• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. The Bolarams are unhappy with a decision of the Construction Occupations Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy in relation to a dwelling they have constructed at 7 Dawn Crescent, Lawson 2617 (the Primary Decision). They have unsuccessfully pursued several different avenues for review of the Primary Decision. The Bolarams are self-represented and they are very frustrated with a number of inadequacies or anomalies they perceive in the process applying to approval of building works in the ACT. Born of that frustration, they have commenced these proceedings seeking judicial review of a particular decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the ACAT or Tribunal). I will return to that decision shortly.

2. There are many parties named as defendants to the application for judicial review, 27 in total. Other than the Tribunal itself and the Territory, they are all individuals who are identified by the Bolarams as having had a hand in frustrating their desire to secure a certificate of occupancy and use for their property.

3. There are presently three applications before me: (a) The Territory, as one of the named defendants and on behalf of a number of others, requests the dismissal of the proceedings, either on the basis they are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process because of the ACAT decisions already made, or alternatively because the ultimate relief sought, being the grant of a certificate of occupancy, is not relief that is available from this court. (b) The Bolarams seek an urgent listing before the Chief Justice for orders: (i) directing each of the defendants to the originating application to file affidavits and supporting material identifying all documents relied upon in their decision-making process and their reasons for decision in compliance with s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT); (ii) directing the Registrar to issue an immediate certificate of occupancy and use for the property; and (iii) directing the immediate issue of a certificate of compliance pursuant to s 296 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT). (c) The Bolarams, by their second application, seek priority in the determination of their first application before any consideration is given to the application made by the Territory.

4. The Bolarams read in support of their applications, the affidavits of Mr Bolaram affirmed on: (a) 25 March 2026. (b) 11 December 2025. (c) 13 October 2025.

5. In support of their application the Territory reads the affidavit of Anne Martens, solicitor with carriage in respect of some of the defendants, affirmed on 15 December 2025.

The decision subject to review

6. The particular proceeding in ACAT which is the subject of the application for judicial review is XD 519/2025. The defendant named in the application is Nicholas Lhuede, who was at the material time the Construction Occupations Registrar.

7. In those proceedings, the Bolarams sought an immediate order for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and use for Block 5 section 45 Lawson ACT, citing: …prolonged procedural delays, ongoing discrimination, and harassment by the Construction Occupations Registrar, ACAT itself and related ACT Government officials based on ACAT Flawed Decisions which encouraging Public Office Abuse, Crime, Discrimination, Perpetration, Civil Wrongs, Violations and endangering our lives. The broader procedural history th

8. On 3 December 2019, Jade Walters, a building inspector and the 14 defendant in these proceedings, issued a stop notice for building work on the property pursuant to s 53 of the Building Act 2004 (ACT). A stop notice has the effect of prohibiting the carrying out of any further building work while the notice remains in place.

9. On 21 May 2020, the Deputy Construction Occupations Registrar refused to cancel the stop notice under s 55 of the Building Act following an application lodged by the Bolarams for cancellation of the notice. The Bolarams then commenced civil proceedings against the Territory and a number of the other named defendants in tort, nuisance and under the Australian Consumer Law in XD 544/2020. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal in Bolaram v ACT (Civil Dispute) [2020] ACAT 108. The Bolarams appealed that decision to an appeal panel in AA 2/2021. In the course of its reasons in Bolaram v ACT (Appeal) [2021] ACAT 64, the Tribunal noted Mr Bolaram had continued to carry out building work at the site while the stop notice was in force. The Tribunal observed at [49]: [49]…arising from the notice the appellant had apparently been making intimidatory accusations of the kind mentioned above over many months against public officers of the Territory for doing nothing more than upholding and administering the law. It would appear that his purpose was and remains to bully his way to approval of a non-compliant building. If tactics of this kind succeed, the rule of law deteriorates.

