Decision: The Tribunal refuses the Applicant's application for an order under s 32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) staying the operation or implementation of the decision of the Respondent dated 16 December 2025.

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

CORPORATIONS - section 1292 Corporations Act cancellation order - application for order staying operation or implementation of an order cancelling the applicant's registration as a company auditor - factors relevant to the grant of a stay - prospects of success - consequences for applicant of refusal of a stay - the public interest - likely delay until substantive hearing - application for stay refused

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s.32

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s.41

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s. 203

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s. 1292

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185; (2009) 181 FCR 130

Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250

Daly and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2020] AATA 1516

Elmi and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 192

GAP-AAA and GAP AAB; Child Support Registrar [2024] ARTA 1

Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 124

Ridden and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 422

Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798

Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 3047

Williams and Members of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board [2019] AATA 504

XTrade.AU Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2024] AATA 1372

1. These Reasons relate to the application by the Applicant (Mr Danieli) under subsection 32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) for a stay order in relation to the Respondent's decision dated 16 December 2025 to cancel the registration of Mr Danieli as a registered company auditor (Reviewable Decision).
2. Mr Danieli has filed and served an Outline of Submissions on the Stay application dated 13 February 2026 (Applicant's Stay Submissions).
3. Mr Danieli reads and relies upon the affidavits of Sam Danieli sworn 13 February 2026 (First Danieli Affidavit), and sworn 11 March 2026 (Second Danieli Affidavit) in support of the stay application. The Tribunal received Mr Danieli's affidavits into evidence and Mr Danieli was not cross examined on his evidence.
4. The Interested Party (ASIC) filed and served ASIC's Contentions on Applicant's Application for Stay dated 2 March 2026 (ASIC's Stay Submissions). ASIC have also compiled and tendered at the stay hearing an Interested Party's Tender Bundle (ASIC's Tender Bundle).
5. The Respondent (CADB) appeared by counsel at the hearing but informed the Tribunal that its appearance was a submitting appearance and the CADB did not seek to be separately heard. CADB was subsequently excused, with the leave of the Tribunal, from attending the latter part of the hearing.
6. The main background facts are set out in the parties' respective Stay Submissions and are generally not disputed.
7. Mr Danieli has been, for a period from 1988 until the date of the Reviewable Decision, a registered company auditor.[1]
8. On 23 December 2024, ASIC brought an application before the CADB under subsection 1292(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) seeking the cancellation, or alternatively the suspension, of Mr Danieli's registration as a company auditor.[2]
9. Subsection 1292(1)(d) of the Act provides:

(1) [Cancellation or suspension of auditor] The Board may, if it is satisfied on an application by ASIC or APRA for a person who is registered as an auditor to be dealt with under this section that, before, at or after the commencement of this section: ...

(d) the person has failed, whether in or outside this jurisdiction, to carry out or perform adequately and properly;

(ii) any duties or functions required by an Australian law to be carried out or performed by a registered company auditor;

or is otherwise not a fit and proper person to remain registered as an auditor;

by order, cancel, or suspend for a specified period, the registration of the person as an auditor."

1. In essence, ASIC's case against Mr Danieli is that he failed to comply with Auditing Standard ASA 220 (ASA 220) in relation to ten audit engagements. The relevant audits were in respect of five listed entities across two financial years (FYE 30 June 2023 and FYE 30 June 2024).
2. The principal factual allegation made by ASIC against Mr Danieli is that in his capacity as the lead auditor and engagement partner on each of the ten audit engagements, he signed the auditor's report before the completion of the engagement quality control review (EQCR) and in the audit process had little personal engagement with the EQCR reviewer.
3. The contentions made by ASIC against Mr Danieli generally and before the CADB are that he:

(a) " failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly, duties and functions required by an Australian law to be carried out [or] performed by a registered company auditor within the meaning of section 1292(1)(d)(ii) of the Act; and

(b) is otherwise not a fit and proper person to remain registered as an auditor pursuant to section 1292(1)(d) of the Act."[3]

