Cameron v Nursing and Midwifery Council of NSW [2025] NSWCATOD 122;

Health Care Complaints Commission v Vorillas (No 4) [2025] NSWCATOD 87

icare NSW v Webb [2023] NSWCATAP 192

Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 65

Mahadik v Medical Council of NSW [2023] NSWCATOD 96

Neil Street Co Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2024] NSWSC 1382

Qasim v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCA

Secretary of the Department of Planning v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145, Jali Aboriginal Land Council v Anderson [2024] NSWCATOD 197

Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Ltd [2023] FCAFC 185

Silberstein v The Owners - Strata Plan No 55468 & Ors [2022] NSWCATCD 207

Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429; [2000] NSWCA 52

1. The substantive proceedings concern the decision of the respondent (Council), to place a condition on the appellant's registration not to practise as a registered nurse.
2. The appellant has filed an external appeal to the Tribunal in respect of the Council's decision.
3. These reasons concern the interlocutory application of the appellant, pursuant to s 48(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act), that the Tribunal direct the Registrar of the Occupation Division of the Tribunal to issue the following four summonses.
4. First, a summons to Mr Ian Reid, the Director of the Health Professional Councils Authority (Reid Summons). This application was filed on 10 July 2025. It is a summons to produce documents to the Tribunal.
5. Secondly, a summons to Ms Jodie Miller, the Director of Health Services, Far West NSW Health (Miller Summons). This application was filed on 10 July 2025. It is also a summons to produce documents to the Tribunal.
6. Thirdly, a summons to Ms Wendy Gleeson, the Executive Director, Nursing and Midwifery, NSW Health (Gleeson Summons). This application was filed on 19 July 2025. It is stated to be a summons to attend and give evidence, although the schedule to the summons also requires Ms Gleeson to produce documents.
7. Fourthly, a summons to Mr Brad Astill, the Chief Executive Officer, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, NSW Health (Astill Summons). This application was also filed on 19 July 2025. It is stated to be a summons to attend and give evidence, although the schedule to the summons also requires Mr Astill to produce documents.
8. Each application is opposed by the respondent (Council).
9. For the following reasons, each application is dismissed.
10. The Council has sought an order that the appellant pay its costs. At the conclusion of these reasons, I will set a timetable for the filing of submissions as to costs.

1. The first matter to note is that, despite directions to do so, the applicant did not file any materials to support her applications. On 13 August 2025, the List Judge specifically directed the applicant to file with the Tribunal and to serve on the respondent any submissions in relation to the summonses by 20 August 2025. Notwithstanding the clear language of that direction, the applicant told me that she had not understood that she was required to file submissions.
2. Thus, the following background is based on what I was told at the hearing, and partly based on some documents the parties I requested to be provided to me at the hearing. For instance, the external appeal relates to the Council's decision of 2 May 2025 to place a condition on the appellant's registration that she not practise as a registered nurse as of 31 March 2025, but I had not been provided with a copy of that decision.

1. The starting point is that on 3 December 2023, the Council received a complaint from the Far West Local Health District (FWLHD) raising concerns that the applicant may have an impairment.
2. The complaint was filed by Ms Gleeson. The complaint is constituted by a letter signed by Mr Astill dated 29 November 2024 which relevantly states:

I wish to make a voluntary notification to the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales of concerns regarding Ms Therese Cameron (NMW0001267126). The notification is being made under section 144 (1d) National Law on the grounds that the person may have an impairment.

Ms Cameron was employed by the Far West Local Health District, on a fixed-term contract at the Balranald Multipurpose Service as a Diabetes Educator from the dates 28 August 2023 to 20 October 2023 and then extended to 15 December 2023.

Ms Cameron's employment arose through a contractual agreement with Medacs Healthcare Agency, and whereby the Local Health District was the employer.

The grounds for notification have arisen from email correspondence received by the People and Culture Directorate, issued from Ms Cameron on Friday, September 20, 2024. The email outlines concerns regarding NSW Health underpayment and describes experiences Ms Cameron alleges occurred whilst at Balranald and Canterbury Hospital. The Far West Local Health District have not provided a response to Ms Cameron with respect to these allegations raised in this email, having deemed the appropriate course of action being to notify the Nursing and Midwifery Council of NSW.

To summarise, allegations range from being black mailed by Far West People and Culture staff member, an offer of money constituting conspiracy to conceal untoward behaviour, drink spiking, staff assisting a resuscitation in a drunken state, cyberbullying, undergoing a psychiatric assessment at Canterbury Hospital whereby she was interviewed by a diabetes nurse impersonating a psychiatric nurse and documenting false and misleading information, and maintenance staff accidentally adjusting her hospital accommodation door such that it no longer "locked shut" but would appear to do so when in fact only closed.

The Clinical Governance Unit as a matter of precaution, will institute an audit of patient medical records involving patient care provided by Ms Cameron during her time at Balranald to ensure that the care met the patient requirements and standards of care.

Further details regarding the specific allegations are provided in the supporting document attached.

1. The final paragraph of the letter advises that further information or clarification can be provided by Ms Gleeson.

1. On 14 March 2025, the Council's Notifications Committee resolved to hold a hearing pursuant to s 150 of the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law).
2. Section 150 relevantly provides:

150 Suspension or conditions of registration to protect public [NSW]

(1) A Council must, if at any time it is satisfied it is appropriate to do so for the protection of the health or safety of any person or persons (whether or not a particular person or persons) or if satisfied the action is otherwise in the public interest -

(a) by order suspend a registered health practitioner's or student's registration; or

(b) by order impose on a registered health practitioner's registration the conditions relating to the practitioner's practising the health profession the Council considers appropriate; or

(c) by order impose on a student's registration the conditions the Council considers appropriate.

(2) A suspension of a registered health practitioner's or student's registration under subsection (1) has effect until the first of the following happens -

(a) the complaint about the practitioner or student is disposed of;

(b) the suspension is ended by the Council.

