//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2014] NSWCATAD 196
NCAT Administrative and Equal Opportunity
2013-05-31
Woodward J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant's case 44The Applicant relies on the evidence of Ms Lindsay and Mr Cristoforo. As noted, the evidence of Ms Cristoforo that was given in the cancellation matter is to be regarded as evidence in these proceedings. I discussed that evidence in my reasons for decision in the cancellation matter and will not discuss it again here.
Ms Lindsay's evidence 45Ms Lindsay is a forensic accountant. In evidence is her Expert Report On Financial Viability dated 21 May 2013. She also attended the hearing and was cross-examined. 46Ms Lindsay accepted Mr Gunton's conclusions that the projected operating costs set out in the Applicant's Business Plan were "realistic", though incomplete, and therefore she concluded that a primary examination of the Business's costs was not necessary to complete her investigation. At paragraph 26 of her report Ms Lindsay stated: The Gunton Memo states that "the income and expense estimates for Ceepee's first year of business (ie the Business Plan at Annexure D hereto) .,. gave a realistic picture of likely running costs". On the basis that the TRMS has taken no issue with the reasonableness of the projected operating costs set out in the Business Plan, I have not addressed that issue in this report. 47At paragraph 23 of her report Ms Lindsay reached the conclusions: In my opinion, for the reasons set out in detail in the body of this report: (i) based on the Business Plan (which assumes an operation with 8 hire car licences), adjusted by myself, the Business is financially viable; (ii) the Business is likely to be able to meet its financial obligations from its funds from operations; (iii) limiting the number of licences to 3 does not assist in maintaining the financial viability of the Business; and (iv) the "reasons" identified in the Gunton Memo do not suggest that the Business is not financially viable because, for the most part, those reasons are incorrect. 48While Ms Lindsay conceded that Mr Gunton had correctly identified factors that had been omitted from the Applicant's business plan, she disagreed with Mr Gunton in regard to other items that he regarded as relevant to the Applicant's viability. In particular she disagreed with Mr Gunton that the Business was a start-up business. She stated at paragraph 72: Contrary to what is stated in the Gunton Memo, the Business is not a start-up operation, but in fact has been in operation for around one and a half years prior to its acquisition by Ceepee, In my opinion, this factor significantly reduces the risk of financial failure and enhances the Business' financial viability, Further, Ceepee has net assets of around $95,000 which is a further factor indicating financial viability 49Ms Lindsay provided the following specific comments on Mr Gunton's memo: Profit contribution per vehicle 34 The Gunton Memo states that "the income and expense estimates for Ceepee's first year of business ... gave a realistic picture of likely running costs". The Gunton Memo does not comment on or criticise the gross income in the Business Plan. On the basis that the income and expenses set out in the Business Plan are not disputed by TRMS (they are adopted unchanged in the calculations in the Gunton Memo, and are not otherwise criticised in the documents provided to me), I have also adopted them in my calculations. 35. The Business Plan shows a profit of $217,051, calculated as follows: Item Amount Gross takings 588,448 Drivers' commission (40%) (235,379) Gross profit 353,069 Expenses (136,018)
The Applicant's submissions 51Mr Doyle submitted that the Applicant has been conducting its private hire vehicle service without a single breach of its licence conditions being recorded. He confirmed that this continued to be the case when the matter came before me in August 2014. Mr Doyle also said that the Applicant has been audited by the Respondent, revealing no breaches. He submitted that there is also a well-documented history of the Applicant repeatedly offering to provide the Respondent with any information it wanted to see and to have its accountant meet Mr Gunton to resolve any issues of concern. The Applicant also offered to post security if seen to be necessary by the Respondent. The Respondent did not respond to the Applicant's offers. 52While the Respondent has criticised the Applicant for not providing information that it required, Mr Doyle submitted that the Respondent did not ask the Applicant for the any further information. Further, the Respondent did not tender evidence to explain what information should have been provided or why it did not ask for the further information during the assessment of the application. 53Mr Doyle submitted that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to identify the concerns it had about the Applicant's financial viability, meaningfully and with particularity. If the Respondent required further information, it was required to say what that information was in a way that would allow the Applicant a chance to provide it. Its failure to do so placed the Applicant at a disadvantage in the conduct of the proceedings. 