1. As explained in ASIC's Stay Submissions, the proceedings before the CADB were bifurcated and comprised of a liability hearing (heard on 20 and 21 May 2025) and a subsequent and final hearing (heard on 25 November 2025) concerned with the issues of sanction, costs and publicity.[4]
2. On 29 August 2025, the CADB delivered its liability findings which were that Mr Danieli had failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties and functions of an auditor and was not a fit and proper person to be a registered company auditor. The question of sanction was made the subject of the subsequent and final hearing. Mr Danieli made submissions as to the appropriate sanction in advance of the final hearing.
3. On 16 December 2025, the CADB published its decision on the question of sanction. The CADB went on to make the Reviewable Decision, ordering that Mr Danieli's registration as a registered company auditor be cancelled with effect from the end of that day. The reasons for the Reviewable Decision were published by the CADB on its website immediately after the decision was made.
4. On 17 December 2025, Mr Danieli filed an application for review and an application for interlocutory relief including an order for the stay of the Reviewable Decision.[5]

1. The Administrative Appeal Tribunal's power to stay was found in s.41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). The equivalent provision in the ART Act is found in s.32(2), which reads:

"However, on application by a party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review."

1. It is important to bear in mind that s.32(2) operates as an exception to the General rule which is stated in s.32(1) of the ART Act, as follows:

"The making of an application to the Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision."

1. The Tribunal must observe the pre-conditions set out in s.32(7) of the ART Act before it makes an order staying a reviewable decision, which are to give the parties to the application for review an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the making of a stay order[6] and "has taken into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision."[7]
2. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill makes it clear that although the wording in s.32 of the ART Act is different in some respects to the wording of s.41 of the AAT Act, those changes were made to reflect "modern drafting practices" and "not to affect the operation or effect of the provision."[8] It follows that the authorities relevant to the principles to be applied in respect of s.41 of the AAT Act, remain relevant when considering s.32 of the ART Act.
3. The Full Federal Court, in Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal[9] (ASIC v AAT), provides guidance to the Tribunal in deciding whether the making of an order under the former s.41(2) of the AAT Act, as to whether "it is desirable to do so after taking into account the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review" (now expressed in s.32(2) of the ART Act as "for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review"). The interests of the persons affected are to be considered in the context of the statutory scheme under which the decision under review was made[10].

CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE GRANT OF A STAY

1. It was agreed between the parties that the range of factors relevant to the Tribunal's consideration of a stay are well established by the decision in Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission[11] (Scott), and the Tribunal cases considering applications for a stay in which the Tribunal has restated and followed the Scott factors[12]. The 6 matters or factors listed by Downes J. in Scott are as follows:

(a) The prospects of success. > > (b) The consequence for the applicant of the refusal of a stay. > > (c) The public interest. > > (d) The consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not. > > (e) Whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted; and

(f) Other matters that are relevant.[13]

1. The Tribunal notes that the Scott factors should not be treated as a complete checklist, as that risks losing sight of the discretion which the Tribunal is being asked to exercise when considering whether it is "desirable" to award a stay "for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review." The Tribunal adopts what was said in Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority by SM Cameron:

"Whilst these matters identified by Downes J in Re Scott are relevant to the exercise by the Tribunal of the discretion conferred upon it by section 41(2), they are not a complete code or a "checklist" that limits or fetters the exercise of such discretion."[14]

1. Further, the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature and content of the reviewable decision, will affect the respective weighting to be given to each of the factors under consideration with respect to the granting of a stay[15]. Each the Scott factors were referred to in submissions and argument before the Tribunal, and they are considered in greater detail below.
2. Mr Danieli referred in the Applicant's Stay Submissions to the decision of President Kyrou in GAP-AAA and GAP-AAB; Child Support Registrar[16], where the President summarised the principles informing the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay of a Tribunal decision for the purposes of section 127 of the ART Act, that is in the context of the referral of a decision of the Tribunal to the guidance and appeals panel.
3. The President's observations about the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion as to whether a stay order is to be granted essentially involves a balancing by the Tribunal of the various factors. That balancing exercise was described by the President in the following terms:

"It follows that consideration of an application for a stay will involve an examination of any prejudice to the party seeking a stay if the stay sought is not granted and any prejudice to the party opposing a stay if the stay sought is granted.