1. A hearing was held on 31 March 2025. In written reasons dated 2 May 2025, the Council decided to place a public condition on the appellant's registration namely, "not to practise as a registered nurse".
2. The Council also decided to place the following private condition on the appellant's registration:
3. The reasons for decision relevantly state:

The practitioner came to the attention of the Council following a fixed term contract with the FWLHD as a Diabetes Educator, based at Balranald Hospital from August to December 2023.

The LHD became concerned by Ms Cameron's apparent fixation on a variety of issues

• unsubstantiated allegations of staff blackmail,

• fraudulent impersonation including the complainant, drink spiking in a local club, nurses' unprofessional behaviour (whilst off duty),

• cyberbullying and purging of her emails,

• 'unsafe nurses' accommodation, including allegations of a knife carrying nurse causing fears for her personal security

Copious representations of the above allegations, without supportive evidence, have been directed to the Council, FWLHD, NPAA, NSW Health, State and Federal Members of Parliament, NSW Premier's IR and IT divisions and the HCCC.

Ms Cameron's unwarranted attempt to approach and deliver materials to one of the members of the panel, prior to her s150 Hearing, without notice to, or permission from, the Council, raises serious concern regarding her judgement and ability to act rationally and professionally.

Such a boundary breach in relation to this regulatory matter indicate a lack of judgement and understanding of the serious nature of the notification.

We suspect that the practitioner's presentation to Campsie Police Station to report alleged attempt of drink spiking in Balranald several days prior (in the absence of any real evidence) resulted in a strong recommendation to Ms Cameron to present herself to Canterbury Hospital ED on 28 December 2024. The outcome of the assessment that followed would certainly be of assistance in better understanding Ms Cameron's emotional health and wellbeing and any risks associated with it. The Committee therefore believes there is a need for an independent psychiatric review to assess the practitioner's mental health and wellbeing.

Having regard to our assessment of the information and evidence relevant to the above issues we conclude that Ms Cameron does pose a risk to public health or safety and the public interest which requires us to take action, because of the following risk factors:

a. We had concerns about the practitioner's cognitive processes, including form and content, and associated affect.

b. Her disorganisation and persecutory ideation carry the potential to be distressing and confusing for patients and colleagues.

c. The practitioner's presentation has the potential to undermine the public's confidence in the nursing profession.

d. There is no evidence before the panel about a recent mental health assessment conducted at Canterbury Hospital, and the practitioner has expressed her dissatisfaction with the assessment.

e. The practitioner has not respected expected professional boundaries by approaching a panellist prior to this hearing, causing us concern about her judgement.

1. On 24 April 2025, the appellant lodged an External Appeal Form with the Tribunal. The grounds of the external appeal are stated as:

- March 31st 25: Nurses and Midwives Council stood me down as an RN (s150) based on a complaint made about manager Michelle Nicholson (nee Straub) Sept 24

- [Michelle Nicholson] was stood down from her job in Sept 2024, after multiple complaints to the HCCC which the [Council] refused to reference in my case and which do relate to my case.

- My complaint was submitted to HR Manager Cheryl O'Regan.-Dec 2024 C.

- [Cheryl O'Regan] phoned my case manager at the Professional Nurses Association Australia, who recommended i contact ICAC - PNNA offered to assist me to write the complaint to ICAC.

- June 2024 i provided the NSW Premiers Dept with a doc, fabricated by NSW Health in an attempt to justify the wage theft, their doc was inconsistent with the evidence my nursing agency provided of two back-to-back contracts CNS-level 2, year

- Sept 20 2024 i emailed HR manager Cheryl O'Regan with a complaint about the manager [Michelle Nicholson (nee Straub)] from the workplace, she had colluded with the theft of my wages.

- June 24 (approx. Ms [Cheryl O'Regan] had refused to back pay me unless I signed a non-disclosure agreement with a false statement saying I did not provide my qualifications prior to employment. by way of them justifying why they did not pay me correctly)

- The NSW Premiers Depart required NSW Health to provide back-pay 22nd Sept 2024

- Sept 20th 2024 i emailed HR manager Cheryl O'Regan with a complaint about the manager [Michelle Nicholson (nee Straub)] from the workplace, who had colluded with the theft of my wages.

(typographical errors as in original)

1. The External Appeal Form then states "see attached document". That appears to be a reference to the following statement of the appellant which, after repeating what appears immediately above continues:

- Dec 6th 2024 - I received a complaint that initially I was told was written by the CEO of FWNSWH - Vexatious Reporting, now i am told it is a second in charge Wendy Gleeson

- The complaint about me does not match up with the fact that Ms Gleeson would have known why Ms M.C was terminated.

- March 24th - i wrote to the NMC reminding them FWNSWH owe me an out standing $4,400.

* Letter of Demand of PNAA attached

- March 25th NMC 9:30am phoned me giving me 3 working days' notice of a mental health hearing based on the complaint submitted in Sept 2024, that is less "outrageous' than other complaints submitted to the HCCC that resulted [Michelle Nicholson (nee Straub)]'s termination in Sept 2024.

- i have been provided with no evidence of mental health that justifies standing me down.- I have sent two letters of DEMAND asking for evidence of mental health and have received nothing in return.

1. Then attached to the External Appeal Form was a letter dated 26 June 2026 from the Nurses Professional Association of NSW to Mr Bradstill, being a "Final Demand For Payment" in the sum of $5,400.00.

1. As noted, this is a summons to produce documents.
2. The documents sought are:

Please find attached correspondence, NSW Police moving the E-445594994 case they accepted on 15th May 2025 from a criminal matter to a civil matter that can be delt with by NSW Health and/or the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

At the behest of a colleague when I went to NSW Police to report that the "Voluntary Notification" sent to the Nurse and Midwives Council was possibly fraudulent and make false document. NSW Police reported I would need to be very senior in SW Health before they even considered accepting a case. However, after reading the notification written by Ms Straub they accepted it along with a number of other fraudulent documents, written to justify the theft of my wages already under investigation by ICAC.