10. On 23 February 2023, the Registrar refused to issue a certificate of occupancy or use for the property. The Bolarams then sought administrative review of that decision (AT 24/2023). As the application essentially sought orders granting a certificate of occupancy, the Tribunal found it was not authorised in law to grant the relief sought, and the decision under review was confirmed in Bolaram v Construction Occupation Registrar (Administrative Review) [2023] ACAT 61. The Bolarams raised a number of concerns about the grounds relied upon by the Registrar in refusing to issue a certificate of occupancy. The Tribunal clearly had some sympathy in relation to a number of those grounds, accepting their validity. It concluded, at [89]-[90]: [89]…It is apparent that the work needed to get the Certificate may not be extensive, but a new application is required under section 69(2B) of the Act using the Form Annexure P to Ms Bayers statement and complying with guidance provided by the respondent in its publication at Annexure Q of the Statement. [90] In a general sense, Mr Bolaram has succeeded in building an impressive home for his young family, and it is unfortunate that the time has been lost by unsuccessful litigation and some unfortunate certification.

11. For reasons that are unclear, the Bolarams elected not to take up the express invitation of the Tribunal to proceed by way of lodgement of a fresh application for a certificate of occupancy. Instead, they appealed the Tribunal’s decision. That appeal was lodged 18 months out of time. Leave for an extension of time to file the appeal was refused on 7 May 2025 on the basis of a failure to provide a persuasive explanation for delay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

12. The proceedings in respect of which judicial review is sought were filed on 23 April 2025. As I have observed above, the Bolarams again sought orders for the immediate issue of a certificate of occupancy and use. As the new application was seen to traverse the same ground as that dismissed previously, and to be wrongly framed as a civil claim, the Territory filed an application for its dismissal under s 32(2)(b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), which provides: 32 Dismissing or striking out applications … (2) The tribunal may, by order, do 1 or more of the following: … (b) dismiss the application or part of the application; …

13. The application by the Territory was successful and the proceedings were dismissed on 2 September 2025. The Tribunal’s reasons for doing so included at Transcript, Bolaram v Lhuede (ACAT, XD 519/2025, Senior Member Hawkins), 2 September 2025 at 125.10: The ACAT is a creature of statute and can only deal with those matters where there is an authorising law. The applicants filed a civil dispute. The legislation to which the applicants rely upon do not provide for a civil dispute to be made to the tribunal…It follows, therefore, that I am satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious and lacking in substance and must be dismissed pursuant to s 32(2)(b) of the ACAT Act.

14. The Bolarams lodged an application for appeal from the 2 September 2025 decision. In their appeal they sought relief as follows: 1. Set aside the strike-out decision made on 2 September 2025. 2. Reinstate the substantive hearing of XD 519/2025. 3. Consolidate matters XD 519/2025 and XD 712/2025. 4. Order the immediate issuance of the Certificate of occupancy and Use under section 69(2) of the Building Act [sic] the Building Certifier’s recommendation. 5. Initiate an independent inquiry into misconduct by Tribunal members, Registrar staff, and ACT Government S[sic]. 6. Award costs and damages for harm caused, including medical, reputational, professional, and personal injury. 7. Request for Fee Waiver.

15. Interim emergency orders were also sought for “immediate issuance of the certificate of occupancy and use under s 69(2) of the Building Act 2004” and an “urgent order to cease ongoing judicial and public office abuse…”.

16. The appeal proceedings are AA 83/2025. An application seeking to adjourn the appeal proceedings and the appeal itself were dismissed on 17 December 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and lacking in substance. In the course of her reasons, Presidential Member Robinson, as her Honour then was, observed in Bolaram v Lhuede (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 9 (the Appeal Decision) at [63]- [64]: [63] In the original application, the appellants sought an order that either the Tribunal issue, or the COR be directed to issue, a Certificate of Occupation under section 69(2) of the Building Act. They have not articulated any basis upon which the original tribunal, sitting in its civil jurisdiction, or this Appeal Tribunal, could make either Order. The application is doomed to fail. This alone is sufficient basis to strike out this part of the appeal application. [64] However, even were this not the case, the question of the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy and the use of the property was the subject of previous proceedings in the tribunal’s administrative review jurisdiction — see Bolaram v Construction Occupations Registrar [2023] ACAT 61, decided 12 October 2023. Those proceedings were brought, appropriately, in the tribunal’s Administrative Review jurisdiction. If the applicants were dissatisfied with the outcome of that decision the appropriate thing for them to have done would have been to appeal that decision. The Original Tribunal could not review it through collateral civil process, and nor can this Appeal Tribunal. The basis for the application to dismiss