54He submitted that there is no reason at all for the Tribunal to be concerned in regard to the Applicant's ability to deliver the accredited service while maintaining appropriate standards of service and safety to the public. The business is sufficiently resourced. Its vehicles are competently maintained by qualified repairers and there is a car detailer engaged to maintain vehicle cleanliness. The operator's drivers are all licensed and copies of the bailment agreements have been provided. The business has the benefit of call centre and administrative services provided from the largest regional taxi and hire car provider in Regional N.S.W. 55Mr Doyle submitted that the Respondent's criticism that Ms Lindsay relied upon the information that was provided to her is not a fair criticism. This is because Mr Gunton had indicated that he accepted that the projected revenue and running costs provided by the Applicant's accountant were a fair estimate for the start up phase of the Business. That was the basis for Mr Gunton's own assessment. Further, Mr Gunton advised the Applicant's accountant that he did not require further information in that regard. Ms Lindsay therefore concluded that a primary examination of the Business's costs was not necessary to complete her investigation. Mr Doyle submitted that this was an entirely appropriate way for her to proceed. 56As set out above, Ms Lindsay considered the issues that Mr Gunton had raised. Despite the President's encouragement, Mr Gunton failed to confer with Ms Lindsay. Mr Doyle submitted that, given that failure to confer and the Respondent's repeated failure to respond to the Applicant's requests that it articulate its concerns, it is unfair for the Respondent to now criticise Ms Lindsay's approach. 57Mr Doyle submitted that Ms Lindsay's report answers all the issues raised by the Respondent in regard to depreciation and interest. In regard to the criticism that she applied a 30 year depreciation period on instructions from the Applicant, Mr Doyle points to the fact that Ms Lindsay expressly took into account the possibility that her instructions might be wrong, and that projected repair costs are too low. She still concludes that "the Business would not be rendered unviable" from the resulting costs even if the Respondent's figures are used. She observed that if in some future time the cost of purchasing a new car could not be met from revenues, then the number of vehicles operated could be reduced. 58Ms Lindsay also concluded that possible interest costs associated with the purchase of three additional cars would be manageable. 59In regard to operating costs, Mr Doyle contends that there is no reason to suggest that the projected revenues, which Mr Gunton has accepted as reasonable, could not finance minor borrowings if necessary, noting that the shareholders and directors have equity in their home. In any event, if for any reason operating eight vehicles is proven to be unprofitable, there is nothing to stop the operator selling vehicles. 60In regard to necessary allowances for advertising and promotion Mr Doyle submitted that the difference between Mr Gunton's figure of $5,000 and Ms Lindsay's figure of $2,500 is not of such substance that it is likely to significantly affect the viability of the Business. As Mr Gunton allowed for his assumption that the Business was a start-up, his allowances in that regard are not applicable. Further, he argues that if the overheads predicted by Mr Gunton are all allowed, it would be unlikely to substantially alter the profitability of the enterprise. 61The Applicant accepts that Mr Gunton correctly noted that provision ought to be made for a manager's salary. Mr Doyle contends that Ms Lindsay's projections are reasonable. He says that the issue of economies of scale is important. The best way of defraying the costs of securing the services of a designated manager is to increase the number of cars on the road to introduce efficiencies. He further submits that the issue of the owners' salaries does not affect the ability of the Applicant to deliver an efficient service to the public safely in well maintained vehicles. 62Mr Doyle contends that on the figures of Ms Lindsay there will be an annual profit of between $173,000 and $188,000 for the Business based on operating with eight licences. He submits that even allowing the worst case scenario on any of the issues raised by Mr Gunton, the Business would still be viable. 63In addition to the submissions in relation to the Applicant's financial viability, Mr Doyle also addressed a number of issues that were raised by the Respondent in its submissions. He contends that the Respondent did not notify the Applicant that it intended to expand the scope of the issues in the proceedings in such a substantial way. The Applicant objected to the expansion of the scope of the proceedings in this manner on the basis that it had no notice of most of the allegations and therefore could not adduce evidence in relation to them.
Consideration 64As I have noted above, I agree with the Applicant's objection to the expansion of the scope of the proceedings to include issues that were first raised by the Respondent in its submissions. These reasons address the question of the Applicant's financial viability. Nevertheless, I do not accept that the additional issues that the Respondent has raised would alter my conclusion. 65I am satisfied that the Applicant acquired the Business as a going concern. It was not a start-up business. 66It seems to me that the Applicant had provided the Respondent with ample information from which the conclusion should have been drawn that Bretabac had operated the Business prior to its acquisition by the Applicant. If Mr Gunton had any doubt about that issue, he had the opportunity to ask the Applicant's accountant to provide further information but he did not do so. By the time that matter came on for hearing the Respondent should have been left in no doubt about that issue. 67It is clear that Ms Lindsay and Mr Gunton made their assessment of the Applicant's financial viability from different perspectives. Therefore, they did not compare like with like. 68Mr Gunton conceded that he had not taken the fact that the Applicant acquired the Business as a going concern into account and that it would alter his assessment of the issue of viability. 69In my opinion, Mr Gunton has overstated the likely operating expenses significantly. To some extent this is a consequence of his view that the Business was a start-up business. The start-up expenses would be far less than those allowed for by Mr Gunton. 70I note that this issue was raised at the directions hearing on 26 April 2013. It is squarely raised in Ms Lindsay's report which was served on the Respondent on 21 May 2013. The matter came before Judicial Member Molony on 31 May 2013. The Respondent was therefore on notice of the issue prior to the hearing. 71In my view, the Respondent should not have persisted with its position that the Business was a start-up business without seeking clarification on the issue. 72However, I agree with the Respondent that Ms Lindsay accepted the information that was provided to her by the Applicant. The calculations presented by Ms Lindsay appear to take account of the instructions that she had been given regarding the circumstances in which the Business had been operating prior to its acquisition by the Applicant. I agree that there is no evidence to permit those instructions to be tested. Neither Mr Gunton nor Ms Lindsay had access to the actual circumstances in which Bretabac operated the Business. 73However, as has been noted Mr Gunton had indicated that he did not require further information from the Applicant's accountant. Had the Respondent taken the opportunity to meet with Ms Lindsay, issues relating to the acquisition of the Business, the actual circumstances in which Bretabac operated the Business and any other concerns of the Respondent could have been discussed and the Applicant could have had the opportunity to provided further information to address those concerns. 74In the circumstances, I agree with the Applicant that Ms Lindsay was entitled to rely on Mr Gunton's assessment that the projected revenue and running costs provided by the Applicant's accountant were a fair estimate. 75To some extent Mr Gunton's overestimate is due to his failure to take account of the actual circumstances in which the Business is operating. As noted above, Ms Lindsay has provided a response to the issues raised by Mr Gunton. 76On the evidence before me I do not agree with Mr Gunton's assessment that the Applicant's operation was 'highly marginal'. In my view Ms Lindsay has undertaken a thorough investigation, based on her acceptance of the projected revenue and running costs, and concluded that the Business would be financially viable to operate with three hire car licences. To the extent that Ms Lindsay disagreed with Mr Gunton's assessment, I accept that offered by Ms Lindsay. I accept that Mr Gunton's assessment of likely interest and depreciation is excessive. 77When allowance is made for the differences in the two assessments, it is my view that Mr Gunton has significantly underestimated the likely profitability of the Business. Mr Gunton calculated an annual profit of $852. In contrast, Ms Lindsay estimated that the annual profit of the Business operating with 8 licences would be between $173,000 and $188,000. In my view it is likely that the profit could be expected to be considerably higher than Mr Gunton's estimate but somewhat less than Ms Lindsay's estimate. In any event, both estimated that the Applicant would achieve an operating profit. As Ms Lindsay has observed, a profit indicates that income is greater than expenses. I am satisfied that even allowing the worst case scenario on any of the issues raised by Mr Gunton, the Business would still be viable. 78On that basis, I see no reason to restrict that Applicant to less than the eight hire cars that it seeks. In the circumstances I accept that the decision to restrict the Business to three hire car licences is not the correct and preferable decision.
Model litigant 79At a directions hearing on16 April 2013 before the President of the ADT, Judge O'Connor, the Applicant expressed concern that the Respondent had not indicated the basis for its concerns regarding the Applicant's financial viability. Mr Doyle, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Section 58 material didn't clarify the matter at all. He indicated that if the Respondent advised what additional assets or security it required, the Applicant would satisfy that promptly. Mr Doyle stated that the Applicant stood ready to meet any reasonable requirement of the Respondent. As an example he stated that if the Respondent required the Applicant to deposit money into a bank account, the Applicant would do so. 80The President expressed concern about the lack of reasoning provided by the Respondent to allow the Applicant to understand the basis of its decision. He indicated the need for a detailed statement of reasons for the decision, setting out the Respondent's reasoning process by reference to credible standards. He said that the decision maker needs to show how the accreditation standards have been applied. 81The President directed that the Respondent provide a further statement of reasons addressing its concerns regarding non-satisfaction of the accreditation standards, explaining why it considered that the material supplied doesn't satisfy the accreditation standards and to do so by the 24th of April. The matter was then listed for further directions on 26 April. The President added: "I'd encourage the parties to seek to confer in the meantime. It seems to me your [i.e. the Respondent's] people should be saying something like these are the levels of financial certainty we would be looking for and then they've got to be confident that the accountant just doesn't put in a pro forma letter saying oh that's the case. I mean the letter from the accountant is just a two paragraph job as I read it, but you've got to have something that actually appraises the business, a model in some way, I assume." 82The Respondent provided a further report from Mr Gunton. However, that report does not fully explain its concerns regarding non-satisfaction of the accreditation standards. At the directions hearing on 26 April Mr Doyle repeated the Applicant's offer to meet any reasonable assets or security requirement of the Respondent. 83The President also noted that it appeared that Mr Gunton had expressed his opinion on the basis that the Applicant was commencing a new start up business, cold calling Port Macquarie, rather than acquiring an existing business. He suggested that Mr Gunton turn his mind to that matter prior to the hearing. The President made directions for the filing of material and added: I don't think I need to make a direction but I just encourage ... the financial advisors to the parties to meet, to hold a discussion between 27/5 and, between 27 May and 30 May, i.e. Mr Gunton ... and the forensic accountant for ... the Applicant, for review. Is that clear enough? ... I'm not making any directions but I, I'll just encourage you to do that. 84In my view, it is readily apparent from the President's comments that he was encouraging a conclave of the parties' financial advisors in an effort to narrow the issues in dispute. This encouragement was offered in the context of lack of detail from the Respondent in regard to how it considered that the Applicant had not satisfied the accreditation standards and the Applicant's offer to meet any reasonable assets or security requirement of the Respondent. It was also in the context of Mr Gunton's apparent view that the Applicant was commencing a new start up business. 85It is apparent that the Applicant was willing to engage in the process that the President had proposed. In a 24 April 2013 letter to the Respondent's solicitors the Applicant's solicitors wrote: Our hope is that adopting his Honour's suggestion discussions between the parties can quickly resolve this appeal to avoid further litigation ... 86In a 29 May2013 letter to the Respondent's solicitors the Applicant's solicitors wrote: Conferral between Mr Gunton and Ms Lindsay The President also made it clear when the pending appeal was listed for this Friday that Mr Gunton should confer with Ms Lindsay with a view to reaching agreement on the accounting matters relating to the viability of Ceepee's Port Macquarie business. The aim was to limit the time taken up with Friday's hearing. We have provided you with Ms Lindsay's contact details but she says no attempt to contact her has been made. Given the short time remaining before Friday's listed hearing, please ask Mr Gunton to call Lindsay as soon as possible. 87No conclave of the financial advisors took place. 88It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings that counsel for the Applicant raised these issues on several occasions. It is equally clear that the Respondent objected to counsel for the Applicant doing so. Rather than acknowledging the President's encouragement of a conclave of the parties' financial advisors and the fact that the Applicant had offered to participate in such a conclave, the Respondent criticised the Applicant's approach. This criticism is clear from the transcript of the hearing and from the Respondent's written submissions. For example, in her written submissions counsel for the Respondent wrote: The consistent theme of the Applicant's submission is that if RMS has concerns about the financial viability then either RMS should have asked the Applicant for information or RMS officers should have met with the Applicant's accountant to 'resolve any issues of concern' ... First, RMS does not agree that there had been repeated invitations ... Secondly, in short, RMS says that it is the regulator. The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that it is financially viable to operate the private hire vehicle business. The Applicant should be up front and candid in its dealings with the RMS. It has the onus to disclose. There is no duty of inquiry on RMS to assist the Applicant. Further, the process of accreditation and, importantly, financial viability, is not a matter for ongoing negotiation. 