Please be aware: -

- Ms Straub displayed behaviour consistent with jealously when she discovered I have a Medicare Provider Number

- Ms Michelle Straub was directly involved in the proven theft of my wages (see previous submissions to NCAT, including NSW Premiers Office correspondence) Ms Straub is well aware i have more than one year's experience as a Diabetes Nurse Educator

1. Lawful evidence to hold the e150 hearing on the 31st of March 2025 into myself Therese Cameron.

2. Lawful evidence to stand me/Therese Cameron down on an e150 order

3. Answers to document 29.05.2025_ NOTICE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS sent to your staff member, for which I am yet to receive a reply

ALERTING Mr lan Reid to a possible conflict of interest.

When working at Royal North Shore Hospital you may have come into contact with Mr David Grant, while he was working at the Medicare Local and then the Sydney North Health Network.

(SNHN) I do note he is on your list of contacts for Linkedin.

I worked with Mr David Grant at Northern Beaches Medicare Local. It is my recollection he was on the interview panel for Sydney North Health Network.

He would have been one of the people who employed me on 15th July 2015 to work at SNHN.

Please find three attachments.

1. 06.06.2025_NSW Police correspondence.

2. 29.11.2025_Voluntary letter of complaint to the Nurses and Midwives Council.

3. 29.05.2025_NOTICE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS

1. The reasons for the request to issue the summons were:

On the 31st March 2025 i was stood down on and e150 finding.

-Thus far I have been provided with no lawful evidence to hold the e150 hearing.

-There is no lawful evidence to stand me down on an e150 basis.Subsequently a Mental Health professional was engaged by the respondent who has - in good faith - relied heavily on the letter of complaint. He wrote almost 1 page of comments on a complaint made by myself with the assumption that a full investigation into my complaint had taken place before calling an e150 hearing. As no such investigation took place Mr lan Reid is asked to investigate and respond in full to document 3, attached to this summons 29.05.2025_NOTICE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS.

(typographical errors as in original)

1. Attached to the application to issue the summons was a letter from the appellant to Ms Beverley Chan dated 29 May 2025. Ms Chan is the Case Manager for the council. The letter is headed:

NOTICE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS

This Notice is defined in LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary as an "Actual Notice" and therefore amounts to a legal contract.

1. The letter (Notice of Further and Better Particulars) then relevantly states:

As per the letter of complaint about me, which is now under investigation by NSW Police for fraud and make false document, no investigations took place regarding my complaint sent to Cheryl O'Regan.

Please be aware, police at Campsie Police Station, when asking me why I did not report possible drink spiking at the Balranald RSL to Balranald Police told me it is not possible for the Balranald Police Station to have only three police offices, or to be closed when I went there. They said I must be mentally ill to say a police station was closed.

Police said this was why they were referring me to Canterbury Hospital Mental Health Services.

I did ask them if they had ever been out there and suggested they do a tour of duty in West NSW.

TAKE NOTICE THAT I am not requesting verbal verification, I am DEMANDING written evidence of the following.

1. How many police were located - permanently - at Balranald Police Service in 2023?

2. In 2023, did the Balranald Police Station have administration staff, that could keep the station open if they were out-on-call?

3. Is it possible for the Police Station to be closed

4. Was Michelle Straub a staff member at the Balranald NSW Health work place on 29th November 2024 when the letter of complaint was written?

5. What date was Michelle Straub stood down from the Balranald NSW Health work place?

6. What date was her secretary Jodie Gervasi stood down from the NSW Health work place?

7. Were there any financial irregularities involved in relation to their termination?

8. Were any issues with emails going missing or interfered with identified during the investigation when or after they left Balranald Health Service?

9. Did Michelle Straub write the 29th November 2023 letter of complaint, about me or contribute to it in any way?

10. Regarding Balranald RSL: - can Ms Straub clarify if it was necessary for her to commence resuscitation on a member of the public outside the RS on the evening of the October 2023 annual horse races?

11. Can Ms Straub clarify if it necessary for ambulance to attend the Balranald RSL to take a person needing resuscitation to the Balranald Hospital?

12. Did either of the two-night duty nurses rostered on duty at the Balranald Health Service casualty physically assist with the resuscitation when that member of the public was admitted into the Balranald Health Service from the Balranald RSL?

13. Did Michelle Straub bring one of her friends, not known to staff on duty into the main casualty area?

14. If a friend of Michelle Straub was brought into the casualty, had that person been drinking at the Balranald Races and/or at the Balranald RSL?

a. Did the family of the member of the public being resuscitated provide Ms Straub with prior authority to take her friend into the resuscitation area?

15. Was this death referred to the coroner, thus becoming a "Coroners Case"?

16. At no point have I accused Ms Michelle Straub of being "in a drunken state", which is what the complaint claims I have said, thus I am obliged to ask this question.

a. While at the annual races did Ms Straub drink any alcohol?

b. While at the Balranald RSL club did Ms Straub drink any alcohol?

At Canterbury Hospital an appointment with a psychologist was booked, instead a nurse arrived.

She looked very similar to one of their Diabetes Educators and even speaks the same languages as the person I saw. That Diabetes Educator is not registered with APHRA under the name her manager provided to me. No one is registered as a nurse under that name.

17. What name was the Diabetes Educator Marita Areola registered under 2024 - 25?

18. What is her registration number?

October 2023 receptionist Jodie Gervasi reported she deactivated all swipe cards as a nurse had armed herself with a knife and threatened to harm anyone who came near her. When my accommodation door became broken in a manner that meant it did not close, the issue was that it is a 10 hour return drive to Broken Hill were the newly appointed maintance staff were located.

19. At What date was long term maintenance tradesman Gavin Lloyd relieved of his duties for that type of task, leaving me believing it not possible to ask him to repair my accommodation door that was not shutting properly.

20. During 2023 did Balranald Hospital have security staff, that could - given known mental health issues with the public and nurses - ensure that staff

21. I required a statuary declaration that at no time did NSW Health need to investigate my emails going missing and investigate that NSW Health IT found some of my emails had been "purged."

22. I required evidence of the complainant's statement that I said a staff member was resuscitating in a drunken state.

As per this DEMAND, please provided the documentation requested above within 14 days of today, 29th May 2025.

Reminder: - If Far West NSW Health had paid me in a timely manner, after being informed Dec 23 of the pay error, none of you would be reading this correspondence.

