This is a review against the decision made by the NSW Trustee on 2 March 2021 to sell a property owned by FHF, an 84-year-old woman with advanced dementia who now resides in an aged care facility and who I will refer to as 'the mother.' The NSW Trustee has been her financial manager since 6 June 2018 and her son, DZJ, is the applicant in this matter. FHF's daughter, FHE, who I will simply refer to as 'the daughter' is the second respondent in these proceedings. Prior to his mother entering care, DZJ, who I will call 'the son', cared for his mother in the Ashfield property which is the subject of these proceedings and where the son still resides. There is no dispute that, in light of the mother's advanced dementia, she would be unable to contribute to these proceedings.
For the reasons that follow, I have affirmed the decision of the NSW Trustee to sell the Ashfield property.
[2]
Background
The mother was placed in care on 14 October 2015, prior to which the son had been her carer and was living with her in the Ashfield property. For the purposes of calculating the mother's financial situation, the Ashfield property was exempt from being counted as an asset for two years after the mother went into care, namely until 13 October 2017.
On 5 June 2018, the Guardianship Division of this Tribunal ordered that the mother's estate be made subject to management by the NSW Trustee and Guardian. This decision was made in light of the inability of the son and the daughter to work together as attorneys appointed jointly by their mother. The Guardianship Division of this Tribunal also raised concerns both about the son's apparent use of his mother's money and his compliance with his mother's obligations to Centrelink.
DZJ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2022] NSWCATAD 58 | Case summary | Zoe
The mother was paying a daily accommodation contribution towards her residential care until March 2019 when her assets fell below the relevant threshold, at which point she was no longer required to pay the daily accommodation contribution and instead became a fully supported resident of her care facility. The mother, who had previously been in receipt of an Age pension, then had her pension cancelled by Centrelink on 17 December 2019.
From 28 September 2019, the applicant began making rental payments into the mother's account, which is managed by the NSW Trustee.
On 29 July 2019, the NSW Trustee made a decision to sell the Ashfield property. This decision, which was affirmed on internal review, was set aside by this tribunal, as constituted by Senior Member McAteer. In his decision, Senior Member McAteer recommended that the NSW Trustee take steps to determine the mother's eligibility for a pension.
On 17 December 2020, the NSW Trustee made a new decision, affirmed on internal review on 2 March 2021, to sell the Ashfield property. This decision was made in order to meet the mother's ongoing accommodation and care costs and so she would not be required to fund ongoing property expenses.
The son has now sought a review by this tribunal on the following grounds:
The Trustee and Guardian decision relies on the cancellation of [my mother's] pension due to their inaction in reporting to Centrelink. They have repeatedly misrepresented Centrelink rules. It took them over a year to notify Centrelink of their client's position since the last NCAT hearing where it was implied by the Member that they should attempt to restore the pension ASAP. They engineered financial sabotage in order to sell the client's home against the client's financial interest and against the General Principles 4(e) of the NSW Guardianship Act 1987.
[3]
Relevant Legal Matters
As set out above, on 5 June 2018, the Guardianship Division of this Tribunal found that the applicant was incapable of managing her affairs. As such there was a need for another person to manage her affairs for a financial management order to be made. A financial management order was made pursuant to the provisions of Part 3A of the Guardianship Act 1987 and the applicant's estate was committed to management by the NSW Trustee.
Chapter 4 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 is concerned with 'management functions relating to persons incapable of managing their affairs.' Under s 56(a) of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, the NSW Trustee may exercise all the functions necessary and incidental to management and care of the estate of the managed person.
In managing a person's estate, the NSW Trustee is empowered to exercise a series of powers under s16 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, which include leasing and selling that person's real property. On this basis, I am satisfied that it is within the power of the NSW Trustee and Guardian to sell the Ashfield property.
In accordance with s62 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009, I am satisfied that the son is an 'affected person' and therefore entitled to apply to this Tribunal to review the decision of the NSW Trustee to sell his mother's property.
In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal 'stands in the shoes' of the NSW Trustee and is required to make the 'correct and preferable decision' having regard to any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law. The Tribunal may set aside, vary or affirm a decision before it. (s63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997).