Ultimately, a decision about whether to grant a stay will depend on a balancing of all the considerations militating in favour of a stay with those militating against granting it, and reaching a decision based on what the interests of justice require in the particular circumstances of the case."[17]

1. The Tribunal, in Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board[18], adopting what it had earlier said in Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission[19], described the application of the prospects factor as follows:

"The Tribunal's task in considering the prospects of success of the substantive review has been described in this way: ... Clearly, it is not the role of the Tribunal in an interlocutory application of this nature to conduct a review of the merits or strength of the arguments, even on a preliminary basis, because such an undertaking would not only be lengthy but it would be unlikely to take into account the possibility of further evidence and submissions that may be more appropriately advanced at the substantive hearing ...

The Tribunal is, however, at least obliged to determine whether there are facts or circumstances or points of law that may be argued at a substantive hearing which may lead to a different result ... If the reviewable decision discloses findings and reasoning that an applicant cannot or does not challenge, this would be critical to the issue of prospects and would be a significant factor that would weigh against the granting of a stay. It is incumbent upon the applicant for a stay to establish the existence of such facts and circumstances or the possibility of legal error that may lead to a different result ..."[20]

1. The parties agree that the Tribunal is not required to undertake a detailed consideration of the merits on the hearing of a stay application. If matters are considered at a high level on a broad spectrum of likely prospects, this factor will weigh most heavily when an applicant's prospects appear to be particularly strong (in which case it will weigh in favour of a stay order), or particularly weak (in which case it will weigh against a stay order).
2. Mr Danieli submits that his case is not at either end of the prospects spectrum and that this factor would not weigh heavily either way in the Tribunal's exercise of its discretion. Given that the Application for Review is at an early phase where neither party has yet filed its evidence or a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), Mr Danieli contends that "this factor should be considered as neutral."[21]
3. ASIC disagrees that this factor would receive a neutral weighting and submits that there are characteristics of this proceeding which distinguish it from many which come before the Tribunal, such that this factor would weigh strongly against Mr Danieli being granted a stay.
4. Firstly, ASIC notes that the CADB proceedings involving Mr Danieli were recorded and a full transcript is in evidence before the Tribunal. That transcript includes the cross examination of Mr Danieli together with his cross examination of other witnesses. ASIC contends that the Tribunal will be able to draw such inferences as it sees fit from that cross examination.[22] Also in evidence are the CADB reasons which support the Reviewable Decision,[23] which are lengthy and contain a detailed consideration of the facts and arguments which are now before the Tribunal.
5. Secondly, whilst accepting that the Tribunal is to conduct a de novo hearing on the evidence before the Tribunal when the hearing proceeds, it says that: "... it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to apply appropriate deference to some (or many) of the [CADB's] conclusory statements about the evidence given that, by design, the [CADB] is to be made up of 'accounting members' and 'business members' who, in the opinion of the Minister, have special skills and qualifications in those areas such that they should be appointed to the [CADB]."[24]
6. Thirdly, ASIC observes that at this point in the proceedings Mr Danieli has not identified any matter of law which would tend to show that that the CADB proceeded erroneously to the findings of fact which underpin the Reviewable Decision. Mr Danieli says in evidence that his position on review is that "whilst I continue to accept my past errors and professional failings, I am a fit and proper person to remain registered"[25], but ASIC contends that at present Mr Danieli has not identified the arguments which he will use to attack the CADB conclusion that he is not a fit and proper person to be a registered company auditor.[26]
7. Fourthly, ASIC contends that it will be putting before the Tribunal information about Mr Danieli's disciplinary history, which was before the CABD, including Mr Danieli having had his registered company auditor's licence cancelled in New Zealand[27] and ATO compliance activity in respect of Mr Daniele's Self-Managed Superannuation Fund auditor's registration resulting in conditions being attached to that registration.[28]
8. The Tribunal is not persuaded, even allowing for the fact that the parties are yet to file their evidence and SFICs, that this factor can be treated as neutral. The wealth of evidence already before the Tribunal and the absence, yet, of any detailed submissions from Mr Danieli as to why he says the Reviewable Decision is incorrect and should be set aside or varied indicates that this factor weighs against the granting of a stay order in the proceeding.

