1. The Tribunal may order a person be joined to proceedings if it considers the person should be bound by, or have the benefit of a decision, if the person's interests are affected, or for any other reason it is desirable that the person be joined as a party.
2. This requires the undertaking of a two-step process. First, does the person meet the statutory criteria, and second, if any criterion is met is it appropriate to exercise the enlivened discretion.

Does TTL meet the criteria set out in s 54(1)(a)-(c)?

1. This matter concerns a review of a decision made by the Chief Executive of the Department in relation to the placement of a child. The paramount consideration in matters such as this is the protection of the child from harm.[12]
2. The Department's interest in this matter is to reach lawful and appropriate decisions in the exercise of its functions under the CYPS Act. Its role in the review is to assist the Tribunal to reach the correct or preferable decision.
3. The role of the Tribunal is to reach the correct or preferable decision as to the Department's placement of the child with TTL. The outcome of these proceedings will affect each of the applicant and TTL but their interests insofar as they might not be aligned with the child's interests, are not relevant to the Tribunal's task. Of course, the Tribunal accepts that both the applicant and TTL may feel strongly as to what the correct or preferable decision of the Tribunal should be. But these proceedings are not inter partes in the sense that they are not directed the identification of the rights and interests of either the applicant or TTL.
4. The issue, however, is not whether TTL should be entitled or required to participate in these proceedings but whether she should be bound by the outcome and in particular, have a right to appeal the outcome if she considers that it is not correct. I consider that she should be so bound.
5. I therefore consider that TTL meets the criteria set out under s 51(1) of the SACAT Act.

1. The Tribunal then has a discretion to consider other factors such as the effect of her participation upon the length of the proceedings and the potential cost to the applicant.
2. In the Tribunal's view, the manner of TTL's participation can be addressed by directions as to the parties. The primary question for the Tribunal is whether the respondent's decision was correct or preferable and the Tribunal will determine how it seeks to have the parties assist it in answering that question. For example, the question of whether TTL is required as witness and if so, who should be entitled to cross-examine her, is a matter that the Tribunal will decide upon its consideration of the relevant evidence.
3. The applicant has, in making this submission, referred to a number of cases whereby joinder was considered in the context of the Environment, Resources and Development ('ERD') Court.[13] There are several reasons why I do not consider this approach to be of significant assistance in understanding the operation of s 54 of the SACAT Act. Not only are the provisions distinctly dissimilar, the proceedings to which those authorities apply are ones in respect of which proprietary rights or other interests are affected.
4. The Tribunal here is reviewing a decision in relation to the placement of a child. It is evident from the statutory scheme that that no person other than the child is conferred rights and the roles of others are in the advancement of the child's rights.
5. The Tribunal's decision, even on interlocutory applications, is shaped by the need to protect the child from harm and the ultimate goal of reaching the correct or preferable decision as to the review.[14] This, alongside the Tribunal's objectives set out in section 8 of the SACAT Act, is what informs the discretion as to whether or not joinder should be ordered.
6. I am satisfied that the exercise of the discretion in favour of the joinder application is, on the balance, in keeping with the Tribunal's objectives and the wide power afforded by s 54. I grant TTL's application.

1. TTL's application was to be joined as an applicant. She is not an applicant in that she is not a person who seeks to review the decision. She seeks to uphold it. She can only properly be joined as a respondent and that is the order that will be made.

1. The Tribunal makes the following orders:
   1. TTL is to be joined as a respondent to these proceedings pursuant to s 54(1) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
   2. The Tribunal Registry is to serve on TTL all non-confidential documents received by the Tribunal in these proceedings.

[1] Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 s 11(1).

[2] See e.g. Cunningham v Hayden Real Estate (Geelong) Pty Ltd [2003] VCAT 1252 [16]; Anderson v Economo [2000] VCAT 434 [31].

[3] See e.g. Vero Insurance v Eckberg [2007] VCAT 1317 [10].

[4] Gregor v State of Victoria [2000] VCAT 414 [17].

[5] Bell v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 104 [17]; Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA 241, [11].

[7] Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA 241 [13]; Mackay v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 381.

[8] Gregor v State of Victoria [2000] VCAT 414.

[9] Affidavit of TTL dated 3 August 2022 [23].

[10] Applicant's Submissions on the Interlocutory Application of TTL for Joinder ('Applicant's Submissions') [5]-[7].

[11] Respondent's Submissions as to Joinder ('Respondent's Submissions') [13], [14].

[12] Children and Young People Safety Act 2017 (SA) s 7.

[13] In particular, the applicant makes reference to Pitt v Environment, Resources and Development Court (1995) 88 LGERA 204 and OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2005] SASC 216; (2006) 92 SASR 67.

[14] See CYPS Act s 7 and SACAT Act s 34.