Health Care Complaints Commission v De Lore

o s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting the disclosure of the names, addresses or any other identifying information of any patient or any family member of the Respondent referred to in the evidence in the proceedings.

Introduction

1. On 24 October 2019 the Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) applied to the Tribunal for disciplinary findings and orders under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the National Law) against Rebecca De Lore, a registered nurse.
2. In its Complaint attached to the Application the Commission brings three individual complaints in relation to the conduct of Ms De Lore. The first two complaints allege unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B(1)(a) and/or (l) of the National Law. The third complaint alleges professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law in relation to that conduct.
3. The Commission alleges that Ms De Lore's conduct demonstrates that the judgment possessed, or care exercised, by her in the practice of nursing is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience: see s 139B(1)(a) of the National Law. It is also alleged that her conduct was improper or unethical: see s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law.
4. The complaints relate to discrete time periods. The complaints are grounded in Ms De Lore's conduct while working as a registered nurse at a Community Health Centre and subsequently at a private psychiatric facility. The evidence demonstrates, and it is admitted by Ms De Lore, that she had a personal and intimate relationship with two patients, who are referred to in this decision as Patient A and Patient B.
5. The Commission seeks the following orders: 1. If Ms De Lore was still registered as a nurse an order under s 149C(4)(a) of the National Law that the Tribunal would have cancelled her registration; 2. Under s 149C(4)(b) of the National Law, Ms De Lore be disqualified from being registered as a nurse for a period of 5 years; 3. Under s 149C(4)(c) of the National Law, the Nursing and Midwifery Board to record the fact that had Ms De Lore been registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled her registration for a period of 5 years; 4. Under s 149C(5A) of the National Law, Ms De Lore is to be prohibited from working as an assistant in nursing or providing any mental health service for a period of 5 years; 5. Ms De Lore is to pay the Commission's costs of the proceedings.

Background

1. Ms De Lore was first registered as a nurse on 23 April 2004. She voluntarily surrendered her registration 9 December 2016. On 1 March 2017, she signed a statutory declaration undertaking not to seek registration as a nurse again in Australia. Nonetheless, Ms De Lore subsequently reapplied for registration but withdrew that application on 29 January 2020. Ms De Lore is currently unregistered: see AHPRA Evidentiary Certificate dated 9 April 2020.
2. In 2010 Ms De Lore was employed by a Local Area Health District, Mental Health Service, as part of a GP Shared Care Team which was later known as the Continuing Care Team at a Community Health Centre (the GPSC Service).
3. In April 2011 Ms De Lore resigned from her position with the Local Area Health District and GPSC.
4. Patient A was a male patient of the GPSC Service from November 2009 to October 2010 during which period he was initially subject to a six month community treatment order and, after the order expired in June 2010, he remained a voluntary Patient of the GPSC Service until 12 October 2010. Patient A had a lengthy history of schizoaffective disorder, depressive episodes and attempted suicide.
5. Between November 2015 and November 2016 Ms De Lore was employed by a private psychiatric facility (the Clinic) in the Greater Western Sydney area as a part time registered nurse. On 16 November 2016 Ms De Lore resigned from this position.
6. Patient B was admitted as an inpatient of the Clinic on 20 April 2016 for alcohol detoxification. Patient B was discharged on 24 May 2016. Patient B had a lengthy history of anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol problems, bi polar disorder, eating disorders and schizophrenia. Patient B died in June 2019. The death certificate for Patient B records his cause of death as gastric haemorrhage in the context of alcohol intoxication and steatosis hypertension.

Tribunal proceedings

1. Ms De Lore was legally represented at a directions hearing held on 22 November 2019 when a timetable was set for the Commission and Ms De Lore to file and serve evidence and submissions. The proceedings were listed for hearing on 6 April 2020.
2. In a statement dated 14 February 2020 Ms De Lore made substantial admissions. She admitted both complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. She also made admissions in full or in part to the particulars which supported the Complaint.
3. On 6 March 2020 Ms De Lore's legal representative filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act. In a letter to the Tribunal and the Commission of the same date, the former representative stated that he was instructed that Ms De Lore would not be attending to give evidence at the hearing and would no longer be participating in the proceeding.
4. In addition a letter from Kate Moylan, Psychologist, Spectrum Health dated 2 March 2020 was provided to the Tribunal and the Commission. This letter indicated that Ms De Lore was attending Spectrum Health following identification of mixed anxiety and depression. Ms Moylan wrote that considering Ms De Lore's current presentation, it was considered detrimental to her mental health if she were to attend the hearing.
5. The matter had been listed for hearing on 6 April 2020 in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. To reflect the public health measures deployed in response to the pandemic, shortly before the scheduled hearing date and in communication with the parties, the Tribunal made an order on 25 March 2020 dispensing with the oral hearing and determining that the matter would be considered by the Tribunal on the papers.
6. Each party had previously provided evidence. On 3 April 2020 the Commission provided written submissions to Ms De Lore and the Tribunal in which is set out the orders it was asking the Tribunal to make and why.
7. By letter dated 9 April 2020 the Tribunal wrote to Ms De Lore giving her the opportunity to comment on the Commission's submission and in particular the orders it was seeking. No response or further material was received from Ms De Lore.
8. We are satisfied that Ms De Lore has been served with the relevant documents on which the Commission relies, has formally responded to the complaint in writing at a time when she was legally represented, and has been given the opportunity to comment on the protective orders sought by the Commission. On that basis we are satisfied that it is appropriate to consider both Stages 1 and 2 being the Complaint (stage 1) and the appropriate protective orders (stage 2).