STAY FACTOR (B) CONSEQUENCES FOR THE APPLICANT OF THE REFUSAL OF A STAY

1. Mr Danieli submits that if the Reviewable Decision is not stayed, he and the A D Danieli chartered accounting firm (Firm) "will suffer irreversible prejudice."[29] The consequences which Mr Danieli says have already flowed, or will flow, from the Reviewable Decision are:

(a) three small cap listed entity clients have ceased, or resolved to cease, the engagement of Mr Danieli and the Firm as company auditors,[30] with a significant loss of revenue to the Firm.[31] > > (b) two further private entities have advised Mr Danieli that they will not be engaging the Firm as their auditors.[32] > > (c) two support staff have left the Firm since the Reviewable Decision was published.[33] > > (d) client and staffing losses of the kind referred to in (a) (b) and (c) may increase as the busy period leading up to financial year end approaches.[34] > > (e) the combined effect of the Reviewable Decision, loss of clients and reduced staffing has negatively impacted the reputation of Mr Danieli and the Firm such that the adverse impacts will bleed into the accounting and tax advisory parts of the Firm's business (which comprise the remaining 65% of the business which is not audit).[35] and > > (f) given Mr Daniele's current age and the difficulty of finding new work from the limited number of small cap listed entities in the market, it will be difficult to rebuild the audit business of the Firm if Mr Danieli remains unable to practice as a registered company auditor.[36]

2. ASIC accepts that this factor "balances somewhat in favour of Mr Danieli."[37] However, its position is that the adverse impact of the Reviewable Decision on Mr Danieli and the Firm "is not alone a strong or sufficient basis to outweigh other factors to grant a stay order."[38]
3. ASIC contends that the risk of cancellation of Mr Danieli's registration as a company auditor is an inherent risk of Mr Danieli operating in a regulated industry which can invoke powers of regulatory intervention for proven misconduct.
4. ASIC refers to authorities of the Tribunal such as Ridden[39], Daly[40] and XTrade.AU[41], which all make the point that the holding of a licence or registration "is a privilege which can be taken away if the relevant provider of the regulated service abuses or misuses that privilege."[42]
5. As the Tribunal said of registered tax agents in Ridden:

"A registered tax agent enjoys a privileged position relative to others who are not registered. The privileges which are associated with registration come with expectations. For example, a person must have appropriate qualifications in order to be registered. A person must also conform to certain rules and standards in order to maintain their registration."[43]

1. ASIC submits that Mr Danieli does not deny at least some of the circumstances and actions which led ultimately to the Reviewable Decision.[44] Mr Danieli's evidence is that he has conceded from the outset of the CADB's proceedings that "I signed the auditor's reports for the companies prior to the completion of the ECQR process in breach of ASA 220 and had limited personal engagement with the ECQRs."[45] Mr Danieli has also stated that this concession must be understood in context. Nevertheless, ASIC contends that Mr Danieli must accept that the CADB powers to make the Reviewable Decision were enlivened by aspects of Mr Danieli's own conduct.
2. ASIC also says that the impacts as to staffing and the consequences of Mr Danieli's absence from the Firm are not as severe as Mr Danieli has described them. In respect of staffing, ASIC states that only support staff have left the Firm to date and not audit professional staff.[46] The appointment of Christopher Charlton (Mr Charlton) to the Firm as a director on 20 March 2025 as an interim measure to enable the signing off of audits on behalf of the Firm is said to lessen the effect of Mr Danieli's absence from the Firm.[47]
3. The Second Danieli Affidavit is directed to the detail of Mr Charlton's involvement with the Firm. Mr Danieli's evidence is that the appointment of Mr Charlton as a director "was purely on an interim basis as an emergency measure" to ensure the Firm remained a compliant audit company.[48] Mr Danieli further states that it is not intended by him that Mr Charlton would remain involved in the Firm's audit practice as an auditor on a long-term or permanent basis.[49] It appears from Mr Danieli's evidence about a possible strategy to alleviate risk to the public, that Mr Charlton may be able to continue at the Firm in the shorter term.[50]
4. The Tribunal is persuaded that this factor weighs in favour of the granting of a stay order in the proceeding.

1. Mr Danieli's primary submission in respect of the public interest factor is that he poses no risk to the public in continuing to act as a registered company auditor.[51]
2. In support of that submission, Mr Danieli refers to the following matters:

(a) His evidence that he has demonstrated "genuine remorse" for and "deep insight" into his professional failings in respect of the EQCR process. > > (b) Since the liability hearing in May 2025, he has conducted audits for seven ASX-listed entities in strict compliance with his obligations in respect of the EQCR process.[52] > > (c) He has taken steps to improve the Firm internal processes, including by having a very experienced audit manager to assist with the audit business.[53] and > > (d) Implementation of the additional quality control steps outlined in paragraph [25] of the First Danieli Affidavit.