89There seems to be force in the Applicant's criticism of the Respondent's inaction in this regard. It is apparent that Mr Gunton and Ms Lindsay had each prepared their advice from different perspectives. Mr Gunton was apparently of the understanding that the Business was a start-up business and therefore was subject to additional risks that a business acquired as a going concern would not experience. In contrast, Ms Lindsay was clearly of the understanding that the Business was acquired as a going concern. As I have noted above, Ms Lindsay wrote in her report: I concur that setting up a new business may involve some initial advertising and promotion expenditure. However, the Business is not a new business. Prior to its acquisition by Ceepee, the Business was owned by Bretabac, and had been in operation for some 18 months since September 2011. The Business was purchased by Ceepee as a going concern. It is not a start-up operation. 90If the conclave had occurred, it is likely that the financial advisors could have adopted a common approach to the appropriate basis for assessment of the Applicant's viability. 91It is apparent from the correspondence between Mr Gunton and the Applicant's accountant that Mr Gunton had advised that he did not require any further material from the Applicant in order to make his determination. Under cross-examination Mr Gunton conceded that was the case. Notwithstanding that assurance, the Respondent has criticised the Applicant for not providing material that it regarded as relevant to the determination. 92I note that the Respondent is required to act as a model litigant. It is bound by the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation. That policy states: 1.2 This Policy applies to civil claims and civil litigation (referred to in this Policy as litigation), involving the State or its agencies including litigation before courts, tribunals, inquiries and in arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution processes. ... The obligation 2. The State and its agencies must act as a model litigant in the conduct of litigation. Nature of the obligation 3.1 The obligation to act as a model litigant requires more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations. Essentially it requires that the State and its agencies act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. 3.2 The obligation requires that the State and its agencies, act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation by: a) dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation; b) paying legitimate claims without litigation, including making partial settlements of claims or interim payments, where it is clear that liability is at least as much as the amount to be paid; c) acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation; d) endeavouring to avoid litigation, wherever possible. In particular regard should be had to Premier's Memorandum 94-25 Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Services By Government Agencies and Premier's Memorandum 97-26 Litigation Involving Government agencies; e) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by: i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the State or an agency knows to be true; and ii) not contesting liability if the State or an agency knows that the dispute is really about quantum; f) not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim; g) not relying on technical defences unless the interests of the State or an agency would be prejudiced by the failure to comply with a particular requirement and there has been compliance with Premier's Memorandum 97-26; h) not undertaking and pursuing appeals unless the State or an agency believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest. The commencement of an appeal may be justified in the public interest where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the interest of the State or an agency pending the receipt or proper consideration of legal advice, provided that a decision whether to continue the appeal is made as soon as practicable; and i) apologising where the State or an agency is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly. 3.3 The obligation does not require that the State or an agency be prevented from acting firmly and properly to protect its interests. It does not prevent all legitimate steps being taken in pursuing litigation, or from testing or defending claims made. 93In light of the President's encouragement as set out above, it is difficult to understand how the Respondent's inaction regarding a conclave of the financial advisors could be said to be in accordance with the Model Litigant Policy. As a model litigant the Respondent has the obligation to endeavour to avoid litigation. 94Similarly, it is apparent that the Applicant's offer to meet any reasonable assets or security requirement of the Respondent could have been the subject of discussions between the parties. In my view such discussions had the potential to narrow the issues and may have avoided many of the costs incurred in this matter. 95I agree with the Applicant that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to identify the concerns it had about the Applicant's financial viability; if it required further information to advise the Applicant what that information was and allow the Applicant a chance to provide it. It was also incumbent upon the Respondent to identify any other concerns it had regarding the Applicant and allow the Applicant a chance to address those concerns. Its failure to do so placed the Applicant at a disadvantage in the conduct of the proceedings and does not meet the obligation placed a model litigant to act honestly and fairly in handling litigation. 96In my view, the Respondent's conduct of these proceedings has not met the obligation imposed on it as a model litigant.
Conclusion 97In my view the correct and preferable decision is that the determination to impose the condition limiting the Applicant's operator's accreditation to three vehicles should be set aside. In its place the decision should be made that the application for an operator's accreditation is granted with the condition that the accreditation be limited to eight cars.
Orders (1)The decision under review is set aside. (2)The decision is made that the application for an operator's accreditation is granted with the condition that the accreditation be limited to eight cars.
