Applicant: China Minsheng Banking Corp. Ltd, Hong Kong Branch

Respondent: Registrar of Personal Property Securities

Applicant: China Minsheng Banking Corp. Ltd, Hong Kong Branch

Respondent: Registrar of Personal Property Securities

Decision: 1. By consent, the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of the application for Sin Tang Mining Pty Ltd to be made a party in each of proceedings 2024/10564, 2024/10566 and 2024/10567**.**

2. The application for Sin Tang Mining Pty Ltd to be made a party in each of proceedings 2024/10564, 2024/10566 and 2024/10567 is refused.

...........................[SGD].............................................

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - s 22(1) Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) - application to join a party - criteria for joinder - whether joinder is appropriate - relevant considerations

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Re Marine World Victoria Ltd and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment [1986] AATA 203; (1986) 10 ALD 262

1. These reasons relate to an application by Sin Tang Mining Pty Ltd (STM), to be made a party (joinder application) in each of proceedings 2024/10564, 2024/10566 and 2024/10567 (collectively the Proceedings).
2. The joinder application is made under s 22(1)(c) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
3. For the reasons that follow, I have decided to refuse the joinder application.

1. In order to understand the joinder application and the basis therefore, it is necessary to set out a brief history of the Proceedings, what they are about and when the joinder application was made.
2. The Proceedings concern the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA), decisions (removal decisions) made by the respondent (Registrar/respondent) to remove three registrations on the Personal Property Securities Register (Register) and applications to review those decisions.
3. In each proceeding, the applicant, China Minsheng Banking Corp. Ltd, Hong Kong Branch (applicant/Bank), is the secured party and the holder of the security interest.
4. In each proceeding, the Other Party is the provider of the security to which each registration relates. The other party and the registration numbers are:

(a) Proceedings 2024/10564 (proceeding 564) - Kimberley Metals Group Pty Ltd (Metals), security registration number ending 3783, originally registered 3 February 2015 (registration 3783).; > > (b) Proceedings 2024/10566 (proceedings 566) - Kimberley Metals Group Pty Ltd, security registration number ending 5926, originally registered 28 January 2015 (registration 5926); and > > (c) Proceedings 2024/10567 (proceedings 567) - KMG Resources Pty Ltd (KMG), security registration number ending 1403, originally registered 4 February 2015 (registration 1403). > > (collectively the "Other Parties" and the "Registrations")

5. The securities to which the Registrations relate were provided as collateral to support a facility of US$250 million provided by the applicant to two companies, Top Power Enterprises Ltd and Pacific View Industrial Ltd (Borrowers). The original facility agreement was dated 18 November 2013 (original facility agreement). It was amended and restated on:

(d) 31 December 2014 (2014 Deed); > > (e) 28 December 2017 (2017 Deed); and > > (f) 21 March 2018 (2018 Letter). > > (Collectively facility agreement)

6. In relation to the monies owed by the Borrowers under the Facility Agreement, these are the subject of proceedings brought by the applicant against the Borrowers in Hong Kong (Hong Kong proceedings). The Hong Kong proceedings are not yet resolved.
7. As required by the 2014 Deed:

(a) Metals provided the following securities in favour of the applicant in support of the Borrowers' obligations under the facility agreement: > > > (i) a mining mortgage dated 20 January 2015[1] (Metals Mortgage); and > > > > (ii) a general security deed dated 2 February 2015[2] (Metals GSD), > > > > and > > (b) KMG provided the following securities in favour of the applicant to support of the Borrowers' obligations under the facility agreement: > > > (i) a guarantee and indemnity dated 20 January 2015[3] (KMG Guarantee); and > > > > (ii) a general security deed dated 2 February 2015[4] (KMG GSD). > > > > (Collectively the Other Parties Securities)

(c) the security interest provided by the Metals Mortgage, the Metals GSD and the KMG GSD was perfected by registration on the Register; > > (d) each of the Other Parties issued an amendment demand in respect of each of the Registrations seeking the removal of each of the Registrations; > > (e) the Registrar issued a notice under s 180 of the PPSA (amendment notice) in respect of each of the Registrations inviting the applicant to provide a response to the amendment demand; > > (f) the applicant did not reply to any of the amendment notices; > > (g) in respect of each of the Registrations, decisions were made to remove them from the register as follows: > > > (i) registration 3783 on 31 August 2024 (3783 decision); > > > > (ii) registration 5926 on 10 September 2024 (5926 decision); and > > > > (iii) registration 1403 on 31 August 2024 (1403 decision). > > (Collectively the removal decisions)