(typographical errors as in original, underlining added by the Appeal Panel)

1. On 15 July 2025, the Registrar refused to issue the summons because:

Documents requested in a summons must be specific and in existence, not created for the purpose of the summons.

1. As noted, this is a summons to produce documents.
2. The documents sought are:

Far West NSW Health secured digital travel logs for all workplace vehicles in late 2023.

Please provide the NSW Health vehicle travel logs from late 2023 - June 2025 to show patterns of travel to and from Balranald for: -

- Ms Wendy Gleeson RN

- Ms Denise McCallum RN (deceased) Along with all workplace diaries for the above-mentioned staff in relation to visits to Balranald from late 2023 - June 2025

Please provide the NSW Health vehicle travel logs from late 2023 - June 2025 to show patterns of travel to and from Balranald as well as within Balranald for: - Ms Michelle Straub.

Please provide the day to day workplace diary for Ms Michelle Straub from Jan 2024 - July 2025, highlighting what days she was at the Balranald Health Service in the full capacity as a the service manager.

(typographical errors as in original)

1. The reasons for the request to issue the summons were:

As at least one of the people named is deceased, documents will need to be accessed by senior managers. 31st March 2025, I (Therese Cameron the Applicant) was stood down based on a complaint written by Michelle Straub, past manager of Balranald Health Service. Thus far I have been provided with no evidence of Mental Health issues to justify calling an e150 hearing and no lawful evidence to stand me down on an e150 basis. The hearing was based on Michelle Straub's complaint, that is proven as Vexations Reporting, hearsay and leads the reader to believe she was still working actively as a manager - in the Balranald workplace - on the date the complaint was written 29.11.2024. At the behest of a colleague, I took the complaint to NSW Police, who did open a case to investigated Ms Straub's letter of complaint of fraud and make false document. NSW Police have now put the onus on NSW Health to follow up this issue and appeared to believe there is a case to answer, when I spoke with junior police at a local police station.

1. On 15 July 2025, the Registrar refused to issue the summons because:

The request for secured travel logs for all workplace vehicles [is] broad and relevance is not evident.

1. As noted, this is stated to be a summons for Ms Gleeson to attend and give evidence.
2. However, the schedule to the summons also requests Ms Gleeson to produce the following documents:

"As supported by NSW Police, provide answers to the "Notice of further and Better Particular" 290.05.2025 attached".

1. The reasons for the request to issue the summons were:

Please find attached the "Voluntary Notification" of 29.11.2025, which was used by Warren Scott RN as the only evidence provided to me to de-register me as a registered nurse.

- NSW Police have expressed support for me getting answers to the question in the document of 29.05.2025 attached (Further and Better Particulars) regarding the Voluntary Notification.

1. I am not aware of the specific reasons the Registrar refused to issue the Gleeson summons.

1. As noted, this is stated to be a summons for Mr Astill to attend and give evidence.
2. However, the schedule to the summons requests Mr Astill to produce the following documents:

Validate that Mr Astill did put his "wet ink" signature onto the "Voluntary Notification" written

- Validate that he is aware that according to Warren Scott RN Mr Astill's "Voluntary Notification is the reason he stood me down.

- Alert him to the fact that NSW Police have expressed support for me getting answers to the questions put in document of 29.08.2025 (attached) and ask him why not investigation took- Alert him to the fact that on 15.05.2025 NSW Police registered a case for "Fraud" and "Make False Document" over the letter of complaint that bears his signature.

1. The reasons for the request to issue the summons were:

Identify the issue in dispute that the evidence or documents is relevant to and explain how the evidence or documents relate to that issue.

31st March 2025 I was stood down on and e150 finding. -

There is no lawful evidence to hold an e150 hearing and there was not lawful evidence to stand me down on an e150 basis as validated by the "Notice of Fact Claim" sent to The Hon Justice Lea Armstrong, NCAT 27th July 2025 -15.05.2025, NSW Police after initially stating they would not register a case as I am not a senior NSW health staff member, read the "Voluntary Notification" and registered a case for "Fraud' and "Make False document" over the document of Voluntary Notification written by Michelle Straub in a manner that portrays her to still be the manager at Balranald Health Service on 29.11.2025 and a person who is above reproach.

- Conversely the current acting head of the Balranald Health Service reports Ms Straub was not a manager at that location at that the Balranald Health Service claims Ms Straub had "long gone" by that date.

The "Voluntary Notification" was written at a time that Mr Astill may have already left Far West NSW Health.

1. I am not aware of the specific reasons the Registrar refused to issue the Astill Summons.

1. As noted, the appellant filed no written submissions. She made oral submissions, but these were of little assistance to me, as the submissions were disorganised, prolix and jumped from one issue to another, in addition to being unsupported by any evidence. Doing the best I can, the appellant submitted that the documents sought were required because:
   • she has evidence of wrong doing by various NSW Health officials which she needs to discuss with them;
   • she has reported matters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption;
   • the contents of Mr Astill's letter of 29 November 2024 to the Council were not true;
   • the 29 November 2024 letter was not authored by Mr Astill, but rather Ms Michelle Straub;
   • there were various documents that were not before the Council;
   • the voluntary notification was fraudulent;
   • NSW Health never investigated her complaints;
   • the documents sought are needed to show she had a valid case and are required as a matter of natural justice to her.

1. The submissions commence with a statement of the relevant authorities including Secretary of the Department of Planning v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145, where the Court of Appeal set out the approach in determining whether to set aside a subpoena. The Council submits that a subpoena is materially indistinct from a summons: Jali Aboriginal Land Council v Anderson [2024] NSWCATOD 197 at [15].
2. The Council submits that the five principles which emerged in Blacktown were distilled by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Ltd [2023] FCAFC 185 at [38] as follows (citations omitted):

(a) the language of "tests" should be eschewed; whether a subpoena should be set aside depends on whether it involves an abuse of process, and it will be an abuse of process it if is not issued for a legitimate forensic purpose ...

(b) it is not necessary to show that the documents subpoenaed will or will be likely to assist the case of the party that has issued the subpoena ...

