AM 31.10.13Non-judicial Members, Education TERENCERICHARDBURKE,AM 31.10.13ALANWILLIAMRICE,AM 31.10.13TREVORWOOTTEN 31.10.13

32

Non-judicial Members, Public Health ANNEMARIEHENNESSY 31.10.13RICHARDMATTHEWS,AM 31.10.13Non-judicial Members, Veterinary Surgeons Discipline MAGDOLINEAWAD 31.10.12TANYALORRAINECARTER 31.10.12FIONAJENNIFERCLARK 31.10.11ANDREWJONATHANDART 31.10.12PETERKENNETHKNIGHT 31.10.12ROSALIEJANEMAYO-RAMSAY 31.10.11

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION Divisional Head MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY,DeputyPresident 07.03.13Deputy Presidents MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14SIGRIDHIGGINS 09.05.13Hon.ActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC 31.10.12JANEANNABELDARLINGNEEDHAM,SC 02.11.11DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.12Judicial Members JENNIFERLOUISECONLEY 31.10.13GAILBARTONFURNESS,SC 31.10.13PENELOPEHELENGOODE 31.10.11CAROLYNHUNTSMAN 31.10.14NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.12RICHARDJOHNPERRIGNON 31.10.13SIMONJAMESRICE,OAM 31.10.11ANNESCAHILL 31.10.13JOHNALEXANDERSTEVENSWAKEFIELD 31.10.12ROBERTSONJAMESWRIGHT,SC 31.10.12Non-judicial Members ZITAROSEANTONIOS 31.10.14MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13BARBARARUTHFIELD 31.10.12MAREEJANEGILL 30.10.11DENNYGROTH 31.10.13ELAYNEHAYES 31.10.13ELSIEMARYHEISS 31.10.13NOELARTHURHIFFERNAN 31.10.14DINOOKELLEGHAN 31.10.13ANTHEAELISABETHLOWE 31.10.14JANETTEBELVAMcCLELLAND 31.10.13MIKEMUNIRNASIR 31.10.13JENNIFERLESSNEWMAN 31.10.13MAURICEMICHAELO’SULLIVAN 31.10.11JOACHIMSCHNEEWEISS,AM 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13PHILIPPAJUDITHSMITH,AM 31.10.13TREVORWOOTTEN 31.10.13

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION Divisional Head SIGRIDHIGGINS 09.05.13Judicial Members LOUISEANNRACHELGOODCHILD 31.10.12SUZANNEMAREELEAL 31.10.12PETERHENRYMOLONY(from25.11.11) 31.10.13

Non-judicial Members MARYELIZABETHBOLT 31.10.13PHILIPFOREMAN 31.10.13JANEGOODMAN-DELAHUNTY 31.10.13JENNIFERGREEN 31.10.12DENNYGROTH 31.10.13JOHNVINCENTLEBRETON 31.10.12JANMASON 31.10.13

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION Divisional Head Hon.JusticeWAYNEROGERHAYLEN,DeputyPresident 15.06.14Deputy Presidents MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN 19.10.14Hon.ActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC 31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.12Barrister Members PAULEDWINBLACKET,SC 31.10.12SHARRONNORTON,SC 31.10.14LIONELPHILIPROBBERDS,QC 31.10.14ROBERTSONJAMESWRIGHT,SC 31.10.12Solicitor Members MICHAELJAMESBARNES 31.10.13JOHNSYDNEYCURRIE 31.10.12DAVIDGRAHAMFAIRLIE 31.10.12SANDRANERYLHALE 31.10.12NAIDAISENBERG 31.10.12Hon.GRAHAMROBERTMULLANE 31.10.12JOHANNAPHEILS 31.10.13MICHELLEANNERIORDAN 31.10.13JOHNALEXANDERSTEVENSWAKEFIELD 31.10.12Non-judicial Members CARLDONALDBENNETT 31.10.13JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13ROSSANDREWEDWARDFITZGERALD 18.12.12ELAYNEHAYES 31.10.13SIMONROBERTHAYES 31.10.13Hon.JOHNTINGLE 31.10.13