9. The removal decisions were made under s 181 of the PPSA in consequence of each of the Other Parties giving to the applicants an amendment demand under s 178 (amendment demand) in respect of each of the Registrations. In short, the Registrar they were authorised by item 1 of the Table in s 178.
10. In respect of 3783 decision, the delegate for the Registrar said in their reasons:

21. In making my decision as a delegate of the Registrar as to whether or not to register a financing change statement, I was compelled to consider any response from the Secured Party to the amendment notice and any other relevant information (per subsection 181(4)). In this regard I note that: > > a. On 24 June 2024, the Deputy Registrar sent the Secured Party an amendment notice (Amendment Notice) with respect to the Registration to the Secured Party's address for service, inviting the Secured Party to amend the Registration or to respond in writing before 1 July 2024 if the Secured Party asserted the Amendment Demand was not authorised; and > > b. no response to the Amendment Notice was received from the Secured Party. > > 22. At the time the decision was made, no evidence of a consensual security agreement granting a security interest in the collateral had been provided. > > 23. Under s 181(4)(a) of the PPSA, the Registrar is empowered to make a decision where no response has been received from the Secured Party. There is no obligation to follow up with secured parties if no response to the Amendment Notice has been received. > > 24. For the reasons above, I did not suspect on reasonable grounds that the amendment demanded by the Applicant was not authorised under section 178 of the PPSA because no collateral described in the Registration secures any obligation owed by a debtor to the secured party. Therefore, pursuant to section 181 of the PPSA, I made the decision to register a financing change statement amending the Registration in accordance with the Amendment Demand.

11. With minor differences as to the date the amendment notices were sent, the reasons in the 1403 decision and the 5926 decision were substantially the same.

1. The substantive proceedings were heard by the Tribunal on 16 October 2025.
2. The applicant, respondent and the Other Parties were all represented by Counsel at the hearing.
3. On the day before the hearing, the Tribunal received the joinder application. The joinder application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Chi, a director of STM, who is also a director of the Other Parties.
4. STM was the holder of a security interest registered on 27 June 2024. STM said its priority would be affected by any decision made in these proceedings which had the effect of reinstating the Registrations.
5. At the commencement of the hearing, the legal representative of STM, Mr McDonald, appeared by video. Agreement was reached that the substantive hearing would proceed with the joinder application being dealt with later. This was done in order to avoid an adjournment and the costs which would be incurred. Directions were made in connection with the joinder application, including whether an oral hearing of the joinder application was required.
6. At the conclusion of oral submissions, the hearing of the proceedings was adjourned for further hearing (if necessary), pending a determination of the joinder application.
7. Subsequent to the hearing, the Tribunal received submissions from STM in support of the joinder application as well as submissions from the applicant and the Registrar. The documents relating to the joinder application included:

(h) STM submissions - undated prepared by Mr McDonald and TE Ledger (STM submissions); > > (i) Affidavit of Mr Chi sworn 24 October 2025 (Chi affidavit); > > (j) Registrar's submissions dated 28 October 2025 (Registrar's submissions); > > (k) Applicant's submissions- undated prepared by Mr Tomasi of Counsel (applicant's submissions); > > (l) Affidavit of Ms McCracken, solicitor for the applicant, affirmed 16 October 2025 (McCracken affidavit); and > > (m) STM reply submissions - undated prepared by Mr McDonald and TE Ledger (STM reply submissions).

8. The Other Parties did not file submissions on the joinder application.
9. In providing submissions, the parties advised the Tribunal that a hearing of the application was not required. Consequently, I will make an order dispensing with a hearing as, in my view, the application can be determined without hearing on the basis of the submissions and evidence received.

1. The joinder application was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 October 2025, signed by Mr Chi.
2. In Section 3, the stated reasons for the application, were as follows:

We request that Sin-Tang Mining Pty Ltd (Sin-Tang), as holder of securities over the assets owned by the Other Parties, be joined as a party to the Proceedings by reason of the following matters:

a) the Other Parties have each granted Sin-Tang interest in collateral which are the subject of ALLPAP registrations on the PPSR in respect of each of the Other Parties;

b) if the Tribunal were to reinstate the Applicant's ALLPAP registrations the subject of each the Proceedings (sic), Sin-Tang will lose its priority in respect of its registrations in relation to each of the Other Parties; and

c) on those bases, Sin-Tang's interest will be affected by the Tribunal's disposal of each of the Proceedings and should be afforded an opportunity to be heard.