3. In addition to the steps identified in the previous paragraph, Mr Danieli's evidence is that he has entered an enforceable undertaking with Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) to comply with agreed requirements which include engaging an independent registered company auditor to review any public interest entity audit completed by Mr Danieli and the completion of a CAANZ approved audit assurance course (now completed) addressing his identified deficiencies (including training in the requirements of ASA 220).[54]
4. In its Reasons for Decision for the Reviewable Decision (Reasons), the CADB gave a detailed explanation of the public interest considerations which underpinned the decision to cancel Mr Danieli's registration as a company auditor, summarising its position at paragraphs [961] to [968] of the Reasons.
5. The CADB emphasised that the guiding principle adopted by it in exercising its powers is "protection of the public"[55] and that having heard Mr Danieli's submissions it considered that cancellation of his registration served that purpose whereas suspension of his registration did not.[56] The CADB was not confident that after a period of suspension Mr Danieli would be a fit and proper person to be registered as a company auditor.[57] Absent having that confidence, imposing a suspension of Mr Danieli's registration "risks exposing the public to a person who will not be fit and proper."[58]
6. The CADB went on to state:

" ... the protection of the public includes maintenance of a system under which the public can be confident that [Mr Danieli] and all other practitioners will know that breaches of duty will be appropriately dealt with. We consider that it is important to emphasise to auditors that an attitude of repeated indifference to auditing standards of the type which occurred in the present case, and particularly in connection with the audit of listed companies, is corrosive of the auditing process on which the public depends, and that it justifies cancellation of registration."[59]

1. The CADB acknowledged that cancellation of his registration would have serious adverse consequences for Mr Danieli, and that it had given full consideration to those negative consequences. However, it had concluded that only a cancellation order would give the public the protection to which it was entitled.[60]
2. Mr Danieli will be entitled to be fully heard on these matters in the substantive hearing of his application for review, but on the material traversed in the interlocutory hearing of his application for a stay the Tribunal cannot accede to the submission that Mr Danieli poses no risk to the public in continuing to act as a registered company auditor.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the public interest factor weighs against the granting of a stay order in the proceeding.

STAY FACTOR (D) CONSEQUENCES FOR THE RESPONDENT IN CARRYING OUT ITS REGULATORY FUNCTION

1. Mr Danieli submits that there "is no foreseeable prejudice to the respondent in carrying out its functions if [he] is allowed to continue in practice while the review is on foot."[61]
2. ASIC points to the benefits to the public and to the performance of a regulator's protective function in being able to carry out, and to communicate about, the disciplinary steps they have taken. The Tribunal notes that as the Reviewable Decision was published on the CADB website when it was made, Mr Danieli does not now press for confidentiality orders.
3. In Williams and Members of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board[62], Deputy President McCabe spoke to the benefits of striking a balance between the harm an applicant will unavoidably suffer when regulatory sanctions are imposed with the benefits for a regulator in being allowed to carry out its regulatory function:

"I have already explained that the stay power is provided for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and the determining [of] the application for review. The applicant says that announcing the fact of the reviewable decision would create additional reputational damage that would translate into financial loss that could not be fully recovered, and which might compromise his participation in the process. Of course, that argument could be made by most applicants: being subject to regulatory action is always likely to be costly and embarrassing and may even prove debilitating. The risk of that occurring is part of the price one pays when one pursues a calling or occupation that is the subject of regulation intended to protect the public.

Even if I accepted the applicant's participation in the review process is likely to be impacted if the stay order is not made, or that some of the loss might not be recoverable if he were subsequently vindicated, I am not persuaded that a stay order is appropriate in this case. There is, generally speaking, a public interest in being informed of regulatory action. The Tribunal should be careful in the exercise of its powers to supress what many in the market for the applicant's services would regard as relevant information."[63]

1. ASIC says that in this case the Reviewable Decision has only come about after a contested hearing in which Mr Danieli has been fully accorded procedural fairness. Further, and because the Board has no interim powers, Mr Danieli has been permitted to remain in practice as a registered company auditor for the period between 23 December 2024 (when the CADB proceedings were commenced) and 16 December 2025 (when the Reviewable Decision was made). ASIC accepts that Mr Danieli is fully within his rights to seek review in the Tribunal but says that some prejudice to the performance of the CADB flows to the CADB if Mr Danieli is allowed to continue in practice until the substantive hearing of the application for review takes place.
2. The Tribunal does not see this factor as weighing heavily on the exercise of the discretion to grant a stay order in this case. The Tribunal finds that this factor weighs slightly against the granting of a stay order in the proceeding.