RETAIL LEASES DIVISION Divisional Head MICHAELRAINSFORDCHESTERMAN,DeputyPresident 19.10.14Deputy Presidents PETERRAYMONDCALLAGHAN,SC 31.10.13MagistrateNANCYLOUISEHENNESSY 07.03.13SIGRIDHIGGINS 09.05.13Hon.ActingJudgeRODNEYNEVILLEMADGWICK,QC 31.10.12DAVIDLOUTHEANPATTEN 31.10.12Judicial Members DENNISBLUTH 31.10.14ROBBERTJOHNFOX 31.10.11MARGARETCOLLEENHOLE,AM 31.10.13PETERHENRYMOLONY 31.10.13STEPHENHENRYMONTGOMERY 31.10.13Hon.GRAHAMROBERTMULLANE(from03.08.11) 31.10.12KIMBERESFORDRICKARDS 31.10.12

33

Non-judicial Members JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13BRIANTERRYHARRISON 31.10.12ERICMICHAELJAMESLONIE 31.10.13GARYJOHNPINTER 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13TERENCEJAMESTYLER 31.10.12

REVENUE DIVISION Divisional Head JANEANNABELDARLINGNEEDHAM,SC 02.11.11

Judicial Members JULIANBLOCK 31.10.13STEPHENEDWARDFROST 31.10.12MARGARETCOLLEENHOLE,AM 31.10.13RICHARDJOHNPERRIGNON 31.10.13AMARJITSINGHVERICK 31.10.13

Non-judicial Members CARLDONALDBENNETT 31.10.13JUDITHFRANCESBUTLIN 31.10.13DANNYKOUTOULAS 31.10.13JANELOUISESCHWAGER,AO 31.10.13

MEDIATORS ListofMediatorsunders106oftheADTAct

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION LEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHSIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURY

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION ZITAROSEANTONIOSLEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHSIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURYJILLIANMOIR

GENERAL DIVISION – GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTED ESTATES MATTERS ZITAROSEANTONIOSLEIGHBAKERPENELOPEHELENGOODEDENNYGROTHASHLEYLIMBURY

GENERAL DIVISION – ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PRIVACY MATTERS ZITAROSEANTONIOSPENELOPEHELENGOODESIGRIDHIGGINSASHLEYLIMBURYJILLIANMOIR

34

Principal LegislationAdministrativeDecisionsTribunalAct1997AdministrativeDecisionsTribunal(General)Regulation2009AdministrativeDecisionsTribunalRules1998

Primary LegislationAboriginalLandsRightsAct1983AdoptionAct2000AgriculturalLivestock(DiseaseControlFunding)Act1998AirTransportAct1964AnimalResearchAct1985Anti-DiscriminationAct1977ApiariesAct1985ArchitectsAct2003AssociationsIncorporationAct2009Births,DeathsandMarriagesRegistrationAct1995BuildingandConstructionIndustrySecurityofPaymentAct1999BuildingProfessionalsAct2005CharitableFundraisingAct1991ChildProtection(InternationalMeasures)Act2006ChildProtection(OffendersRegistration)Act2000Children(EducationandCareServicesNationalLawApplication)Act2010Children(EducationandCareServices)SupplementaryProvisionsRegulation2004ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Act1998ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Regulation2000Children’sServicesRegulation2004CoalIndustryAct2001CoalMineHealthandSafetyAct2002CoalMineHealthandSafetyRegulation2006CombatSportsAct2008CommercialAgentsandPrivateInquiryAgentsAct2004CommissionforChildrenandYoungPeopleAct1998CommunityJusticeCentresAct1983CommunityServices(Complaints,ReviewsandMonitoring)Act1993ConveyancersLicensingAct2003Co-operativeHousingandStarr-BowkettSocietiesAct1998DeerAct2006DisabilityServicesAct1993DrugandAlcoholTreatmentAct2007EducationAct1990EducationandCareServicesNationalRegulationsElectricitySupplyAct1995Electricity(ConsumerSafety)Act2004EntertainmentIndustryAct1989ExhibitedAnimalsProtectionAct1986ExplosivesAct2003FairTradingAct1987

FirearmsAct1996FirearmsRegulation2006FirstHomeOwnerGrantAct2000FisheriesManagementAct1994FoodAct2003FoodRegulation2010ForestryAct1916GameandFeralAnimalControlAct2002GamingMachinesAct2001GasSupplyAct1996GovernmentInformation(PublicAccess)Act2009GuardianshipAct1987GuardianshipRegulation2005HealthCareComplaintsAct1993HealthPractitionerRegulationNationalLawRegulationHealthRecordsandInformationPrivacyAct2002HempIndustryAct2008HigherEducationAct2001HomeBuildingAct1989HomeBuildingRegulation2004HousingAct2001HunterWaterAct1991ImpoundingAct1993InstituteofTeachersAct2004LegalProfessionAct2004LicensingandRegistration(UniformProcedures)Act2002LiquorAct2007LocalGovernmentAct1993LotteriesandArtUnionsAct1901MarineSafetyAct1998MentalHealthRegulation2007MineHealthandSafetyAct2004MineHealthandSafetyRegulation2007MotorAccidentsCompensationAct1999MotorDealersAct1974MotorVehicleRepairsAct1980MotorVehicleSports(PublicSafety)Act1985MountPanoramaMotorRacingAct1989NativeTitle(NewSouthWales)Act1994Non-IndigenousAnimalsAct1987NSWTrusteeandGuardianAct2009OccupationalLicensing(AdoptionofNationalLaw)Act2010OmbudsmanAct1974PassengerTransportAct1990PawnbrokersandSecond-handDealersAct1996PesticidesAct1999PhotoCardAct2005PlantDiseasesAct1924PoliceAct1990PowersofAttorneyAct2003PrivacyandPersonalInformationProtectionAct1998PrivateHealthFacilitiesAct2007Property,StockandBusinessAgentsAct2002PublicHealthAct2010

Appendix C: Legislation

35

PublicLotteriesAct1996RacingAdministrationAct1998RailSafetyAct2008RegionalRelocation(HomeBuyersGrant)Act2011RegisteredClubsAct1976RelationshipsRegisterAct2010ResidentialTenanciesAct2010RetailLeasesAct1994RetailTradingAct2008RiceMarketingAct1983RoadTransport(General)Act2005RoadTransport(SafetyandTrafficManagement)Act1999SecurityIndustryAct1997StateWaterCorporationAct2004SurveyingandSpatialInformationAct2002SydneyWaterAct1994SydneyWaterCatchmentManagementAct1998TattooParloursAct2012TaxationAdministrationAct1996ie BettingTaxAct2001 DutiesAct1997 GamingMachineTaxAct2001 HealthInsuranceLeviesAct1982 InsuranceProtectionTaxAct2001 LandTaxAct1956 LandTaxManagementAct1956 ParkingSpaceLevyAct1992 PayrollTaxAct2007 PayrollTaxRebateScheme(Disability

Employment)Act2011PayrollTaxRebateScheme(JobsActionPlan)Act2011

ThoroughbredRacingAct1996TimberMarketingAct1977TowTruckIndustryAct1998TravelAgentsAct1986TravelAgentsRegulation2006ValuersAct2003VeterinaryPracticeAct2003WeaponsProhibitionAct1998WoolHideandSkinDealersAct2004WorkHealthandSafetyRegulation2011WorkplaceInjuryManagementandWorkersCompensationAct1998YouthandCommunityServicesAct1973

36

Appendix D: Case Load and Time Standards

Case Load

AllDivisions AppealPanel-Internal

Applications Applications Applications Appeals Appeals Appeals Lodged Completed Pending(a) Lodged Completed Pending(a)