(c) it is sufficient to show that the subpoena can plausibly be seen to relate to an issue or issues in the proceedings or to cast light on such an issue, and the subpoena is not in other respects too vague or

(d) put differently, it is sufficient to show that there is a reasonable basis for supposing that the material called for would likely add, in the end, in some way or another, to the relevant evidence in the case ...

(e) it is sufficient to show that the documents sought are apparently relevant in the sense that it can be seen that the documents sought to be produced by way of subpoena will materially assist on an identified issue or that there is a reasonable basis beyond speculation that it is likely that the documents subpoenaed will so

1. The Council submits that the principles in Blacktown and Seven Network have been consistently applied by the Occupational Division, including but not limited to Mahadik v Medical Council of NSW [2023] NSWCATOD 96 at [14]- [16] and Jali at [15].
2. The Council then applies those principles to each of the four summonses sought to be issued by the appellant.
3. The Council made various references to its evidence in its submissions. However, it transpired that while that evidence had been served on the appellant, the evidence had not yet been filed with the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal has powers under various sections of the NCAT Act to issue a summons to require the person to whom it is addressed to attend and give evidence to attend and give evidence, or to attend and produce documents or other things: see ss 31, 46 and 48 of NCAT Act.
2. For the purposes of these reasons, s 48 provides:

48 Issue of summons

(1) A summons for the purposes of this Act may be issued by a registrar -

(a) on the application of a party to the proceedings, or

(b) at the direction of the Tribunal.

Note.

See also section 46(2)(b).

(2) The fee (if any) prescribed by the regulations is payable for the issue of a summons on the application of a party to the proceedings.

(3) Such a summons must be signed by a registrar or as otherwise prescribed by the procedural rules and may require the person to whom it is addressed -

(a) to attend and give evidence, or

(b) to attend and produce documents or other things,

or both.

(4) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to excusing, in specified circumstances, a person who produces documents or other things in answer to a summons from attendance at the Tribunal.

(5) A summons may be served within or outside the State.

1. Rule 34 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (NCAT Rules) sets out "machinery provisions" relating to the issuing of summonses of the Tribunal. There is no need to set out the content of that rule in these reasons.

1. Section 48 was considered in an unreported decision of the Appeal Panel, Adams v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, published to the parties in November 2024. In Adams, the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal discussed the principles for the issue of a summonses, in particular summonses to a person to give evidence to the Tribunal.
2. The appellant, Mr Adams, had filed an internal appeal to the Appeal Panel from a decision of the Tribunal, Adams v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 243. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Police under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) to release a redacted version of a COPS Event Report, but refused access to certain information on the basis that the information was subject to an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure.
3. In the appeal, Mr Adams lodged an application for a summons to be issued seeking an order that the named officer of the NSW Police Force attend and give evidence at the hearing of the Appeal listed on 4 December 2024.
4. The Appeal Panel refused that application. In doing so, it referred in particular to EJX v University of Newcastle [2022] NSWCATAP 105, icare NSW v Webb [2023] NSWCATAP 192, Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429; [2000] NSWCA 52 and Neil Street Co Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2024] NSWSC 1382.

1. The Appeal Panel referred to EJX v University of Newcastle [2022] NSWCATAP 105 at [43]- [45], where the Appeal Panel

[43] The test for whether the Tribunal should issue a summons for the production of documents at the request of a party has been equated to the test applied by the Courts in relation to the setting aside of a subpoena.

[44] In Lonsdale v University of Sydney [2015] NSWCATAP 277 at [22] the Appeal Panel noted that the Court of Appeal decision in R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 at [11]:

"stands for the following propositions: before a summons is issued, 'the applicant must (i) identify a legitimate forensic purpose for which access is sought; and (ii) establish that it is "on the cards" that the documents will materially assist his case'".

[45] In CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350 Deputy President Hennessy held, at [9] - [12]

9 A registrar may, on the application of a party to proceedings or at the direction of the Tribunal, issue a summons: NCAT Act, s 48. NCAT Procedural Direction 2 gives as an example of an objection that can be made to a summons, that the "evidence, documents or other things identified in the summons are not relevant to any issue in dispute in the proceedings". The Tribunal may draw on common law principles when determining whether to set aside a summons. At common law, a summons must only be issued for a legitimate forensic purpose. The onus is on the party attempting to procure the material to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose by reference to the issues as disclosed in the pleadings: Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 at [27].

10 It is an abuse of process to issue a summons in relation to documents which have no "apparent relevance" to the issues in dispute: Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Brereton J at [22] and [23]; Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 at [26]. It is also impermissible for a party to use a summons for "fishing". The author Bernard Cairns describes "fishing" as "where a party attempts by way of a subpoena to find out facts, matters and circumstances which might enable the party to advance a case of which there is no present knowledge": Bernard Cairns, Australian Civil Procedure, Thomson Reuters (10th ed 2014) at 585.

11 The question is not whether the documents would be admissible in evidence or will "definitely advance the case of the parties" issuing the summons: Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Brereton J at [25]. The test is whether the documents sought under the summons have apparent, as distinct from actual, relevance to the case: National Employers' Mutual General Assn Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372; Casley-Smith v District Council of Stirling (1989) 51 SASR 447.

12 In a recent Supreme Court case, Brereton J summarised the principle as being "... that there is a reasonable basis for supposing that the material called for will likely add, in the end, in some way or another, to the relevant evidence in the case. This reflects the notions that the documents relate to, throw light on or are sufficiently relevant to the dispute; that they "appear relevant in the sense they relate to the subject matter of the proceedings"; or that they could possibly throw light on the issues in the case": Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 1065 at [35]" (footnotes deleted)

1. The Appeal Panel then referred to icare NSW v Webb [2023] NSWCATAP 192. While that decision set out the principles applied where there is an application to set aside a summons to give evidence, it contains guidance which assists me in my present task. The Appeal Panel stated:

[34] As submitted by the appellant, a summons should be set aside if it lacks a legitimate forensic purpose. The principles were alluded to in the appellant's written submissions, and not put into dispute in the appeal. The forensic onus is on the issuing party to identify a legitimate forensic purpose: see Re Don [2006] NSWSC 1125 at [26(3)]; Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 (Blacktown City Council), per Bell P (as His Honour the Chief Justice then was) at [73].