17. The Territory seeks relief in the form of summary judgment in its favour or summary dismissal of the proceedings pursuant to r 1147 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), or alternatively dismissal of the proceedings pursuant to r 3566. As the originating proceedings seek judicial review of the Tribunal proceeding, it is the latter rule which is most apposite. Rule 3566 provides: 3566 Judicial review—power of the court to stay or dismiss applications in certain circumstances (1) The court may, by order, stay or dismiss a judicial review application, or a claim for relief in a judicial review application, if the court considers that— (a) it would be inappropriate— (i) for the proceeding in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or (ii) to grant the application or claim (including, for an application for a statutory order of review, because the Judicial Review Act, section 8 (2) (b) (Effect of Act on other rights) applies); or (b) the application is incompetent; or (c) no reasonable basis for the application or claim is disclosed; or (d) the application or claim is frivolous or vexatious; or (e) the application or claim is an abuse of the court’s process. Note The registrar may also reject a document that is filed if it does not comply with these rules (see r 6140 (Rejecting documents—noncompliance with rules etc) or if it is an abuse of the court’s process or is frivolous or vexatious (see r 6142 (Rejecting documents— abuse of process etc)). (2) A power of the court under this rule may be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding but, in relation to the power to dismiss an application, the court must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time. (3) The court may make an order under this rule on application by a party to the proceeding or on its own initiative. Note Pt 6.2 (Applications in proceedings) applies to an application for an order. (4) The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under this rule.

18. When the Territory’s application was lodged, the appeal proceedings in AA 83/2025 were yet to be determined. One of the grounds for dismissal of the application was, at the time of filing, the relief sought in these proceedings was akin to the relief sought in the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal and, as a consequence, these proceedings were an abuse of process. That ground no longer applies. The alternative basis for the application was the lack of utility in the proceedings. As was the case before the Tribunal, the Territory submits the relief sought in the nature of a grant of a particular certificate of occupancy is not, in the context of the proceedings under review, relief that can be given by this court. The same relief has been sought and refused in the Tribunal. The primary ACAT application itself lacked jurisdiction because of the lack of power in the Tribunal to grant the relief sought in the nature of the urgent issuing of a certificate of occupancy. The same fundamental difficulty applies in these proceedings.

19. The Territory submits, as the proceedings are destined to fail, they should be dismissed.

The pathways to issue of a certificate of occupancy under the Building Act

20. It is relevant to have some understanding of the process by which a party may obtain a certificate of occupancy in respect of a residential construction.