1998-1999 625(b) 234 391(c) 8 2 6

1999-2000 568 619 340 44 20 30

2000-2001 666 629 377 53 45 38

2001-2002 695 642 430 61 59 40

2002-2003 766 817 379 73 67 46

2003-2004 908 791 496 65 89 21

2004-2005 919 910 505 77 59 39

2005-2006 969 913 561 82 74 47

2006-2007 1009 954 616 80 76 51

2007-2008 989 955 650 83 84 50

2008-2009 990 952 672 75 82 42

2009-2010 871 988 537 85 84 41

2010-2011 864 933 466 57 62 35

2011-2012 956 845 571 47 56 24

Total 11795 11182 571 890 859 24

NOTESTOTABLE(a)Thefiguresrecordedinthecolumns“ApplicationsPending”and“AppealsLodged”havenotbeenretrospectivelyauditedor

reconciledwitheitherpreviousorsucceedingperiods.(b)Includes257transferredfrompredecessortribunalsandDistrictCourton6October1998and1January1999(c)Dateofcommencement:6October1998

Appeal - External

Appeals Appeals Appeals Lodged Completed Pending

2002-2003(a) 1 0 0

2003-2004 28 21 8

2004-2005 19 21 6

2005-2006 17 18 5

2006-2007 15 14 6

2007-2008 21 19 8

2008-2009 20 22 4

2009-2010 20 19 5

2010-2011 13 14 4

2011-2012 10 10 4

Total 164 158 4

NOTESTOTABLE(a)Externalappealsjurisdictioncommenced–28February2003

37

Time Standards

Asat1July2012theTribunal’sperformanceagainstitstimestandardswas:(target appears in brackets)

GD· 63%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 84%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–90%

CSD· 69%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 90%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–1%

EOD · 68%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(80%)· 88%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan2years(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–82%

RLD· 77%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 94%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–98%

RD· 48%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(85%)· 81%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–68%

LSD · 26%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan9months(90%)· 52%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–1%

Appeals (InternalAppealsfromappealabledecisionsoftheTribunalandExternalAppeals)· 50%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan6months(80%)· 95%ofmattersdisposedofinlessthan1year(100%)

· Clearanceratio*–115%

*Clearanceratioisthepercentageofcasesdisposedofdividedbycaseslodgedoverthelast12months.

38

Appendix E: StatisticsGeneral Division 1/7/2011 - 30/6/2012

1. Case flow 2011-2012

Matterspendingat1July2011 NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2012 169 371 336 204

2. Applications by type 2011-2012

ApplicationsforOriginalDecision Applicationsforreview ProfessionalDiscipline 0 370 1

3. Applications by Act 2011-2012

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 5 Building Professionals Act 2005 2 Business Names Act 2002 2 Education Act 1990 1 Explosives Act 2003 3 Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 1 Firearms Act 1996 34 Fisheries Management Act 1994 1 GIPA 102 Guardianship Act 1987 4 Home Building Act 1989 24 HRIPA 9 Hemp Industry Act 1 Impounding Act 1993 2 Motor Dealers Act 1974 1 Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 4 Non Indigenous Animals Act 1987 1 NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 22 PPIPA 39 Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 9 Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 1 Passenger Transport Act 1990 72 Security Industry Act 1997 19 Surveying and Spatial Information Act 2002 1 Tow Truck Industry Act 1998 10

4. Outcomes in Review matters 2011-2012

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunder Mixedresult- Privacy- Privacy- Privacy- No application under reviewsetaside/ Partlyaffirmed/ contravention contravention application Jurisdiction withdrawn/no review varied/remitted/ Partlysetaside -noaction ordermade dismissedappearance/agreement affirmed recommendation variedor reached made remitted

185 91 45 2 3 4 5 1

39

5. Outcomes in Original matters 2011-2012

Dismissedbecauseapplication Applicationgranted Applicationrefused NoJurisdiction withdrawn/noappearance/ agreementreached 0 0 0 0