1. The orders sought by STM are as follows:[5]

(a) leave to join these proceedings for the limited purpose of making written submissions (and oral submissions if the Tribunal considers it appropriate) regarding the legal effect of the Applicant's 4 December 2024 re-registration, the application of s 167 and the priority consequences under ss 21 and 55 of the PSSA; > > (b) Sin Tang's written submissions are to be filed and served within the timetable directed by the Tribunal; and > > (c) there be liberty to apply.

2. In his affidavit, Mr Chi gives evidence concerning financial accommodation provided to KMG and searches of the Register relating to KMG and Metals. Each of the searches identifies the particular organisation by its Australian Company Number.
3. The first search, in respect of KMG, is dated 5 November 2024 and is marked HC 2. The second search, marked HC 3, is also of KMG. It is headed "PPSR Grantor Comprehensive Summary and is dated 23 October 2025. The third search, in respect of Metals, is dated 5 November 2024 and is marked HC 4. Collectively I will refer to these as the "Searches".
4. In respect of KMG, the date of registration in respect of the security in favour of STM is 27 June 2024, being the date noted by Mr Chi in his affidavit at paragraph 8. HC 3 also records what has been described as the re-registration by the applicant of its security interest in KMG on 4 December 2024.
5. Although there is no point in time searches of the Register, there appears no dispute that as at 27 June 2024 the Registrations, the subject of these proceedings, had not been removed from the Register.
6. Mr Chi also gives evidence concerning the delay in STM bringing its application. The effect of his evidence is as follows:

(a) Mr Chi had previously understood that the central issues in the Proceedings were: > > > (i) whether the applicant should have its security registered on the PPSR, given the ongoing status of proceedings in Hong Kong between the Borrowers and the applicant; and > > > > (ii) the applicant had framed the issue in these Proceedings as being whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the amendment sought by Metals and KMG, and subsequently made by the Respondent, was not authorised; > > (b) the issue of priority "had not been directly stated in any material filed by the applicant's solicitors" nor did Mr Chi "receive any notice from the respondent that the interest of [STM] might be adversely affected by the outcome of these proceedings". Here, Mr Chi said "this seemed unfair"; > > (c) accordingly, prior to discussions with his solicitors in early October 2025, Mr Chi had not turned his mind to the possibility that STM's security interest could be affected. Mr Chi says this "then prompted my solicitors to include a short section regarding this potential issue in the Metals and KMG's [Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICS)] filed in the Proceedings". > > (d) Mr Chi sought further assurances from his solicitors that there was no possibility STM would lose its priority position and that STM's interests "would be fully considered by the Tribunal".

7. When such assurance was not forthcoming, Mr McDonald was instructed to act on behalf of STM to make the joinder application.
8. In giving this evidence, Mr Chi said:

As English is not my first language, complex legal issues are somewhat difficult for me to understand. I am reliant on advice from my solicitors.

9. In relation to the evidence provided, STM submits the Tribunal should be satisfied its interest will be affected by the decision.
10. In this regard, STM does not dispute the "factual matrices of the case as outlined in the respective SFICS filed on behalf of each of the parties" but says if the Tribunal determines the proceedings in favour of the applicant it will change the priority position of STM.
11. Of the issues in dispute in the Proceedings, STM says:[6]

10. As noted at paragraph 29 of the Other Party's SIFC, the central issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether there exist "reasonable grounds" (as articulated by the High Court in George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104) to suspect that the amendments sought by Metals and KMG in relation to the Metals and KMG Registrations, and the amendments subsequently made by the Respondent, were not authorised under s 178 of the PPSA. Resolution of this issue requires the Tribunal to consider, pursuant to s 150(1)(a) of the PPSA, whether the Applicant holds a "security interest" (as defined in s 12 of the PPSA) in the collateral described in the Registrations. This includes an assessment of whether the collateral secures an outstanding obligation. > > 11. Sin Tang is neutral as to those legal questions. Sin Tang's interest, however, arises in relation to the potential consequences that might flow from the Tribunal's determination of those issues.