21. Section 69 of the Building Act is in the following terms: 69 Certificates of occupancy (1) The construction occupations registrar must issue a certificate of occupancy for building work that involves the erection or alteration of a building if, on application by the owner of the parcel of land where the building work was carried out, the registrar is satisfied that— (a) the building work has been completed in accordance with the prescribed requirements for the building work; and (b) the building as erected or as altered is fit for occupation and use as a building of the class stated in the approved plans for that building work; and (d) if required by regulation—the application includes a building manual for the building work approved by the certifier in accordance with section 48A. Note 1 If the building work only involved erecting part of a building, see s (3). Note 2 Power to make a decision includes power to reverse or change the decision (see Legislation Act, s 180). (2) If building work involving the erection or alteration of a building as completed is not strictly in accordance with the prescribed requirements for the building work but is substantially in accordance with the requirements, the construction occupations registrar may, on application made by the owner of the parcel of land where the building work has been carried out, issue a certificate that the building as erected or as altered is fit for occupation and use as a building of the class stated in the approved plans for that building work. (2A) The owner of a parcel of land where building work was carried out may apply for a certificate under subsection (2B). (2B) The construction occupations registrar may issue a certificate in relation to a building that the building as erected or altered is fit for occupation and use as a building of the class stated in the certificate if— (a) the registrar is not satisfied on reasonable grounds that building work involving the erection or alteration of the building has been completed in accordance, or substantially in accordance, with the prescribed requirements for the building work; and Note Prescribed requirements—see s 66. (b) the applicant has completed any certification process prescribed by regulation in relation to the building or building work; and (c) the building, or building work, is not excluded by regulation from this subsection. (2C) A certificate mentioned in subsection (2B) in relation to a building must include a statement to the effect that— (a) the construction occupations registrar is not satisfied on reasonable grounds that building work involving the erection or alteration of the building has been completed in accordance, or substantially in accordance, with the prescribed requirements for the building work; and Note Prescribed requirements—see s 66. (b) the giving of the certificate does not affect the liability of anyone to comply with the provisions of a territory law (including this Act) in relation to the building; and Note See s 68 (Effect of certificates under div 5.1). (c) part 6 (Residential building work—warranties, conditions, insurance etc) may not apply to the building work. (3) If part of a building has been erected in accordance with the prescribed requirements so far as they relate to the part of the building, the construction occupations registrar may, on an application made by the owner of a parcel of land where the building is being erected, issue a certificate that the part of the building is fit for occupation and use as a part of a building of the class stated in the approved plans in relation to the building work. (4) A regulation may prescribe— (a) matters that must be considered by the construction occupations registrar in deciding whether a building is fit for occupation and use; and (b) requirements that must be satisfied before a certificate of occupancy may be issued. Note 1 Power to make a statutory instrument (including a regulation) includes power to make different provision in relation to different matters or different classes of matters, and to make an instrument that applies differently by reference to stated exceptions or factors (see Legislation Act, s 48). Note 2 Unless prescribed by regulation, the construction occupations registrar is not required to conduct a physical inspection of a building or a detailed audit of the approved plans or other submitted documents in deciding whether to issue a certificate of occupancy.

22. When the Bolarams initially lodged their application for a certificate of occupancy, they did so under s 69(2). For clarity, when the Registrar refused their application for a certificate of occupancy, the Bolarams sought a review in the Tribunal. The Tribunal decision is Bolaram v Construction Occupation Registrar (Administrative Review) [2023] ACAT 61. The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision to refuse a certificate. Leave to appeal that decision was refused as detailed above.

The judicial review proceeding

23. The grounds relied upon in support of the application for judicial review are not articulated in any significant detail in the originating process. In short, the Bolarams contend the Registrar is bound to act upon a valid application for a certificate of occupancy. In the processes adopted by the Registrar, they say there was a denial of natural justice in the display of favouritism towards the other parties. The process adopted by the Tribunal involves systemic abuse and administrative misconduct. As the Bolarams are self-represented, I endeavoured in the course of oral submissions to explore in more detail the matters of contention sought to be raised. They can be summarised as follows: (a) Not being able to deal directly with the defendants and flesh out the issues. (b) Discretionary matters impacting the decisions which has led to unfairness about the way the applications are being dealt with. (c) The capacity and capability of decision-makers in dealing with the applications. (d) Multiple breaches of the Rules and not having an opportunity to address the real issues. (e) Minor changes to the plans which were approved by the certifier and on whose advice further applications to the Registrar was not made. (f) Bushfire Attack Level compliance issues which have been addressed. (g) The impact of this litigation on Mr Bolaram’s health and on his family.

24. The application is framed as an application for relief pursuant to s 11 of the AD(JR) Act. Perhaps with more relevance to the application as framed, s 5 of the Act provides: 5 Applications for review of decisions (1) An eligible person may apply to the Supreme Court for an order of review in relation to a decision to which this Act applies on 1 or more of the following grounds: (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice happened in relation to the making of the decision; (b) that procedures that were required by law to be observed in relation to the making of the decision were not observed; (c) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision; (d) that the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made; (e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power given by the enactment under which it was purported to be made; (f) that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision; (g) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud; (h) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision; (i) that the decision was otherwise contrary to law. Note The Human Rights Act 2004, s 40B (1) (b) makes it unlawful for a public authority to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right when making a decision. (2) The reference in subsection (1) (e) to an improper exercise of a power includes a reference to— (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and (b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and (c) an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is given; and (d) an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith; and (e) an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person; and (f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case; and (g) an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power; and (h) an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and (i) any other exercise of a power in a way that is abuse of the power. (3) The ground mentioned in subsection (1) (h) is not taken to be made out unless— (a) the person who made the decision was required by law to reach that decision only if a particular matter was established, and there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which the person was entitled to take notice) from which the person could reasonably be satisfied that the matter was established; or (b) the person who made the decision based the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist.