[35] The power to set aside a summons is an instance of the Tribunal's power to regulate its processes and intervene in a case of abuse of its processes: Blacktown City Council at [32], [60], 88], [98], [100].

[36] In Blacktown City Council (regarding a subpoena for production), Bell P said at [65]:

It is sufficient, in my view, to justify a subpoena as having been issued for a legitimate forensic purpose if the documents sought are 'apparently relevant' or, to use the words of Nicholas J in ICAP at first instance, it can be seen that the documents sought to be produced by way of subpoena will materially assist on an identified issue or there is a reasonable basis beyond speculation that it is likely the documents subpoenaed will so assist.

[37] In the same decision, Brereton JA said at [89]

l agree with [Bell P], for the reasons given by his Honour, that an issuing party is not required to show that it is 'likely' (or 'on the cards') that the documents sought will materially assist its case, as distinct from that it is 'likely' (or 'on the cards') that they will add, in some way or another, to the relevant evidence in the case, and that the essential question is whether the documents called for are apparently relevant, or capable of providing a legitimate basis for cross-examination, in which case there is a legitimate forensic purpose for the issue of the subpoena. In my view, at least in civil proceedings and in the absence of any question of public interest immunity, no more is required to support the issue of a subpoena for production than that there is a reasonable basis for supposing that the material called for will likely add, in the end, in some way or another, to the relevant evidence in the case. This reflects the notions that the documents relate to, throw light on, or are sufficiently relevant to the dispute; that they 'appear relevant in the sense that they relate to the subject matter of the proceedings'; or that they could possibly throw light on the issues in the case...

[38] His Honour continued, at [96]:

... it was unnecessary [...] to demonstrate that the documents sought to be produced would materially assist [the applicant for a summons'] case, and sufficient to establish that the documents would assist on an identified issue.

[39] I see no reason that the same principles are not apposite, with appropriate adjustment, to the issue of a summons to a potential witness to testify in proceedings. A summons to a witness to attend a hearing will not generally be an abuse of process if their evidence is likely to, or it is "on the cards" that it will, in some way, add to the relevant evidence in the case on an identified issue. However, if it can separately be demonstrated that the party issuing the summons "has done so for some improper, illegitimate or ulterior purpose foreign to the litigation", the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion may still set aside the summons as an abuse of process: Blacktown City Council, per Bell P at [70].

[40] Some older authority assists in that regard. In Waind v Hill and National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 at 385 Mofffitt P referred to "the invasion by the subpoena procedure of the rights of a stranger", in the following terms:

52 The court has power to refuse to admit cross-examination of a witness - even a party-witness - on an affidavit if that would be an abuse of process. In Re Mundell; Fenton v Cumberledge (1883) 48 LT 776 at 778, Pearson J made an order to that effect and referred to Raymond v Tapson [1882] UKLawRpCh 227; (1882) 22 Ch D 430 as an authority in which Sir George Jessel MR and Cotton LJ:

laid it down beyond all dispute that the court has a right to protect Her Majesty's subjects from the practice and process of this court being simply used to torture them, and not for the purposes of justice.

[41] See also in this regard, Botany Bay Instrumentation & Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 at 101, per Powell JA and Witness v Marsden & Anor [2000] NSWCA 52.

[42] As was said by Bingham J in R v Baines [1908] UKLawRpKQB 159; [1909] 1 KB 258, at page 261:

There can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere where it is satisfied that its process is being used for indirect or improper objects. It must not be supposed that the position which the applicant occupy [one was Prime Minister, HH Asquith, and the other Home Secretary, H J Gladstone] affords them any privilege. They stand in the same position as any other of His Majesty's subjects. But the Court has to inquire whether its process has been issued against them with the object and expectation on reasonable grounds of obtaining from them evidence which can be relevant... (emphasis added)

[43] The nature of the proceedings and the legislative context in which they are conducted is also relevant: Blacktown City Council, per Bell P at [59]."

In icare NSW at [41], the Appeal Panel cited Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429; [2000] NSWCA 52 in which the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal in relation to the rejection by the primary judge of a request by a person whom the defendant wished to call as a witness in those proceedings to be allowed to do so under a pseudonym. Heydon JA at [51] stated the following principle to be applied to an application to set aside a subpoena and at [52]-[60] set out authorities where a subpoena ad testificandum (a subpoena to give evidence), or equivalent process, had been set aside (with Mason P at [1] agreeing):

A witness attending pursuant to a subpoena ad testificandum has a sufficient interest to move that it be set aside. It is not necessary to cite authority for the proposition that a subpoena duces tecum may be set aside on the application of the person served on a variety of grounds, for example that it was being used to obtain discovery against a third party, that it was being used as a substitute for discovery, that it was oppressive, that it had an impermissible purpose, and that it was being used in proceedings for the recovery of a penalty. These are but instances of the court exercising its jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process. A subpoena ad testificandum, or equivalent process, is in like case. ..." (citation omitted)

1. The Appeal Panel then noted that in Neil Street Co Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2024] NSWSC 1382 at [31], Kunc J relevantly made the following preliminary observation with respect to the issue of a subpoena:

The Appeal Panel then noted that in Neil Street Co Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2024] NSWSC 1382 at [31], Kunc J relevantly made the following preliminary observation with r First, while the issue of subpoenas is a familiar step in litigation, that does not mean that they are to be treated as trivial or the mere product of an administrative or other bureaucratic process. They are the result of a formal application by a party to the Court that the Court issue an order to the recipient to do something on pain of punishment, including potentially arrest, and which in other circumstances could be unlawful, such as the disclosure of otherwise private or confidential information. When and in what terms subpoenas are to be issued are therefore serious matters to which an informed professional judgment must be applied.espect to the issue of a subpoena:

1. Like the Appeal Panel in Adams, I am satisfied that the principles in icare NSW at [34]-[43], Witness v Marsden at [51] and Neil Street at [31] are applicable to the question of the issue of a summons to give evidence under s 48(1)(a) of the NCAT Act.