The review is to be conducted 'without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision': McDonald v Guardianship Administration Board [1993] 1 VR 521 at 530. On review the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions vested in the NSW Trustee.
The NSW Trustee and, on review, this tribunal must give paramount consideration to the interests of the applicant. In accordance with section 39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, the following principles must be observed:
(a) the welfare and interests of such persons should be given paramount consideration,
(b) the freedom of decision and freedom of action of such persons should be restricted as little as possible,
(c) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to live a normal life in the community,
(d) the views of such persons in relation to the exercise of those functions should be taken into consideration,
(e) the importance of preserving the family relationships and the cultural and linguistic environments of such persons should be recognised,
(f) such persons should be encouraged, as far as possible, to be self-reliant in matters relating to their personal, domestic and financial affairs,
(g) such persons should be protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation.
[4]
Issues
The following issues arise in this matter and are considered below:
1. Is the mother entitled to the Age pension?
2. Was the mother's Age pension cancelled in error? What material was sent to Services Australia (Centrelink) to ascertain whether the mother is entitled to the Age pension?
3. What is the rental status of the Ashfield property?
4. What are the mother's linguistic and cultural needs relevant to the application?
5. What is the current financial status of the mother?
6. Is it the correct and preferable decision that the Ashfield property be sold?
[5]
Is the mother entitled to the Age pension?
To be eligible for the Age pension, the mother's income and assets must be within the threshold, that is not greater than $797 500.00. To meet this criterion, the Ashfield property, which itself is worth more that this amount, must not be regarded as an assessable asset.
For the Ashfield property not to be an assessable asset:
1. the mother must have entered a care situation between 1 July 2004 and 31 December 2016; and
2. after 1 January 2017, the mother must not have re-entered aged care after having been absent for more than 28 days (other than being on leave); and
3. the mother must be accruing a liability to pay either an accommodation charge, a daily accommodation payment or daily accommodation contribution; and
4. her principal home must be rented and she must be receiving the rent. (see Social Security Guide Version 1.291 - Released 7 February 202 - https://guides.dss.gov.au/social-security-guide/3/4/1)
It is not in dispute that the mother entered care situation within the applicable period, namely 14 October 2015, and has remained in continual care since then.
For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the son is renting the Ashfield property and that since October 2019, he has been making payments into his mother's account of approximately $660 per week. Residing with the applicant in the Ashfield property are lodgers who contribute towards the rental payments.
Since March 2019, the mother has been a fully-supported resident and has not been accruing a liability to pay either an accommodation charge, a daily accommodation payment or a daily accommodation contribution. This is because her assets fell below the applicable threshold set out above. In making this calculation, the Ashfield property was not considered to be an assessable asset.
Because she is no longer accruing a liability to pay either an accommodation charge, a daily accommodation payment or daily accommodation, I cannot be satisfied that the mother is eligible for an Age pension.
[6]
Was the mother's Age pension cancelled in error? What material was sent to Services Australia (Centrelink) to ascertain whether the mother is entitled to the Age pension?
Prior to the commencement of these current proceedings and despite the son's requests to do so, the NSW Trustee did not forward to Services Australia (Centrelink) documentation pertaining to the rental of the Ashfield property. In his decision on 28 February 2020 setting aside the decision to sell the property, Senior Member McAteer (of this tribunal) expressed his concern at the failure by the NSW Trustee to provide this documentation to Services Australia (Centrelink).
Over the course of the current proceedings, the NSW Trustee undertook to send the documentation to Services Australia (Centrelink) to be considered in their review of the decision to cancel the mother's pension. This is a timeline of what then transpired:
6 December 2020 The NSW Trustee received from the son documents in relation to lodgers' details, redacted bank statements and rent records.
2 August 2021 The NSW Trustee requested an updated determination from Services Australia (Centrelink) with respect to the determination of the mother's pension payments and forwarded to Services Australia (Centrelink) those documents sent by the son on 6 December 2020 in relation to lodgers' details, redacted bank statements and rent records.
27 October 2021 These proceedings were adjourned to allow time for Services Australia (Centrelink) to review the decision to cancel the mother's pension.
Services Australia (Centrelink) wrote to the NSW Trustee requesting the following further information, to be received by 14 December 2021, to enable an informed decision to be made in relation to the review to cancel the applicant's pension:
23 November 2021 • Information to show the mother continues to have a valid exemption from the assets test, which requires the mother to be accruing an accommodation charge and for the former home to be rented out;
• A statement from the residential care facility detailing the charges since the mother entered care in addition to bank statements for the period from 5 June 2018 until 1 November 2021 showing rent receipts for the property;
• A schedule of rent being charged for the property and dates of any increases from 5 June 2018.
Services Australia (Centrelink) received the following information from NSWTG:
8 December 2021 • Bank statements from the son showing rental payment from 27 November 2020 to 28 November 2021;
• Statutory declarations from the son in relation to rental payment made between 24 September 2019 and 28 November 2020;
• NSWTG statement from 4 November 2021 to 1 December 2021 showing rental deposits into the mother's account.
A letter dated 16 December 2021 was sent to Services Australia (Centrelink) by the NSW Trustee attaching the following documents:
20 December 2021 • Aged care facility account for the mother from date of entry, 15 October 2015 to 17 December 2021;
• NSW Trustee Trust Account for the mother from 5 June 2018 to 16 December 2021.
23 December 2021 Services Australia (Centrelink) affirmed the decision to cancel the mother's pension, noting that as at 23 December 2021, the information requested on 8 December 2021 had not been supplied.
18 January 2022 File note by NSW Trustee legal officer of her conversation with the Centrelink reviewing officer on 18 January 2022. According to this file note, the letter and documents forwarded by the NSW Trustee by express post on 20 December 2022 to Centrelink 'were received by the reviewing officer on 23 December 2021, but after he had completed his decision letter of the same date. The reviewing officer said that he had not looked at the further information as it was then too late to amend the decision letter.'
According to the NSW Trustee legal officer, she 'asked if [the reviewing officer] had attempted to contact me about any further information in accordance with my previous letters, and he said that he called my number twice but did not leave a message…He said that the next steps available might be to make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of his decision, or to make a fresh application to Centrelink for reinstatement of the customer's Age Pension. The reviewing officer said he did not expect that the Age Pension would be reinstated because rental income from the customer's property had not been paid to the customer for more than the maximum grace period of 13 weeks. (The first payment to the customer's trust account was received on 11 October 2019 which was approximately 70 weeks after the financial management orders were made in the Guardianship Division)…I discussed with the reviewing officer that the aged care facility's statement of account showed that the customer ceased making payments of the Daily Accommodation Charges on 17 April 2019, and he confirmed that the Age Pension would not be reinstated unless the customer continues to accrue the accommodation charge.'
[7]
On the evidence before me, I accept that the events took place as set out in this timeline and that whilst all the documents provided by the son were (eventually) forwarded to Centrelink by the NSW Trustee, arriving on 23 December 2021, they were not considered by the reviewing officer in his decision of the same day. Given the lengthy history of this matter, that was very unfortunate.
As set out above, there would appear to be two courses of action now available to the NSW Trustee, namely to seek a review of this decision from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or apply to Services Australia (Centrelink) for a new pension.
According to the NSW Trustee, neither course of action would be successful because:
1. the mother's pension was not cancelled in error as the Ashfield property was not leased prior to 28 September 2019 and, accordingly, any review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be unsuccessful; and
2. the mother is not eligible for a pension because she no longer pays a daily accommodation charge.
For the reasons set out below, I cannot be satisfied that the Ashfield property was leased prior to 28 September 2019. For this reason, I cannot be satisfied that the mother's pension was cancelled in error.
On the evidence before me and for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the mother is not accruing a liability to pay either an accommodation charge, a daily accommodation payment or daily accommodation contribution. For this reason, I cannot be satisfied that the mother is entitled to receive an Age pension.
[8]
What is the rental status of the Ashfield property?
It is not in dispute that the Ashfield property was exempted from the Centrelink assets test on the basis that the mother entered care prior to 1 January 2016 and that the son, who had been the mother's carer, had been living in the house when the mother went into care.
On 17 October 2019, Services Australia (Centrelink) decided that the Ashfield property would become an assessable asset for the mother, having received notification from the NSW Trustee that no rental income had been received into her estate from 5 June 2018, when the NSW Trustee became the mother's financial manager. To continue to be exempted as an asset following the two-year grace period allowed after an owner goes into care, the Ashfield property must have been leased (see Social Security Guide 1.1A.290)
Once the Ashfield property became assessable as an asset, the mother was no longer entitled to an Age pension and in October 2019, her pension was cancelled.
In August 2020, in support of its request to Services Australia (Centrelink) to review the cancellation of the mother's Age pension, the NSW Trustee requested copies of lease agreements and bank statements from the son. In response, the son advised that there were no lease agreements in place and that the NSW Trustee has its own 'financial records of weekly rent money deposited by me into the account of my mother.'
On 6 December 2020, the son emailed copies of statutory declarations by people lodging in the Ashfield property with details of rent paid by them, together with bank statements for the applicant and a spreadsheet detailing rental payments by the lodgers from 30 September 2019 until 27 November 2020.
The son told this tribunal that from 21 March 2017, he paid $60 rent per week, offset against money he spent on his mother, rates and utilities.
Also contained on file is a residential tenancy agreement dated 19 March 2017, naming the son as both tenant and landlord. According to the agreement, rent of $60 is to be paid by the son, in advance starting on 21 March 2017. Clause 4.6 of the agreement states that the landlord agrees 'to give a rent receipt to the tenant if rent is paid in person (other than by cheque) and to make a rent receipt available for collection by the tenant or to post it to the residential premises if rent is paid by cheque. Clause 4.7 requires the landlord to keep a record of rent paid under this agreement and to provide a written statement showing the rent record for a specified period within 7 days of a request by the tenant (unless the landlord has previously provided a statement for the same period).'
Despite these provisions, there is no evidence before me documenting rental payments by the son for the period between 21 March 2017 and 28 September 2019, nor is there any record of payments made by the son for his mother's care or to cover the rates and utility costs for the Ashfield property.
Although the NSW Trustee became financial manager for the mother on 6 June 2018, there is no record of rental payments by the son until 28 September 2019. It is not in dispute that, despite become the mother's financial manager on 6 June 2018, the NSW Trustee was not made aware of any rent being paid by the son.
It is not disputed that, since 28 September 2019, the son has been making rental payments into the mother's account. On the evidence before me and for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the Ashfield property was leased prior to 28 September 2019.
On this basis, I cannot be satisfied that the son did in fact pay rent to occupy the Ashfield property once the two-year grace period elapsed on 13 October 2017.
[9]
What are the mother's linguistic and cultural needs relevant to the application?
In accordance with section 39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009, the Tribunal is to observe the principle of the importance of preserving a protected person's family relationships and their cultural and linguistic environment.
The son gave evidence that he visits his mother daily at her aged care facility. He is of the view that it is essential that he visits his mother every day as 'she almost died when I didn't visit her for ten days.' He told the Tribunal that his mother does not recognise voices and needs someone to 'hold her hand.'
The daughter told the tribunal that prior to the lockdown she and her aunt would visit the mother in person. Since lockdown, she is in telephone contact with her mother. The daughter is of the view that her mother benefits from visits. The daughter told the tribunal that the mother chose her aged care facility on the basis of her religious beliefs. The daughter is satisfied with the NSW Trustee's management of her mother's estate.
Although a pensioner, the son is the owner of a house near Port Macquarie which, on the evidence before me, is empty. The son gave evidence that he would be able to deposit substantial amounts of money into the mother's account as required. Given his access to this money and the possibility of renting out his own house, I am satisfied that the son has the financial capacity to secure accommodation in the vicinity of his mother's residential home to enable him to continue his daily visits to her or, alternatively, to travel from his property in Port Macquarie to see her.
[10]
What is the current financial status of the mother?
In earlier correspondence with Services Australia (Centrelink), the NSW Trustee was advised that the mother owed a debt to Centrelink 'that arose out of an overpayment of her Age pension that would have to be repaid for the period 5 June 2018 to 15 October 2019.' Services Australia (Centrelink) subsequently advised the NSW Trustee that the mother's debt status was 'undetermined' which the Services Australia (Centrelink) employee advised meant no debt was owing. Given the inconsistent advice, the NSW Trustee remains concerned that the mother may still owe a debt which Centrelink may seek to recover.
On the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the mother owes a debt to Centrelink.
There is no dispute that the mother's finances have depleted such that she has become a fully supported resident at her care facility, as set out above.
Both the NSW Trustee and the daughter have expressed concern that the Ashfield property may not be habitable and that the mother risks being held liable for this. Both the NSW Trustee and the daughter are also concerned that the mother does not have the financial resources to pay for any repairs required to be made to the property.
According to a report prepared by the company Archicentre on 14 September 2018, there is no kitchen in the Ashfield property and the guttering to the garage is in very poor condition. According to the report, these immediate repairs would cost $15900.00 with an estimate of $34200 in total. As the son has refused access to the house, the NSW Trustee has been unable to arrange a further, more recent report. Although the son has told the tribunal he has installed a sink in the house to address the concerns in relation to the kitchen, the general state of the house has been unable to be verified given his refusal of access.
I accept the findings of the Financial Planning Unit of the NSW Trustee dated 25 February 2021 that, without the Ashfield property being sold, the mother's finances risked being depleted with 2.2 years. On the evidence before me, I am also satisfied that the mother lacks the financial resources to finance any repairs required to the Ashfield property should it continue to be leased. I accept that any such repairs risk causing a cash flow shortfall that might hamper the mother's ability to buy additional products for her care and comfort.
Although the son has provided evidence of payments made by lodgers in the Ashfield property, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that NSW Trustee has never given approval to the son to sublet the property and that there is no lease in place for the property.
The relationship between the NSW Trustee and the son is very difficult with the son reluctant to comply with requests from the NSW Trustee. The money deposited by the son into his mother's account is variable and there is no rental agreement in place. Because the son has refused access to the Ashfield property, the NSW Trustee has been unable to assess the state of the property to determine whether it is habitable or whether there are safety concerns for which the mother, as owner of the property, risks being liable.
Furthermore, with the cancellation of the mother's Age pension and the fact that on the evidence before me, she may not be entitled to have it restored, her account will continue to deplete. Indeed, her account is currently at such a low level as to exempt her from any accommodation payments, making her a fully-funded resident of her aged care facility. Furthermore, in view of her cashflow shortfall, she does not have a safety net to enable her to meet the cost of future repairs to the Ashfield property.
Without a pension, the mother has no security of income. The son has agreed to pay $660 rent per week to the mother. In the past, sometimes the full $660 has been paid while at other times, a lesser amount has been deposited. The son collects money from lodgers who live with him at the Ashfield property and this money is put towards the rental payments. The NSW Trustee has not, however, not given approval to the son to have lodgers living in the house nor has he allowed access to the NSW Trustee to determine whether the property meets the Fair Trading guidelines as habitable. Should the property not be found to be habitable, the NSW Trustee has expressed the concern that the mother may be held liable for any safety issues that may arise. I accept that this would be against the mother's interests, both financially and in general.
In a letter to the Tribunal, the daughter, who is the second respondent in this matter, has made the following submissions:
1. There was no mistaken cancellation of the pension. The NSW Trustee are the financial managers of my mother's estate and they have never arranged a lease or tenancy agreement. Centrelink correctly cancelled the pension.
2. [The son] has remained in the property under a legal grey area and has let rooms to people and collected rent on my mother's behalf. This was never sanctioned by the financial managers of my mother's estate.
3. There are concerns about the habitability and safety of the property.
4. In relation to the rental history, it has been shambolic, with inconsistent amounts paid over inconsistent periods from a variety of payees. This demonstrates the instability of [the son's] rental management, and raises questions of the stability of the income
On the evidence before me and for the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the mother's finances have depleted to such an extent as to bring her under the threshold for the payment of care fees, meaning that she is now a fully-supported resident at her care facility. I am also satisfied that she does not have the financial capacity to pay for any repairs to the Ashfield property, particularly as the rental payments made by the son, although regular, can vary in their amount. I accept the report by the NSW Trustee that, even with rental payments being made by the son, in the absence of the Age pension, the mother is not in a position to fund repairs to the Ashfield property and that her funds will continue to deplete such as to make it a concern that she may not be able to fund any additional items of comfort for herself.
[11]
Is it the correct and preferable decision that the Ashfield property be sold?
For the following reasons, as considered above, the correct and preferable decision is that the Ashfield property be sold:
1. The mother's pension has been cancelled and, on the evidence before me, does not appear to have been cancelled in error;
2. The mother does not appear to meet the criterion for the grant of a new Age pension;
3. The mother's funds have depleted to the extent that she is now a fully-supported resident of her care facility;
4. The mother does not have the funds to pay for any repairs required to ensure the Ashfield property is in a habitable state. This is of particular concern given the son has refused access to the Ashfield property which means that no accurate assessment can be made about the state of the property;
5. Whilst regular rental payments are being made by the son, the house is being sub-let to lodgers without the approval of the NSW Trustee. In light of the concerns of the NSW Trustee and the daughter as to the state of the property, I accept that the mother may be at risk of being held liable for any safety issues that arise;
6. Even with regular rental payments, in the absence of the Age pension, the mother may not have the funds to buy additional products for her care and comfort;
7. Whilst I agree that the son's daily visits to his mother are important, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that he has the financial resources available to him to find accommodation close to his mother's care facility in order to continue his daily visits or to travel down from his own property to see her as regularly as he is able;
8. The relationship between the son and the NSW Trustee is so problematic as to make management of the mother's estate difficult should the son remain in the Ashfield property. In particular, the son is reluctant to comply with any requests made by the NSW Trustee, there is no rental agreement in place, nor has the son been given approval to sublet the property to the lodgers who have been residing there. Furthermore, because the applicant has refused access to the property, the NSW Trustee has been unable to monitor the state of the property, including whether it is habitable or contains risks to the safety of the son and the lodgers, for which the mother as owner of the property risks being liable.
9. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the payments by the son into his mother's account have at times been irregular, which denies her the certainty of a fixed weekly payment.
10. I accept that it is important for the mother to retain her connection to the son and I accept that he visits her frequently in her aged care facility. This benefit, however, does not outweigh the need for the mother to have access to sufficient funds to ensure her well-being and to guard her against any risk in relation to the safety of the Ashfield property and any subsequent liability she may incur. In any case, the son owns his own property to which he could relocate or may be able to rent in order to find accommodation closer to his mother. (see DOZ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 280; P v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWSC 579:
As I have stated above, it is extremely disappointing that the documentation requested by Services Australia (Centrelink) was not received within the requested period, resulting in the cancellation of the mother's pension being affirmed without having regard to this material. It is also disappointing that the NSW Trustee has not reapplied for a new pension for the mother, as was recommended by the Services Australia reviewing officer in his request for further information on 23 November 2021.
Despite this, I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is the correct and preferable decision that the Ashfield property be sold. This is because, even if the mother's Age pension were to be restored, the Ashfield property would still need to be rented out. Even if the NSW Trustee were to allow the son to sublet the property to lodgers, access would still be required to the property to determine whether it is habitable and what repairs it may require. As considered above, the son has previously refused access to the property and, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied there is a likelihood that he will continue to do so. This would leave the mother open to being held liable for any safety issues that may arise in relation to the property. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that it is the correct and preferable decision that the Ashfield property be sold.
[12]
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I affirm the decision of the NSW Trustee to sell the Ashfield property.
[13]
ORDER
The decision of the NSW Trustee and Guardian dated 2 March 2021 to sell the Ashfield property is affirmed.
[14]
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: 21 February 2022