12. After referring to the evidence of Mr Chi concerning providing a financial accommodation to KMG and saying only Glencore International AG (Glencore) had a registered security interest on the Register which was senior in priority to STM, STM continued:

13. Currently, if KMG defaults on its financial obligations, Sin Tang has a legal claim over KMG's assets as collateral. Its registration is perfected under s 21 of the PPSA, giving Sin Tang priority (save for Glencore's interest) over unsecured creditors in the event of KMG's insolvency. > > 14. However, relevantly for Sin Tang's purposes, on 4 December 2024, the Applicant re-registered its "security interest" on the PPSR in relation to Metals and KMG.13 This occurred shortly before 13 December 2024 (the date upon which the Applicant filed these review proceedings) - a detail which is conveniently omitted in the Applicant's SIFCs. > > 15. Although Sin Tang's registration remains effective until 27 June 2031 and it presently enjoys perfected status under s 21 of the PPSA, the amendments and re-registrations now sought by the Applicant in relation to KMG and Metals in these proceedings creates a risk that Sin Tang's perfected interest could be subordinated. Specifically, the Applicant's re-registration on 4 December 2024 purports to revive or extend an earlier security interest that may have previously lapsed or been amended. Were the Tribunal to find that such re-registration operates with retrospective effect (for example, by treating the Applicant's interest as having remained continuously perfected within the meaning of s 167 of the PPSA) then the Applicant's interest would take priority over Sin Tang's later-perfected interest.

13. In addition to making a submission concerning an inference to be drawn concerning the applicant's tactics in filing the review proceedings, of these matters STM says:[7]

... if the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's contention that its amendments were properly authorised, the PPSR records could be altered in a way that changes the effective registration history of the relevant collateral. Any such alteration would adversely affect Sin Tang's position as a secured party, potentially reducing or extinguishing its priority in enforcement or an insolvency event involving KMG.

14. I should note at this point that the applicant's contention is not that the amendments were properly authorised but rather that there are reasonable grounds for the Tribunal to suspect the amendments sought by the Other Parties in their amendment demands were not authorised under s 178 of the PPSA.
15. Be that as it may, STM says it has an interest in these proceedings and that, unless it is joined as a party, STM "cannot adequately protect its priority interest on the PPS are (which was indeed registered on the basis that only Glencore held an interest with greater priority)".[8]
16. As to whether it be appropriate that STM become a party to the proceedings, STM says the discretion should be exercised in its favour.
17. In this regard, STM submits:[9]

(a) granting leave would occasion minimal prejudice to the existing parties; > > (b) the evidence of Mr Chi reasonably explains the delay in bringing the application; > > (c) until October 2025 Mr Chi did not consider the applicant's proceedings could result in the applicant regaining priority over the STM security interest; > > (d) as a model litigant, the Registrar has an obligation to use its best endeavours to assist the Tribunal in making the correct or preferable decision. Arguably, STM submits, this obligation "extended to ensuring [STM] was advised that its interest may be affected upon the applicant commencing these proceedings". STM continues that the issue was not raised in the Registrar's SFICS and that it is unclear whether the Registrar had turned its mind to the possibility; > > (e) as a matter of natural justice, STM should have at least been notified that its interest might be adversely affected by the outcome of these proceedings. No such notification was ever received; > > (f) English is Mr Chi's second language. Therefore, it is unsurprising he did not understand the effect of the PPSA. In this regard "he has not been provided with substantive legal advice in respect of the issues potentially affecting [STM] in these proceedings" and his lawyers Pragma Lawyers should be afforded an opportunity to do so; > > (g) if leave is granted STM does not intend to file further evidence or cause any adjournment. Rather, STM would wish to make submissions to the following effect: > > > (i) the applicant's reregistration on 4 December 2024 cannot revive or extend any prior security interest for the purpose of priority. This is because the reregistration occurred after an earlier registration may have lapsed and there is no evidence of continuous perfection under s 167 of the PPSA; > > > > (ii) to allow the applicant to claim priority based on the 4 December 2024 registration would appear to subvert the statutory scheme governing the order of perfection and undermine the certainty provided by the PPS framework to secured parties; and the applicant should not be permitted, as a result of its own administrative oversight, to regain its priority over third parties.