25. It seems the essence of the complaint made by the Bolarams is there was a denial of natural justice in the process adopted in considering their application for a certificate of occupancy and that procedures required by law to be followed in making the decision were not followed. The role of this Court in judicial review proceedings

26. The court, having jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding under the AD(JR) Act, must in the context of the present application consider the matters set out in r 3566(1). The court may dismiss the application for reasons including where it is inappropriate for the proceeding to be continued, where no reasonable basis for the application is disclosed or where the application is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court’s process.

27. Upon application under the rule, the court is called upon to make a discretionary decision and the applicant bears the onus of persuading the court that dismissal of the proceedings is appropriate. In a similar matter concerning an application for judicial review of a decision of the Construction Occupations Registrar in Fekete v Construction Occupations Registrar [2013] ACTSC 45, Sidis AJ adopted the following propositions arising from the authorities at [9], with particular regard to A E Bishop Associates Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1989) 11 ATPR 50,741; Du Pont (Australia) v Comptroller-General of Customs (1993) 30 ALD 829; Brell v Willmot (1998) 17 ALD 462; Kelly v Coats (1981) 51 FLR 69 and Brock v Deputy Child Support Registrar (1995) 57 FCR 538; 38 ALD 255: The defendant’s contention, which I accepted, was that these authorities established three propositions that were relevant to these proceedings: 1. The onus was on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion under s 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. 2. As a general rule matters for which there is adequate provision should be heard in ACAT. 3. Applying the general rule to the facts in this case, the issue was whether it concerned a matter that properly should be before ACAT.

28. In dealing with the principled exercise of the discretion for judicial review in Cousins v Construction Occupations Registrar [2023] ACTSC 305 at [15], McWilliam J, after referring with approval to the decision of the High Court in Commissioner for Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd [2008] HCA 32; 237 CLR 146 observed, “where the statute has expressly provided an adequate alternative remedy as the ordinary and regular recourse for an aggrieved person, such as full merits review, the court has a discretion to decline to grant a remedy by way of judicial review”. Her Honour went on to cite with approval the following passage from the judgment of Walsh J in Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61; 127 CLR 421 at 427, noting the passage appears in a dissenting but regularly cited judgment: In my opinion, when a special tribunal is appointed by a statute to deal with matters arising under its provisions and to determine disputes concerning the granting of rights or privileges which are dependent entirely upon the statute, then as a general rule and in the absence of some special reason for intervention, the special procedures laid down by the statute should be allowed to take their course and should not be displaced by the making of declaratory orders concerning the respective rights of the parties under the statute. In other words, I think that it will ordinarily be a wise exercise by the Supreme Court of the discretion which it has under s 10 of the Equity Act to decline to undertake the tasks which have been committed by the Parliament to a specialized tribunal.

29. In Koundouris v Construction Occupations Registrar [2014] ACTSC 68, a matter in which judicial review was sought of a rectification order made by the Construction Occupations Registrar, Master Mossop, as he then was, observed at [16]: In the present case, I am satisfied that I should stay or dismiss the proceedings under r 3566. My reasons for that conclusion are as follows. 1. Of fundamental importance is the fact that there is an entitlement to full merits review in ACAT and that entitlement has been exercised by the plaintiff. The ACAT has the power to determine all issues relating to proceedings in a manner which will allow it to find the relevant facts, decide questions of law and cure any of the procedural defects outlined in issues (d) and (e) above. 2. While on the plaintiff‘s case the matter can be determined on a question of law, care must be taken in assessing the contention that there is a simple question of law which will resolve the proceedings. As pointed out in the authorities that I summarised in Medici Clinics (Australia) Pty Ltd v Patel [2014] ACTSC 29 at [8]–[17], the long experience of courts indicates that the allure of separate determination of questions is often greater than its ultimate utility… Is adequate provision for review made elsewhere?