6. Outcomes in Professional Discipline 2011-2012

Dismissed Ordersmade Applicationwithdrawndismissed No juridisdiction 0 1 0 0

7. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 212 Disposedofinunder12months 71 Disposedofinover12months 40 Disposedofinover2years 13

8. Mediation

No.ofdisposalswheremediation wasconducted SettledatorafterMediation ProceededtoHearing 7 5 4

Guardianship and Protected Estates List 1/7/2011-30/6/2012 Note: ThisinformationalsoformspartoftheGDstatistics.TheListhastwocomponentsofactivity:ExternalAppeals,andGDReviews.TheExternalAppealsstatisticsareprovidedbelow.AstotheGDReviews,moredetailedstatisticsthanthosethatappearintheGDtable.

1. Case Flow-Guardianship and Protected Estates Review Matters 2011-2012

Pendingat1July2011 NewApplicationsFiled Disposals Pendingat30June2012 9 26 30 5

2. Applications for Review 2011-2012 NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 26

3. Outcomes in Review Matters under the Guardianship Act and the Protected Estates Act 2011-2012

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunderreview Mixedresult- No Total applicationwithdrawn/ underreview setaside/varied/ Partlyaffirmed/ Jurisdiction noappearance/ affirmed remitted/ Partlysetaside agreementreached recommendationmade varied orremitted 14 14 2 0 0 30

4. Timeliness-time from date of application to date of disposal Disposedofinunder6months 24 Disposedofinunder12months 4 Disposedofinover12months 2 Disposedofinover2years 0

40

Community Services Division 1/7/2011 - 30/6/2012

1. Case flow 2011-2012

Matterspendingat1July2011 NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2012

28 42 42 28

2. Applications by type 2011-2012

Applicationsfororiginaldecision Applicationsforreview

8 34

3. Applications by Act 2011-2012

ChildrenandYoungPersons(CareandProtection)Act1988 34

CCYPAct 7

DisabilityServicesAct1993 1

4. Outcomes - Reviewable Decisions 2011-2012

Dismissedbecause Decision Decisionunderreview Mixedresult- No applicationwithdrawn/no underreview setaside/varied/ Partlyaffirmed/ Jurisdiction/ appearance/agreement affirmed remitted/recommendation Partlysetaside Jurisdiction reached made variedorremitted Declined

26 2 2 0 1

5. Outcomes- Original Decisions 2011-2012

Dismissedbecause Declaration DeclarationRefused No Jurisdiction applicationwithdrawn/no Made appearance/agreementreached 6 3 1 1

6. Mediation 2011-2012

No.ofdisposalswhere mediationwasconducted SettledatMediation SettledafterMediation ProceededtoHearing

12 3 8 1

7. Timeliness - time from date of application to date of disposal

Disposedofinunder6months 28

Disposedofinunder12months 9

Disposedofinover12months 4

Disposedofinover2years 1

41

Equal Opportunity Division 1/7/2011- 30/6/2012 1. Case flow 2011- 2012

Matterspendingat NewApplicationsfiled Disposals Pendingat30June2012 1July2011

73 175 144 104

2. Applications by type 2011-2012

Referralsofcomplaints Applicationfor Applicationsfor Applicationsfor Applicationfor byPresidentof registrationof leavetoproceed interimorders ExemptionAnti-DiscriminationBoard conciliationagreement

141 4 23 7 0

3. Referral applications filed in 2011 – 2012 by Ground

Headofdiscrimination Number Race 30 Disabilitydiscrimination 43 Sexualharassment 18 Sexdiscrimination 14 Victimisation 5 Carersresponsibilities 11 Agediscrimination 6 Homosexualvilification 7 Homosexualdiscrimination 4 Pregnancydiscrimination 1 Transgendervilification 1 HIV/AIDSvilification 1

4A. Outcomes of Referrals 2011-2012

Dismissedbecause Summar