STAY FACTOR (E) WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY IF A STAY WERE NOT GRANTED

1. Mr Danieli contends that by the time his application for review has a substantive hearing, the business of the Firm may have been so damaged that Mr Danieli would not be able to resume his practice as an auditor. Were that to happen, the review would in effect be rendered nugatory.[64]
2. ASIC's position is that irrespective of whether a stay is granted or not, there will be utility in the application for review being heard and determined because the subject matter of the dispute will not have been used up, destroyed or alienated.[65]
3. In view of the fact that: (a) the substantive hearing has been listed for hearing later in 2026; (b) Mr Danieli has given evidence that he expects to be working for another four years before retirement[66]; and (c) there are reputational issues for Mr Danieli at stake, the Tribunal rejects the proposition that the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay order was not granted.

STAY FACTOR (F) OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS: LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE THE SUBSTANTIVE HEARING

1. Having regard to the objectives of the Tribunal set out in section 9 of the ART Act, which include ensuring that applications for review are resolved as quickly as a proper consideration of the matters before it permits, it would be an unfortunate outcome if delay to the hearing and disposition of the application were to weigh in favour of the granting of a stay order. Rather, the prompt substantive hearing and the disposition of the application for review should generally work to ameliorate the necessity for the Tribunal to grant a stay order.
2. In this matter, the parties have engaged constructively with the Tribunal and with each other to agree upon an interlocutory timetable and the fixing of hearing dates which should enable the substantive application for review to be heard and determined this calendar year. That outcome serves to neutralise this factor as a consideration weighing either way in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion about whether to grant a stay order.

1. Having considered the various factors which weigh upon the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion under subsection 32(2) of the ART Act, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is desirable to grant a stay for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal refuses Mr Danieli's application for an order under subsection 32(2) of the ART Act staying the operation or implementation of the decision of the Respondent dated 16 December 2025.

Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs J Carswell-Doherty, J McKinley

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Wei Peng Soh, Ms G Wong (ASIC)

[1] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [2].

[2] Tribunal documents (T), T3, 3.1.

[3] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [4].

[8] Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill, [339].

[9] [2009] FCAFC 185; (2009) 181 FCR 130.

[10] [2009] FCAFC 185; (2009) 181 FCR 130, [51] - [54], [56] - [57].

[11] [2009] AATA 798.

[12] See for example: Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250, [28] and Elmi and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 192, [30] - [32].

[13] [2009] AATA 798, [4].

[14] [2018] AATA 3047 at [60].

[15] Hopfner and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 851, [7].

[16] [2024] ARTA 1

[17] [2024] ARTA 1, [14] - [15].

[18] [2020] AATA 1250.

[19] [2018] AATA 129, [39, [40].

[20] [2020] AATA 1250, [29].

[21] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [15] - [16].

[22] ASIC's Stay Submissions, [24], [27].

[24] ASIC's Stay Submissions, [28]. As to the membership of the CADB, see section 203 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

[27] ASIC's Tender Bundle exhibits 2A and 2B.

[29] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [18].

[30] First Danieli Affidavit, [11] - [12].

[35] First Danieli Affidavit, [16], [22].

[36] First Danieli Affidavit, [18] - [21].

[39] Ridden and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 422, [1] - [3].

[40] Daly and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2020] AATA 1516, [18].

[41] XTrade.AU Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2024] AATA 1372, [31].

[43] [2020] AATA 422, [3].

[47] ASIC's Tender Bundle exhibit 5B; ASIC's Stay Submissions, [37].

[51] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [21].

[52] First Danieli Affidavit, [27], [28].

[53] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [22].

[54] First Danieli Affidavit, [30]; Applicant's Stay Submissions, [23] - [24].

[61] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [26].

[62] [2019] AATA 504.

[63] [2019] AATA 509, [22] - [23].

[64] Applicant's Stay Submissions, [28].