1. The Tribunal referred in the previous application to the various authorities which address the matters which should be considered before any request for stay or adjournment of civil proceedings in light of criminal prosecution.[2] The Tribunal, in considering how these principles should operate in the Tribunal setting, identified as the central question whether the interests of justice required a stay balancing the potential for prejudice to the Respondent and the public interest in timely decision-making by the Tribunal.[3]
2. I agree with that assessment. However, as can be seen, there have been substantial developments in this matter since the second stay application was made. The charges against the Applicant have now been clarified, the criminal prosecution is ramping up, there is potential for conflict between the proposed witnesses in each proceeding, and there is a clear forensic disadvantage to the Applicant should this proceeding precede the criminal proceedings.
3. There is another matter I have considered, which is the notoriety of the issues attending both proceedings. I am not confident in the present circumstances that the issues attending in either matter would not attract attention, including from the media, given they concern the operation of childcare centres. This raises the concern about whether the Applicant's election to have her proceeding heard in private under s 14ZZE of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) would be sufficient to protect her identity in this proceeding should the two proceedings be heard at the same time. This impacts my consideration of the question of the proper balancing of the public interest in terms of the criminal proceedings.
4. I acknowledge there will be prejudice to the Respondent from the delay of these proceedings given the age of the evidence. In saying this, I note that the Respondent no longer opposes the stay application. I would also observe that these proceedings were filed in 2019 and concern the financial years ended 2003 to 2014. They are already aged.
5. I have made directions to place the proceedings into abeyance for twelve months. At the end of that time, an application for extension of these directions will need to be made setting out information relevant to the issues between the two proceedings as they stand at that point in time. In the meantime, the solicitor for the Applicant will be required to report to the Tribunal and the Respondent regularly about the progress of the criminal proceedings, as well as confirming that they continue to be instructed. These steps are being taken in line with the Tribunal's obligation in s 9(b) of the ART Act to ensure the Tribunal is periodically updated about the matter so it can be effectively managed.

1. These proceedings be held in abeyance until 5 August 2026.
2. The Applicant is to provide an update in writing to the Tribunal with a copy to the Respondent on the progress of any prosecution of the Applicant on or before the following dates:
   1. 5 December 2025; and
   2. 7 April 2026.
3. The Applicant's solicitor is to write to the Tribunal and the Respondent within 7 days if they are no longer instructed in these proceedings and to advise the name (if relevant) of the new legal representative.
4. A telephone directions hearing in these matters will be listed for 10:00AM on 10 August 2026.
5. The Applicant has leave to file an application for extension of direction 1 in writing with the Tribunal on or before 31 July 2025 and to provide a copy of that application to the Respondent.

Litigation and Legal Services, Australian Taxation Office

[2] Ransley v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 778; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2016] FCAFC 97; (2016) 242 FCR 153; Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao [2015] HCA 5; (2015) 255 CLR 46; McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202 per Mc Mahon J at [206]-[207]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2019] FCA 964 at [51] per Moshinsky J.

[3] [22]. In accordance with the Tribunal's objects in s 9(a) and (b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act).