1. In relation to the Reid Summons, the content of the Schedule of the documents sought to be produced is bad in form. The appellant does not request any documents to be produced.
2. Rather, the appellant wants "(in fact demands) answers" to "document 29.05.2025_ NOTICE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS sent to your staff member, for which I am yet to receive a reply". As she states in that document "TAKE NOTICE THAT I am not requesting verbal verification, I am DEMANDING written evidence of the following ...".
3. In other words, the appellant is actually requesting (or demanding to use her words) Mr Reid to provide her with evidence, presumably to be used in aid of her external appeal.
4. This may be thought to be akin to what is known as a "fishing expedition". As the Tribunal stated in Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 65 at [8]

The principles to be applied in considering summonses were recently stated by the Deputy President in CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350 at [9] to [12]. The principles include the following:

(1) First, the Tribunal may draw on common law principles when determining whether to set aside a summons. At common law, a summons must only be issued for a legitimate forensic purpose. The onus is on the party attempting to procure the material to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose by reference to the issues as disclosed in the pleadings: Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 at [27];

(2) Secondly, it is an abuse of process to issue a summons in relation to documents which have no "apparent relevance" to the issues in dispute: Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Brereton J at [22] and [23]; Becwell at [26];

(3) Thirdly, it is also impermissible for a party to use a summons for "fishing". "Fishing" is "where a party attempts by way of a subpoena to find out facts, matters and circumstances which might enable the party to advance a case of which there is no present knowledge".

(emphasis added)

1. And, as the Tribunal stated in Silberstein v The Owners - Strata Plan No 55468 & Ors [2022] NSWCATCD 207:

23 As the Supreme Court noted in Wollongong Coal Ltd v Gujarat NRE Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 758 at [185]:

What constitutes a "fishing expedition" was explained by Owen J in Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1952) 72 WN (NSW) 250 at 254 (i.e., where a party has no evidence that "fish of a particular kind are in a pool [but] desires to be at liberty to drag it for the purpose of finding out whether there are any there or not").

24 As the Supreme Court further noted in Structerre Consulting Engineers (NSW) Pty Limited v Townend [2020] NSWSC 1476 at [17]:

A subpoena may not be used by a party to litigation for the purpose of endeavouring, not to obtain evidence to support the party's case, but to discover whether they have a case at all: The Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) at 564. A subpoena is "fishing" when issued in the hope of finding something to supply evidence necessary to support one's case, there being no evidence that the subpoenaed party has such material but wishing to find out whether there is any material or not. ...

1. An external appeal to the Appeal Panel by a party is not investigation to find out matters of interest and concern to the appellant. I readily accept that she is deeply concerned and distressed that she is currently unable to practise nursing having practised in that profession for close to 50 years. However, in the proper functioning of the Tribunal's role, we cannot allow a summons to be issued in the form requested by the appellant, in a form, correctly submitted by Mr Vuu, to be more akin to be interrogatories.
2. As is stated in the Judicial Commission Civil Trials Bench Book:

[2-3210] Introduction

Discovery by interrogatories is a procedure whereby a party or its representative is required to answer in writing, and usually on oath, specific questions prior to the trial, which answers may be tendered against the answering party as evidence in the trial. Like Discovery, of which interrogatories form part, the procedure originated in the High Court of Chancery and only became available in New South Wales at Common Law under the Supreme Court Act 1970 and in the District Court under the District Court Act 1973. It was not previously available in the Local Court.

...

[2-3210] Application

Unlike the previous procedure in the Supreme and District Courts, a party can no longer require another party to answer interrogatories by service of a notice setting out the interrogatories, but must obtain an order from the court requiring answers to specified interrogatories: r 22.1.

The application for an order for interrogatories may be made at any time and must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed interrogatories: r 22.2.

Such an order is not to be made unless the court is satisfied that the order is necessary at the time it is made: r 22.4. ...

1. I see no legitimate forensic purpose in the issuing of the Reid Summons.
2. Further, at the time of writing these reasons, it is not clear whether the appellant is seeking to appeal pursuant to s 159 or s 159B of the National Law.
3. Those sections relevantly provide:

Those sec159 Right of appeal [NSW]

(1) A person may appeal to the Tribunal against any of the following decisions of a Council for a health profession -

(a1) against a reprimand by the Council for the health profession under Division 3;

(a) against a suspension by the Council for the health profession under Division 3 or a refusal to end a suspension;

(b) against conditions imposed by the Council for the health profession on the person's registration under section 127AA or Division 3 or 4 or the alteration of the conditions by the Council;

(c) against a refusal by the Council for the health profession to alter or remove conditions imposed by the Council under Division 3 in accordance with a request made by the person under section 150I;

(d) against a decision by the Council for the health profession to give a direction or make an order in relation to the person under section 148E;

(e) against a refusal by the Council for the health profession to alter or remove conditions imposed on the person's registration, or to end a suspension, imposed under Division 4 in accordance with a request made by the person under section 152K.

Note.

An appeal under this section is an external appeal to the Tribunal for the purposes of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) An appeal may not be made in respect of a request by a person that is rejected by a Council because it was made during a period in which the request was not permitted under section 150I or 152K.

(3) The appeal is to be dealt with by way of a new hearing and fresh evidence, or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence that was before the Council, may be given.

159B Appeals on point of law [NSW]

(1) A registered health practitioner or student who is the subject of action taken by the Council for the health profession under section 150, 150A or 150C may appeal, with respect to a point of law, to the Tribunal.

Note.

An appeal under this section is an external appeal to the Tribunal for the purposes of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit a right of appeal under section 159.

(3) The Council must not make a decision that is inconsistent with the Tribunal's decision with respect to a point of law under this section.

(4) A registered health practitioner or student may not make an application to the Supreme Court for judicial review of action taken by a Council under section 150, 150A or 150C, being an application alleging any error of law, until an appeal under this section in respect of the point of law concerned has been made and disposed of.

1. Thus, an external appeal under s 159 is dealt with by way of a new hearing and fresh evidence (s 159(3)), and an appeal under s 159B is limited to "a point of law".
2. To the extent that the appellant is contending that the Council made an error of law, then the appeal will involve consideration of the materials before the Council. Thay is to say, additional new material would not be relevant.
3. To the extent that this is an external appeal under s 159, new evidence could be provided to the Appeal Panel. But in circumstances where Mr Reid did not provide a statement to the Council, and I was told by Mr Vuu that the Council would not be filing witnesses statements of any of Mr Reid, Ms Miller, Ms Gleeson or Mr Astill, I am not aware of any circumstances in the civil context where a court or tribunal would order a witness to present himself or herself to the court or tribunal to give evidence, and no authority was cited for that proposition.
4. As the Council correctly submits, in submissions I accept, the summons is misguided and an abuse of process in circumstances where the Council has served the evidence it relies on in support of its decision; and no apparent relevance has been articulated by the appellant as to her legitimate forensic purpose to the questions which will confront the Tribunal at hearing.
5. For those reasons, I decline to direct the Registrar to issue the Reid Summons.

1. The Miller Summons also seeks Ms Cameron to respond to the appellant's Notice of Further and Better Particulars.
2. For the same reasons just given in relation to the Reid Summons on this issue, I decline to direct the Registrar to issue the Miller Summons.

1. The Gleeson Summons seeks that Ms Gleeson attend to give evidence so as to provide answers to her Notice of Further and Better Particulars.
2. For the same reasons just given in relation to the Reid Summons on this issue, I decline to direct the Registrar to issue the Miller Summons.
3. As the Council correctly submits, in submissions I accept, the matters articulated by the appellant disclose no legitimate forensic purpose and suggest the summons is being used for an improper purpose and/or is vexatious. The questions posed do not concern issues within or likely to be within Ms Gleeson's personal knowledge and are not directed to matters of apparent relevance to the issues arising on the appellant's external appeal.

1. As noted above, this Summons seeks to have Mr Astill attend to give evidence in relation to four matters. The first two are to:

(1) "validate" that Mr Astill did put his "wet ink" signature onto the "Voluntary Notification" written about the appellant;

(2) "validate" that Mr Astill is aware that according to Warren Scott RN Mr Astill's "Voluntary Notification is the reason he stood me down".

1. As I have already said, I am not aware of any circumstances in the civil context where a court or tribunal would order a witness to present himself or herself to the court or tribunal to give evidence in the absence of that witness first having provided a statement or affidavit.
2. The third and fourth reasons the appellant wants Mr Astill to attend to give evidence are to:

(1) alert him to the fact that NSW Police have expressed support for the appellant "getting" answers to the questions put in document of 29.08.2025 (attached) and ask him "why not investigation took place";

(2) alert him to the fact that on 15.05.2025 NSW Police registered a case for "Fraud" and "Make False Document" over the letter of complaint that bears his signature.

1. As to any "alerts" the appellant wants to make or give to Mr Astill, there is no reason why a summons needs to be issued. The appellant can simply write to Mr Astill and inform him, outside of the external appeal process.

1. The Council has indicated that it seeks its costs of the appellant's unsuccessful application.
2. The Council is to file submissions, and if necessary evidence, in relation to costs within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.
3. The appellant may respond within a further 14 days.
4. The Council may reply within a further 7 days.
5. Submissions are limited to 3 pages, and must identify the relevant costs rule.
6. I propose to deal with the question of costs on the papers and without a hearing: NCAT Act, s 50. If either party opposes that course, the submissions must also deal with that issue.
7. For the benefit of the appellant, I note that:

(1) this is a costs jurisdiction and, this is a costs jurisdiction, and that absent disentitling conduct, the Council is entitled to its costs: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 at [42]; Qasim v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCA 282 at [85]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Vorillas (No 4) [2025] NSWCATOD 87 at [18];

(2) in Vorillas (No 4), the Tribunal stated that:

14 In the Stage 2 Decision, the Tribunal stated that it proposed to deal with costs "on the papers" and without a hearing. In Westerweller v The Owners Strata Plan No 18482 [2023] NSWCATAP 113 the Appeal Panel stated at [85] that:

[i]t is the experience of the Appeal Panel that costs decisions in the Consumer and Commercial Division and on appeal (unless dealt with at the time of the hearing) are routinely considered "on the papers", and without a hearing. The parties were given an opportunity to provide written submissions and did so. They can be presumed to have included all relevant issues in their written submissions.

15 That principle equally applies to decisions in the Occupational Division: Bolton v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 38 at [4].

1. I suggested during the hearing of this application that the appellant obtain legal advice about her external appeal, and identified some organisations that may provide her with pro bono advice and possibly representation.
2. I repeat that suggestion.
3. In addition to other directions I made at the conclusion the hearing, I will make the following additional directions to ensure that this external appeal will be ready for hearing, now to be held on 1 and 2 October 2025:

(1) on or before 10 September 2025, the appellant is to provide to the Council and the Tribunal an outline of opening submissions, to a maximum of 10 pages;

(2) on or before 17 September 2025, the Council is to provide to the Council and the Tribunal an outline of opening submissions, to a maximum of 10 pages;

(3) on or before 24 September 2025, the appellant is to provide to the Council and the Tribunal any response to the Council's outline submissions, to a maximum of 5 pages;

1. I will also direct the Registry to have the appeal listed for directions in the week before the hearing to ensure that the external appeal is ready to proceed. The parties will be advised of the dated and time of the directions hearing.

(1) The applications of the appellant for the Tribunal to direct the Registry to issue summonses to each of Mr Ian Reid, Ms Jodie Miller, Ms Wendy Gleeson and Mr Brad Astill are dismissed.

(2) The Council is to file submissions, and if necessary evidence, in relation to costs within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

(3) The appellant may respond within a further 14 days.

(4) The respondent may reply within a further 7 days.

(5) On or before 10 September 2025, the appellant is to provide to the respondent and the Tribunal any written opening submissions, to a maximum of 10 pages.

(6) On or before 17 September 2025, the Council is to provide to the Council and the Tribunal any written opening submissions, to a maximum of 10 pages;

(7) On or before 24 September 2025, the appellant is to provide to the Council and the Tribunal any response to the Council's written submissions, to a maximum of 10 pages.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.