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 November 2014
Ceepee Pty Ltd
Roads and Maritime Services
reasons for decision 1This matter was commenced in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("the ADT") pursuant to the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act"). On 1 January 2014, the ADT was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ('NCAT'). The present decision is therefore a decision of NCAT. However, because the proceedings to which it relates are 'part heard proceedings' as defined in clause 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, they are to be determined as if that Act had not been enacted (see clause 7(3)(b) of this Schedule). 2This matter relates to an application by the Applicant under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 ("the Act") for a private hire vehicle accreditation. A delegate for the Respondent granted that application but with condition that the accreditation be limited to three cars, whereas the Applicant sought accreditation for eight cars. The matter was initially heard before Senior Member Molony. However after the initial hearing of the matter, the Senior Member became unavailable. The President of NCAT determined to substitute the Senior Member for myself as permitted under section 52 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the NCAT Act) and sought the parties' views in accordance with the provisions of section 52. 3The Registrar of the Tribunal wrote to the parties in respect of the section 52 'substitution' issue. Neither party objected to me determining the matter. In the absence of any submission to the contrary, the Tribunal was reconstituted in accordance with section 52 (3) of the NCAT Act. 4I have had the benefit of examining the full transcript of the directions hearings held before the President of the ADT, Judge O'Connor, and of the hearing before Senior Member Molony. I have read those transcripts and I have also listened to the recording of the hearing. I have also considered the material provided by both parties and I have taken that into account even though I may not specifically refer to all the evidence, material and submissions in these reasons. 5The central issue before the Tribunal is the condition placed upon the accreditation granted to the Applicant to operate a private hire vehicle business in Port Macquarie ("the Business"). The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision to impose the condition. The condition limits the number of licences that the Applicant may hold to three. The Applicant had sought accreditation that would have limited the maximum number to eight. 6When conducting a review of an administrative decision, there is no onus of proof on either party: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354 (Woodward J). Rather, the Tribunal "stands in the shoes" of the decision maker. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: ADT Act, section 73(2). 7The Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the Respondent's decision: ADT Act, section 63(3). 8The history of the accreditation and relevant details relating to the general conduct of the Business are set out in my decision in a related matter which can be found at Ceepee Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 74 ("the cancellation matter"). 9The Applicant's directors and shareholders are Peter Cristoforo and Christie Cristoforo ("the directors"). The Applicant acquired the Business from Bretabac Pty Ltd ("Bretabac"). At all relevant times Bretabac was controlled by Ms Cristoforo's parents, Mr Peter Williamson and Ms Cheryl Williamson. 10As was noted in the cancellation matter, it is not in dispute that Mr Williamson agreed to 'stake' the directors in order that they could take over the Business. He financed and provided the necessary support to facilitate the acquisition. Bretabac could no longer operate the Port Macquarie business because it had agreed to the cancellation of its licences from 28 February 2013. The transfer was never intended to be an arm's length transaction. Mr Williamson's accountants and solicitors carried out the necessary arrangements so that the transfer could occur. The directors did not contribute their own funds to the Business but relied on Ms Cristoforo's parents to provide funds for the Business. Funding for the transfer was provided by way of a gift to the directors. 11It is my understanding that the directors have moved to in Port Macquarie to operate the Business and that Ms Cristoforo has undertaken the requisite training to undertake the role of designated employed manager of the Business. 12The issue for determination in this matter is whether a condition should be placed upon the accreditation granted to the Applicant to operate the Business. Underlying that issue is the issue of whether the Applicant is financially viable to operate the Business. 13Issues in relation to the Applicant's fitness and propriety were considered in the cancellation matter. I do not propose to reconsider them in these proceedings. 14I also note that the Respondent raised a number of issues in its written submissions that had not been previously raised in these proceedings. The Applicant has objected to the Tribunal dealing with those issues. The Applicant contends that it had no notice of most of those allegations and therefore could not adduce evidence in relation to them. I agree with that objection. Fairness requires that the Applicant have the opportunity to adduce evidence in relation to the issues raised by the Respondent. In the circumstances it is my view that the Applicant would be unreasonably prejudiced if matters first raised by the Respondent in written submissions after the conclusion of the hearing were to be considered. For that reason I will only consider those issues that were brought to the Applicant's attention prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
(1984) 1 FCR 354