18. STM concludes that it is important the integrity of the national regime be preserved. As such submissions from STM will not only assist the Tribunal but "also carry broader public-interest implications for maintaining the integrity and reliability of the PPSR as a whole".
19. The respondent's position is that the question is not one of procedural fairness or natural justice in the abstract. Having noted the criteria in s 22(1)(a)-(c) of the ART Act and on the basis subsections (a) and (b) are satisfied, the respondent made four submissions concerning the appropriateness of making an order to join STM:

(a) the interests of STM are not relevant to a determination under s 181 of the PPSA. In this regard there is no discretion, the decision being "binary, based on the nature of the arrangements between the dental and the secured party". Here, the respondent highlights the fact the process is administrative in nature; > > (b) the application was made late. The Tribunal should consider the adequacy of the explanation having regard to Mr Chi holding positions in both the Other Parties and STM and by reason of the fact that the issue concerning regaining priority against third parties was raised in the Other Parties SFICS dated 8 August 2025; > > (c) STM is an outsider to the legal arrangements. In any event any assistance he could provide could equally be provided by the existing parties. Further they are essentially of the same substance as those contained in the Other Parties SFICS; and > > (d) the joinder would result in delay.

20. Otherwise, there was no obligation on the Tribunal or respondent to notify STM of these proceedings.
21. Submissions were also made concerning the operation and content of the Register.
22. The applicant's submissions can be stated shortly.
23. First, the applicant points to a factual error in the affidavit of Mr Chi. The error is that the applicant was still on the register at the time STM registered its security interest on 27 June 2024.
24. As to delay, the applicant notes the role of Mr Chi as director of STM and each of the Other Parties. The applicant says Mr Chi has been aware of the proceedings since at least December 2024 and has given evidence for the Other Parties. In this regard the Tribunal should not accept the statement of Mr Chi concerning his subjective stated belief about the issues in the case.
25. The applicant also says the proceedings had originally been listed for final hearing in August 2025. The proceedings were delayed because the Other Parties failed to meet their filing deadlines, resulting in a change to the final hearing. Having regard to the delay that has already occurred, "joinder would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Tribunal set out in s 9 of the ART Act".
26. Secondly, Mr Chi could have earlier instructed the Other Parties to address the issues he wishes STM to address if joined as a party. He could also have instructed the Other Parties to give notice to the Tribunal that such issues needed to be ventilated.
27. Further, even if STM has an interest, the applicant says "it is not clear how ... [STM] could make submissions or put on evidence that would add anything to the matrix of submissions and evidence that has already been advanced" by the existing parties.
28. The applicant concludes by saying that the joinder application is an attempt to delay resolution of the proceedings.
29. In reply, STM seeks to address the issue concerning the estate of the register on 27 June 2024 by reference to emails sent by Metals and KMG to the applicant in respect of amendment demands being on 17 May, 30 May and 4 June 2024. Also referenced is a further communication sent on 31 August 2024.
30. STM continues:[10]

4. In other words, at the time of registering its interest on 27 June 2024, Mr Chi, by his directorship of Metals and KMG, knew:

(a) Metals had issued an Amendment Demand to remove the Applicant's registration from the PPSR;

(b) KMG had lodged an Amendment Statement and notified the Respondent of the basis for that amendment;

(c) the Respondent had warned the Applicant that, absent a response, its PPSR registration would be removed; and

(d) the financial accommodation provided by Sin-Tang had already been advanced in reliance upon the position that the Applicant's interest was defective and would likely be removed.

5. Accordingly, the Applicant's contention that the registration remained effective at the time of Sin Tang's registration omits the critical facts that:

(a) the statutory amendment and objection process had, at that stage, been properly engaged;

(b) the Applicant had been placed on notice of the consequences of non-response and elected not to act; and

(c) Sin Tang, through its common directing mind with KMG, proceeded on the reasonable understanding that the removal of the Applicant's interest was imminent and, presumably, inevitable.

1. As to delay, STM restates the explanations given and continues:

8. More fundamentally, the Tribunal's discretion on a joinder application is to be "exercised rationally with regard paid to all of the circumstances of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of each of the persons applicating to be made a party". It must surely be relevant to the Tribunal's discretion that the very reason this proceeding was commenced is because of the Applicant's own delay, and the fact the Applicant did not become aware of the removal of its registration until 18 October 2024, some 5 months after Metals first emailed the Applicant with the Amendment Demand.