30. It is a matter of real significance in this case that full merits review of the decision in question is available in the Tribunal and the right to review has been exercised by the Bolarams, albeit unsuccessfully. Where adequate provision for review is made in the Tribunal, it is appropriate for matters to be dealt with in the merits review process. ACAT is empowered to conduct a review of all aspects of the Registrar’s decision and to substitute its own decision for that from which an appeal is made.

31. A right of appeal lies from a decision of the ACAT appeal Tribunal to this court on a question of fact or law pursuant to s 86 of the ACAT act. The Bolarams have not sought to exercise that right of appeal. They have not identified any separate question of law amenable to determination in this court that would otherwise resolve the proceedings.

32. As a consequence, it is inappropriate for these proceedings to be continued in circumstances where the appropriate relief is by the merits review process established under the ACAT Act. Would the application otherwise be liable to dismissal?

33. As the Tribunal recognised, the fundamental flaw in the application made by the Bolarams was in the nature of the relief they sought. The appeal determined in the Tribunal on 17 December 2025 was an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in XD 519/2025. Notwithstanding the suggestion from the Bolarams their application for judicial review lodged in the Supreme Court extended to all of their various applications determined in the Tribunal, the originating application lodged by them seeking judicial review is concerned with only the civil dispute that is XD 519/2025.

34. Presidential Member Robinson observed at [6] of the Appeal Decision: In making the original application, the appellants used the standard “civil dispute application” form.3 On the front of that form is a series of boxes that asks an applicant to identify the grounds upon which the application is made. The appellants ticked “application under other authorising laws” and identified the relevant laws as the Building Act 2004, the Planning and Development Act 2007, the Building Regulation 2004, and the Discrimination Act 1991.

35. The Presidential Member said at [62]-[64]: [62] In deciding the appeal, the appeal tribunal has all the powers and duties of the tribunal appealed from. This means that there must be an application under an appropriate authorising law for the purposes of section 9 of the ACAT Act, and the applicant must be able to establish the statutory basis upon which the application is brought and the relief sought may be granted. [63] In the original application, the appellants sought an order that either the Tribunal issue, or the COR be directed to issue, a Certificate of Occupation under section 69(2) of the Building Act. They have not articulated any basis upon which the original tribunal, sitting in its civil jurisdiction, or this Appeal Tribunal, could make either Order. The application is doomed to fail. This alone is sufficient basis to strike out this part of the appeal application. [64] However, even were this not the case, the question of the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy and the use of the property was the subject of previous proceedings in the tribunal’s administrative review jurisdiction — see Bolaram v Construction Occupations Registrar [2023] ACAT 61, decided 12 October 2023. Those proceedings were brought, appropriately, in the tribunal’s Administrative Review jurisdiction. If the applicants were dissatisfied with the outcome of that decision the appropriate thing for them to have done would have been to appeal that decision. The Original Tribunal could not review it through collateral civil process, and nor can this Appeal Tribunal.

36. For all of the reasons articulated by the Presidential Member, the application before this court is also without prospect of success. I am mindful of the need for real flexibility in managing proceedings instituted by a self-represented litigant. However, the role of the court does not extend to advising a self-represented party on how their rights are to be exercised nor to conduct the proceedings on their behalf: Hamod v NSW [2011] NSWCA 375 at [312] (Beazley JA).

37. Without seeking to traverse the area of providing advice to a self-represented litigant, I note the observations of the Tribunal in Bolaram v Construction Occupations Registrar [2023] ACAT 61 at [89] that what is required in this case is the lodgement of a fresh application for a certificate of occupancy using the appropriate form. It remains unclear why the guidance offered by the Tribunal in that decision has not been followed

38. The observations set out above are sufficient to deal with the applications lodged by the Bolarams.

Orders

39. The orders I make are: (1) Pursuant to r 3566 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), the originating application is dismissed. (2) The plaintiffs are to pay the ninth defendant’s costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-nine [39] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Muller.

Associate: Date: