"The case was heard at ncat (sic). Last day of hearing being on or around 30 June 2024. As of yet, no concrete decision has been made... Ncat have not advised me of the decision pending. I would like to finalise this matter at the Family Law Court OR the High Court if necessary. I am unable to do this with the decision pending at Ncat currently."[3]

1. Following dismissal of the proceedings and the Applicant's subsequent application for reinstatement (the reinstatement application), the matter was listed before me for reinstatement hearing on 25 August 2025, by telephone. The Applicant appeared, with no appearance by the Respondent. The reinstatement hearing proceeded over the course of 1.5 hours after an initial brief delay in the Applicant's attendance.
2. The reinstatement application was refused at the conclusion of the hearing as I was not satisfied the substantive application had been dismissed in error, being of the view that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive application based on the Applicant's submissions and the relevant legislation. I now provide written reasons.

1. On 28 August 2024, the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal sent a letter to the Applicant acknowledging receipt of her Application for Review, which was taken by the Registrar to be an application for review of a pending decision with NCAT. It did not refer to the request to review the BDM decision, which was also referred to in the Application. The letter added:

"We can only review this decision if a Commonwealth law says that we can. We cannot find any law that says you can make an application to us about the decision. Decisions made by NCAT are generally made under State legislation and cannot be reviewed by the AAT... It therefore seems that we cannot review your decision."[4]

2. The correspondence invited the Applicant to respond within 14 days if she believed the Tribunal could review the decision and to set out her reasons. It also advised that if the Applicant could not show that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision, the proceedings could be dismissed under section 42A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), concluding the proceedings.
3. No response was received from the Applicant to that letter.
4. Subsequently in October 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal was then established and any active applications before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as at 14 October 2024 were deemed to be applications before this Tribunal with the appropriate authority to continue and finalise any aspect of review not already completed under the transitional provisions.[5] Accordingly, because the Applicant's matter had not been dismissed or decided at that time, it proceeded to be determined by this Tribunal under the ART Act.
5. On review of the matter and noting no further correspondence had been received from the Applicant in reply to the AAT's letter explaining how her substantive application was within the Tribunal's power to review, nor any other action taken in the proceedings, it was dismissed on 7 July 2025 on the basis that the Registrar was satisfied that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction.[6] The dismissal orders were later emailed to the Applicant on 28 July 2025, together with a letter setting out her options and any applicable timeframes.
6. In response to a telephone call from the Applicant on that same date, the Tribunal then sent a second email on 28 July 2025 to the Applicant advising the reason for the dismissal was because her Application was considered 'not reviewable', and the Tribunal did not have the legal power to review it and therefore it had been dismissed under section 97 of the ART Act. The correspondence did not specify which decision it was referring to as the reviewable decision, whether the BDM decision or the NCAT pending decision. It is understood from the Applicant's submissions in the reinstatement hearing that the BDM decision was the main point of discussion with the Registry when she enquired about the dismissal.
7. On 29 July 2025, the Applicant sent a detailed and lengthy email to the Tribunal requesting a copy of all documents she had sent to the Tribunal and providing general comments about her substantive application and why the BDM decision was reviewable, stating:

"Can you please send me a copy of all documents sent to your department in 2024 rearding [sic] my applications to correct bdm entries, Theresa Fairmans decision to refuse to correct my birth certificate registration details knowing that I am not the same colour as the person who fraudulently filled out my birth certificate registration details, ... This IS a reviewable decision and to state that the owner of the oldest human artefact known to man, being the heart of our Lady of the Sacred Heart,,, has no standing??"[7]

8. The email referred at length to the BDM decision, submitting that it was incorrect for a variety of reasons and needed to be reconsidered by this Tribunal, together with an order replacing the BDM Registrar from the department on the basis that she was 'without sight in this matter' and had provided the Applicant with misinformation to appeal to NCAT. The email did not otherwise refer to the NCAT pending decision.
9. A further email of 30 July 2025 was received from the Applicant stating:

"Please re enstate [sic] this case on my discussion with Jin W... Re requested that your department send the documents accompanying my application to you back to me , so that I may outline the reasons that I am requesting a reinstatement of this case... I would like for this case to be reinstated as the bottom line of the matter at hand is the forced nominee arrangement restrictions that have been applied to my protected pension entitlement."[8]

10. At the commencement of the reinstatement hearing on 25 August 2025, the Applicant requested an indefinite adjournment because she had not received a copy of the substantive application she had originally filed electronically with the Tribunal, which she considered necessary for the reinstatement hearing.
11. I declined the adjournment request in the interests of efficiency and the objectives set out in section 9 of the ART Act, and pursuant to section 49, as it was the Applicant's application to reinstate her own substantive application, which had been filed electronically by her originally. Further, the Applicant had been notified of the listing of the reinstatement hearing 3 weeks prior, allowing her sufficient time to prepare for it. I explained to the Applicant that the reinstatement hearing was an opportunity for her to inform the Tribunal of her reasons, orally, why reinstatement should be granted, even without written submissions to supplement her emails to the Tribunal of 29 and 30 July 2025.
12. On questioning, the Applicant helpfully and emphatically confirmed that it was the BDM decision that she was seeking review of, not the NCAT pending decision.
13. She also confirmed that the BDM decision was the same decision that she had previously sought review of through NCAT and that she alleged was, to her knowledge, was still pending.
14. The Applicant advised that she had not received any communication or decision from NCAT following a hearing on or around 30 June 2024 about the BDM decision with the exception of being told by NCAT that she was prohibited from talking about the entire matter, due to it containing details of a triple homicide. I did not accept this to be factually correct, although it is plausible that confidentiality orders may have been made by NCAT restricting publication or disclosure of certain aspects of the evidence before it.
15. I enquired of the Applicant why she believed this Tribunal had erred in the dismissal of her substantive Application, and, secondly, what law or authority she contends allows this Tribunal the power to review her application, given that the BDM decision was made under State based legislation and had already apparently proceeded through NCAT.
16. There was some confusion initially on the part of the Applicant as to which tribunal she was appearing in, before she then expressed the view that this was indeed the correct tribunal that she intended to apply to because it was a federal tribunal and therefore could determine other issues arising from the BDM decision refusing to change details on her birth certificate and related records, namely a change to her pension which had been granted by a federal government department initially.
17. The Applicant submitted in support of her reinstatement application that because this Tribunal was federal, it had the power to transcend the State laws to make the orders sought with respect to the replacement of the current BDM Registrar from her position within the department, and, changing the details on her birth certificate and the relevant death certificates to correct the BDM Register according to the extensive information she had annexed to her Application for Review.
18. The Applicant contends that, in summary, her birth certificate was forged by 'Joseph Poul Gals', who falsely claimed to be her father on that document after kidnapping her at a young age. As a result of the forged/fraudulent document, the Applicant asserts that a number of horrific and traumatic events occurred to her and to her mother, Eva Gal, and an unborn sibling. The Applicant further contends that her real father is 'Joseph Gals'.
19. She applied to BDM to change her birth certificate to correct her true paternity, but also to remove her name as a child from the death certificate of 'Joseph Poul Gals', and add her name as a child to the death certificate of 'Joseph Gals' (noting that the two men are described by the Applicant as being of different ages, birth dates and race, though both are immigrants from Hungary who were naturalised in Australia and living in the same general area when she was a child).
20. The Applicant submits that the BDM decision not to change the three certificates or correct what she says are false entries in the Register prevents her from accessing a pension she is entitled to and also a vast estate that she has accumulated. She states the BDM decision is wrong because it did not take into account the entirety of the information she provided as evidence to the BDM Registrar but also is designed to ensure the truth of what occurred to her is not able to be verified, perpetuating a conspiracy or 'vendetta' against her.
21. No specific submissions were forthcoming from the Applicant as to any grounds of error made by the Tribunal in the dismissal of the substantive Application before this Tribunal, but rather the submissions were centred on the errors of the BDM decision.
22. As the Respondent, being the BDM Registrar decision-maker, was not aware of the Application and did not attend, no submissions were received from the Respondent.

1. The primary issue in this matter is whether the substantive Application was dismissed in error and, if so, should properly be reinstated under section 102 of the ART Act:

(1) This section applies if the Tribunal dismisses an application.

(5) A party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application on the grounds of error within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows).

(6) If a party applies under subsection (5) and the Tribunal considers that the application was dismissed in error, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

1. An Application for Review lodged with the Tribunal can be dismissed for a number of reasons, as set out under Division 8, subdivision A of the ART Act.
2. Specific to this proceeding, the substantive application was dismissed pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act (previously section 42A(4) of the AAT Act), which states:

97 Tribunal must dismiss application if decision is not reviewable decision > > The Tribunal must dismiss an application if: > > (a) The application is made for review of a decision; and > > (b) The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.

3. It is clear from the wording of the legislation that the Tribunal has no discretion but to dismiss an application under section 97 of the ART Act once the Tribunal is satisfied the decision is not one that can be reviewed by the Tribunal as a relevant 'reviewable decision'. This is entirely consistent with the objectives of the ART Act that 'applications for review are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense as proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits.'[9]
4. The Tribunal does not have the power to review any or every administrative decision. As eloquently expressed by Senor Member McCabe in the AAT;

"This Tribunal is tasked with the function of conducting an independent merits review of administrative decisions. Not just any decision, mind you: only those decisions which are declared to be reviewable by an enactment."[10]

5. In assessing whether the Tribunal does have the jurisdiction to determine an application, it must refer to the definition of 'reviewable decision' set out in section 25(1) & (4) of the AAT Act, which under the transitional provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 translates to section 12 of the ART Act, providing that:

(1) A decision is a reviewable decision if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.

(2) In addition, if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of a person under a power, a decision under the power is a reviewable decision, whether or not it is made by the person.

1. The applicable legislation relating to the BDM decision is the BDM Act. It prescribes under section 45 that the Registrar 'may correct the Register, or an entry in the Register to accurately reflect the most reliable information available'.[11]
2. As referred to earlier, while a copy of the BDM decision was not made available to the Tribunal, based on the annexures attached to her substantive application and the oral submissions made during the reinstatement hearing, it is evident, and I accept, that the Applicant applied to the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages seeking to correct the Register by altering the name of her father on her birth certificate, deleting her name as a child of Joseph Poul Gal from his death certificate and adding her name as a child on the death certificate of Joseph Gal. This was in line with her beliefs that Joesph Poul Gal kidnapped her as a baby and then falsified her records by claiming he was her father instead of Joseph Gal.
3. I further accept on the substantive application with its annexures (including NCAT orders for case management in Caterina Gal v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (2024/10078)[12] and supported by the Applicant's submissions that the BDM Registrar refused that application under the BDM Act[13] as the applicable legislation governing issues pertaining to the Register of any births, deaths or marriages within New South Wales. Accordingly, the BDM decision is the 'relevant decision' to be considered for the purpose of a dismissal under section 97 of the ART Act.
4. Relevantly, section 56 of the BDM Act provides for administrative review by NCAT if a person is dissatisfied with a decision of the BDM Registrar in the exercise of their function under the BDM Act in accordance with the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997.[14]
5. There is no such provision within that legislative instrument or associated regulations granting the same, or any, power to review BDM decisions to this Tribunal.
6. In relation to the NCAT pending decision, the Tribunal can review decisions not yet made in limited circumstances under section 16 of the ART Act:

16 Decision is taken to be made if timeframe expires

If:

(a) a decision of a person not to do a thing is a reviewable decision; and

(b) an Act or an instrument made under an Act provides for a quantified period within which the person is required or permitted to do the thing; and

(c) the person does not do the thing within the period;

the person is taken, for the purposes of this Act and the Act or instrument that provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision, to have made a decision at the end of the period not to do the thing.

Note: If there is no quantified period within which the person is required or permitted to do the thing, see section 10 of the Ombudsman Act 1976.

1. This is clearly not one of those 'non-decisions' able to be reviewed. Even in circumstances of a 'non-decision' there still is a requirement that the Tribunal have the proper jurisdiction conferred upon it by legislation to be able to conduct a merits review of the matter; the decision must still be a reviewable decision for the purposes of section 12 of the ART Act described above.
2. With respect to NCAT, there is no prescribed period under Statute for an application to be determined and a decision made, although NCAT aims to give a final decision and reasons within 2 months of hearing a matter.[15] Where a party is of the view a decision has been pending for too great a period, it is open to them to pursue the decision by making enquiries with the NCAT Registry, and if still dissatisfied with the length of time a decision is taking, approach the NCAT President.
3. Irrespective, if a decision is made by NCAT, section 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2 (NSW) provides that:

(1) A party to an external or internal appeal may, with the leave of the Supreme Court, appeal on a question of law to the Court against any decision made by the Tribunal in the proceedings.

(2) A person on whom a civil penalty has been imposed by the Tribunal in proceedings in exercise of its enforcement or general jurisdiction may appeal to the appropriate appeal court for the appeal on a question of law against any decision made by the Tribunal in the proceedings.

(3) The court hearing the appeal may make such orders as it considers appropriate in light of its decision on the appeal, including (but not limited to) the following--

(a) an order affirming, varying or setting aside the decision of the Tribunal_,_

(b) an order remitting the case to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal (either with or without the hearing of further evidence) in accordance with the directions of the court.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), the appropriate appeal court for an appeal against a civil penalty may substitute its own decision for the decision of the Tribunal that is under appeal.

(5) Subject to any interlocutory order made by the court hearing the appeal, an appeal under this section does not affect the operation of the appealable decision of the Tribunal under appeal or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision_._

1. The interpretation within that Act preceding the above section makes it apparent that the power to appeal or review of a decision of NCAT is conferred upon the Courts, being the NSW Supreme Court or District Court depending on the type of appeal and not this Tribunal or the federal Court.[16] This is the general appeal hierarchy established in all State & Territory jurisdictions within Australia where a State based tribunal decision is appellable only to the Courts of that State and not to another tribunal.

1. To determine whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the substantive Application under section 97 such that it ought to be reinstated, it is necessary to consider whether the decision the subject of the Application (whether the BDM decision or the NCAT pending decision) that the Applicant is seeking to have reviewed is one that is a reviewable decision by this Tribunal. It must be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal with power conferred upon it by a law or legislative instrument as prescribed by section 12 of the ART Act.

1. The BDM decision is said to be dated 2 December 2023.[17] The Applicant reiterated her assertions in her emails with the Tribunal, and repeatedly during the course of the reinstatement hearing, that it was the BDM decision that she wanted the Tribunal to consider and review. She has consistently taken this approach and I accept that the 'relevant decision' for the purposes of dismissal or reinstatement is the BDM Decision.
2. Notably, the substantive application was filed with the AAT on 27 August 2024, well outside the allowable timeframe of 28 days from the date of the BDM decision to seek review under section 29(2) of the AAT Act.
3. No application for an extension of time has been made, nor granted. Presumably this issue was not considered at the commencement of the Applicant's proceedings because the AAT deemed the relevant reviewable decision to be the pending NCAT decision (obviously with no date able to be calculated to ascertain whether the requisite timeframe has been complied with), which the AAT had considered was not within its jurisdiction to review. Because the reinstatement application was ultimately unsuccessful, determination on whether the Applicant is entitled to proceed with her substantive application out of time, or whether any special circumstances existed to grant an extension of time is unnecessary and redundant.
4. As stipulated above, section 56 of the BDM Act prescribes that if an Applicant is dissatisfied with a BDM decision, they are entitled to apply to NCAT. It is abundantly clear from that provision that recourse is through NCAT. There is no reference within that legislation to this Tribunal, nor its predecessor. The power to review the BDM decision is solely conferred upon NCAT.
5. The Applicant presumably was aware of this review process and that any application for review of the BDM decision was required to be lodged with NCAT at the time of filing her substantive application with the AAT, given that she had already applied to NCAT for review, with directions made for the management of her application in the matter of Caterina Gal v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (2024/10078)[18] and a hearing held in June 2024.
6. It appears that the lodgement of the substantive application with this Tribunal was a misguided attempt by the Applicant to try to have the Registrar of the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages terminated from employment due to her dissatisfaction with the BDM decision and to obtain orders compelling the department to change the Register to reflect the Applicant's strongly held belief as to her parentage for her to then be able to access a pension or an estate, and secondly, (perhaps more importantly to the Applicant) to vindicate her account of life events.
7. I do not accept the submissions made by the Applicant during the reinstatement hearing that as a federal Tribunal, this Tribunal has the power to transcend the State laws and make the orders she seeks without any legal basis. I also do not accept that as a member of this Tribunal, I am a representative of the Prime Minister and as such, have overarching powers to make orders as I please. There is no reasonable or objective legal foundation for these submissions.

1. I accept the Applicant's position repeated during the reinstatement hearing that the BDM is the relevant decision she wants reviewed and is the subject of these proceedings. She has been consistent in this regard.
2. Even were the Tribunal to consider the NCAT pending decision to be the 'relevant decision' for the purposes of the section 97 dismissal, the NCAT processes allow parties the opportunities to approach it with any concerns about the protracted length of time a pending decision is taking. These are clearly and simply set out on their website.[19] It is unknown as to whether the Applicant in these proceedings has made any enquiries with the NCAT Registry about her concerns regarding the delay of the NCAT pending decision on her application to review the BDM decision. That, however, must be the first step, as with any Court or Tribunal and is a logical one to take in all circumstances.
3. I am not convinced on the Applicant's submissions that a decision has not been made by NCAT following the Hearing on or around 30 June 2024 or that at least some information or communication has been provided to the Applicant by NCAT. Her answers to specific questions during the reinstatement hearing about what happened at the NCAT Hearing and if she has had any communication with NCAT since then were vague and contradictory before changing the topic.
4. I accept that at the time of lodging her substantive application with the Tribunal on 28 August 2024, she may very well not have had any communication with NCAT about the NCAT pending decision with the hearing having concluded approximately 2 months prior on or around 30 June 2024, but I do not accept that remained the case at the reinstatement hearing more than 12 months later or that she had not made some form of enquiry about it. It is conceivable having regard to the Applicant's presentation and her sole focus on the BDM decision that a decision may well have been made by NCAT following the lodgement of her substantive application but was adverse to the Applicant and not in her favour.
5. It appears on that basis the Applicant sought to continue her review of the BDM decision in a misguided second attempt for further review to obtain the orders she sought, rather than withdrawing her substantive application before this Tribunal and appealing any NCAT decision through the required process.
6. As referred to above, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No. 2) directs parties to the Courts for appeal of any NCAT decision, and not this Tribunal.

1. Based on the above, there is no provision in any legislation for review of a decision made for the purposes of the BDM Act to either this Tribunal, or its predecessor, the AAT. That power is reserved for NCAT as the authorised Tribunal to review those types of matters.[20]
2. Consequently, the BDM decision is not a 'reviewable decision' that can be reviewed by this Tribunal. There is no legislative provision for it to do so, and in fact that power is directly conferred upon NCAT. As it is not a 'reviewable decision' for the purposes of the ART Act, I find that no error of law was made in the dismissal of the substantive Application as mandated under section 97 of the ART Act. Therefore, it follows that the reinstatement application fails.
3. Secondly, with regards to the NCAT pending decision, the NCAT website[21] plainly sets out the procedure for making enquiries where a party is concerned about delays of a decision. It does not refer to this Tribunal. Even where NCAT has made a decision and a party is dissatisfied with the outcome, recourse is to NCAT for internal review or the Courts.[22] There is no legislative power conferred upon this Tribunal to review NCAT decisions, either actual or pending, and it is not a 'reviewable decision' that can be determined by this Tribunal.
4. Again, where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, I find that no error of law has occurred in dismissing the substantive application under section 97 of the ART Act. Indeed, it was compulsory that it do so, once satisfied the decision is not reviewable by this Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, on the basis that the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the substantive application, the reinstatement application is refused.
6. It matters not whether the substantive application relates to the BDM decision or the NCAT pending decision, because as addressed above, neither are reviewable by the Tribunal and both were properly and correctly dismissed pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act.
7. Therefore, the reinstatement application is refused on both counts.

[1] Order of Registrar Raciti dated 7 July 2025

[2] Application for Review filed 27 August 2024 at 15:29:41

[4] Letter from AAT to the Applicant dated 28 August 2024

[5] Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024

[6] Section 97 Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024

[7] Applicant email to the Tribunal 29 July 2025 at 7:51:15

[8] Applicant email to the Tribunal dated 30 July 2025 at 12:53:32

[9] Section 9(b) Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, emphasis added

[10] Stenhouse and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2012] AATA 57

[11] Section 45 of the Births, Deaths & Marriages Act 1995 (NSW)

[12] Order of Senor Member J Gatland on 27 February 2024 included at pg 2 of the Applicant's annexure to the Application for Review filed 27 August 2024

[14] Section 56(1) of the Births, Deaths & Marriages Act 1995 (NSW)

[15] NCAT Fact Sheet: Decision timeframes

[16] Section 82 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (No.2) (NSW)

[18] Order of Senor Member J Gatland on 27 February 2024 included at pg 2 of the Applicant's annexure to the Application for Review filed 27 August 2024