2. In making this submission, reference was made to the decision of Re Marine World Victoria Ltd and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment[11] (Marine World).
3. Finally, STM said there would be little or no prejudice caused by delay, essentially any further submissions could be in writing. In this regard STM restated that the duty of the Tribunal includes "providing a fair hearing and dealing with the matter as expeditiously as the subject matter of the review permits".
4. In making this last submission, STM rejected the motive ascribed to it by the applicant of seeking to delay the proceedings, reiterating that its "sole interest is its concern that if the applicant is successful in the review proceedings, it would appear to put in jeopardy the security potentially affecting [STM's] ability to enforce its rights in the event of KMG's default or insolvency".

1. Section 22(1)(c) of the ART Act relevantly provides:

22 Parties to proceeding for review > > Parties to proceeding > > (1) Each of the following are parties to a proceeding for review by the Tribunal of a decision: > > ... > > (c) any other person, if: > > (i) the person applies to the Tribunal to become a party to the proceeding; and > > (ii) the Tribunal is satisfied that the person's interests are affected by the decision; and > > > (iii) the Tribunal considers it appropriate that the person become a party to the proceeding.

2. In my view, the criteria in s 22(1)(c)(i) and (ii) are met by STM.
3. STM has applied to the Tribunal to become a party to the proceedings and it is clear that its interests are affected by the decision as it may result in a loss of priority.
4. In relation to whether it is appropriate a party be joined to the proceedings, as the authorities make clear, there is a wide discretion. In exercising that discretion, considerations including delay in making the application, the consequences for the existing parties and the obligations of the Tribunal under the ART Act are relevant.
5. Self-evidently, in determining whether it is appropriate that an applicant for joinder be made a party, the fact that party's interest may be affected makes relevant the nature, extent and circumstances in which those rights might be affected. Also relevant is the purpose for which the applicant seeks to be joined and the role they might play. Marine World provides an illustration of how such factors might be considered.
6. In the present case, for the following reasons, I have formed the view that it is not appropriate that they become a party to the Proceedings.
7. First, I am not satisfied the delay in making the joinder application is adequately explained. As submitted by the respondent, in circumstances where Mr Chi is a director of the Other Parties and STM, it seems to me improbable that he was not aware of the possible effect on the priority of the STM security. STM's submission in respect of notices said to have been sent by the Other Parties to the applicant and the SFICS of the Other Parties date 8 August 2025 at [55] and following are indicators to the contrary.
8. Secondly, the issue for determination in the Proceedings, namely whether the Tribunal suspects on reasonable grounds that the amendment sought in the amendment demand is not authorised, does not involve considerations of any effect removal of the registration might have on other security householders.
9. If the Tribunal suspects on reasonable grounds that an amendment is not authorised, there is no discretion in exercising the administrative function in s 181 of the PPSA to make the amendment by removing the registration. Rather, the amendment must be refused.
10. On the aspect of whether or not the amendment is authorised, as set out above, STM submitted it is "neutral".
11. Thirdly, because there is no discretion, the matters about which STM may make submissions if it was joined as a party do not arise for consideration by the Tribunal in the substantive proceedings. As such, permitting joinder would serve no purpose.
12. Fourthly, as stated above, it can be accepted that a decision of the Tribunal in favour of the applicant may alter priorities from that which existed immediately before such decision. However, in exercising review powers in connection with a decision under s 181, the Tribunal is given no authority to make consequential or ancillary orders to adjust rights, including those of third parties, that may be affected because the Registrar determines it is appropriate to remove a registration but the Tribunal determines, on review, that such amendment was not authorised.
13. Fifthly, the further registrations on 4 December 2024 are not relevant to the Tribunal resolving the substantive proceedings and whether there was reason to suspect the Registrations, the subject of the removal decisions, was not authorised.
14. Lastly, and in any event, as reflected in their SFICS, the Other Parties identified the fact priorities might be affected. As it would seem Mr Chi is a controlling mind or both the Other Parties and STM for the purpose of providing instructions to his lawyers, there has, effectively, been an opportunity to make submissions on the topic in question.
15. For these reasons I refuse the joinder application.

(a) By consent, the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of the application for Sin Tang Mining Pty Ltd to be made a party in each of proceedings 2024/10564, 2024/10566 and 2024/10567. > > (b) The application for Sin Tang Mining Pty Ltd to be made a party in each of proceedings 2024/10564, 2024/10566 and 2024/10567 is refused.

[9] STM submissions at [20] and following.

[10] STM reply submissions at [4]-[5].

[11] [1986] AATA 203; (1986) 10 ALD 262 at 271.