The first complaint

1. All of the details set out below are contained in the particulars which comprised the first complaint. These particulars are admitted in full by Ms De Lore.
2. Between November 2009 and October 2010 Ms De Lore had regular clinical contact with Patient A and for a period was Patient A's Care Coordinator at the GPSC Service. Following Patient A's discharge from the GPSC Service, Ms De Lore breached proper professional boundaries in that she inappropriately contacted Patient A by telephone and/or social media for a non-therapeutic purpose (Particular 1).
3. Around the middle of 2011 Ms De Lore inappropriately entered into and maintained a personal and sexual relationship with Patient A until about the end of 2015. During this period Ms De Lore converted to the Islamic faith and participated in a religious, Sharia marriage ceremony with Patient A but did not become legally married to him (Particular 2).
4. In a submission dated 21 December 2015 sent by Ms De Lore's then legal representative to the Nursing and Midwifery Council of NSW (the Council) on her behalf, Ms De Lore denied that she had entered into a personal or sexual relationship with Patient A. This denial was false (Particular 3).
5. In this same submission, Ms De Lore gave an undertaking to the Council that she would not contact Patient A whilst the Council was dealing with a complaint relating to her alleged inappropriate conduct towards Patient A. Between late December 2015 and February 2016, in breach of her undertaking, Ms De Lore contacted Patient A on a number of occasions (Particular 4).
6. In text messages sent to Patient A between late December 2015 and February 2016, Ms De Lore improperly sought to persuade Patient A not to provide truthful information to the Commission and/or the Council about Ms De Lore's and Patient A's personal and sexual relationship (Particular 5).

The second complaint

1. The details of the second complaint are that between 20 April 2016 and 24 May 2016 Ms De Lore cared for Patient B from time to time during his admission to the Clinic in her role as a registered nurse. Following Patient B's discharge, Ms De Lore breached proper professional boundaries in that she inappropriately contacted Patient B by telephone, email and/or social media for a non-therapeutic purpose (Particular 1).
2. Between about mid-2016 and November 2016 Ms De Lore inappropriately entered into and maintained a personal and/or sexual relationship with Patient B (Particular 2).
3. Ms De Lore made partial admissions in relation to these details. She stated that it was Patient B who initiated contact with her and denied that their relationship was sexual. She admitted engaging in a personal relationship with Patient B but stated that it was not physical or intimate in nature. Nonetheless, she conceded that she maintained communication with Patient B, engaged in a personal relationship with him and was in breach of professional boundaries and the Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses which were in place at that time.

The third complaint

1. The third complaint is one of professional misconduct. The details set out above which form the particulars comprising the first and second complaint are relied upon both individually and cumulatively by the Commission to establish this complaint.

Evidence

1. Material was provided by the Commission to support the details of the complaints set out above. This included but was not limited to: a notification to Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in relation to Ms De Lore's conduct towards Patient A, a mandatory notification to AHPRA by Ms De Lore's employer in relation to her conduct towards Patient B, a complaint by Patient A to the Commission, emails, transcript of voicemails, photographs and text messages, Expert Peer Review Report, personnel files, patient clinical records, correspondence with the Council and witness statements.
2. The Council has conducted two section 150 proceedings in respect of Ms De Lore and her conduct towards Patients A and B respectively. Section 150 proceedings occur in the context of the Council's obligation under the National Law to take action at any time if it is satisfied it is appropriate to do so for the protection of the health and safety of the public or for reasons otherwise in the public interest.
3. The Council conducted its first hearing on 22 February 2016. Reasons were published on 13 March 2016. Ms De Lore attended this hearing. These proceedings concerned her relationship with Patient A. After considering the matter the Council was satisfied that at that time conditions were not required on Ms De Lore's registration. The delegates considered that it was unlikely that Ms De Lore would have another boundary violation and did not think her practice was likely to present an ongoing risk to the public.
4. A second hearing was conducted on 9 December 2016. Reasons were published on 13 February 2017. Ms De Lore did not attend this hearing. These proceedings concerned her relationship with Patient B.
5. On this occasion the Council observed that it appeared from the material before it that Ms De Lore had contacted and engaged in an intimate relationship with Patient B within four months of attending the earlier section 150 Proceedings on 22 February 2016 which had been about her intimate relationship with Patient A. After considering the matter the Council was satisfied that it was appropriate to put conditions on Ms De Lore's registration. These conditions included that she must not work as a registered nurse.
6. Two expert peer reports were prepared by Warren Shaw. Mr Shaw is an area Nurse Manager, Mental Health Services of a large regional area in New South Wales. The first report is dated 30 December 2016 and it reviewed Ms De Lore's conduct in relation to Patient A. The second report is dated 10 June 2018 and it reviewed Ms De Lore's conduct in relation to Patient B.

Complaint One: Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct sections 139B(1)(a) and (l)

1. The expert peer review reports concluded that Ms De Lore's conduct in relation to Patient A was significantly below the standard expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.
2. The various Codes of Conduct referred to in this decision inform us as to what the profession, as a whole, reasonably expects of its members. This includes but is not limited to acting in a way that does not exploit the vulnerability of patients.
3. Ms De Lore accepts that her conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. As referenced by Ms De Lore's own admission she was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses in Australia
4. We find that Ms De Lore's conduct demonstrates that the judgment possessed, or care exercised, by her in the practice of nursing is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. We find her conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(a) of the National Law.
5. The first complaint also alleges unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of section 139B(1)(l) of the National Law. Section 139B(1)(l) refers to "improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of the practitioner's profession". It requires a determination by the Tribunal as to whether a practitioner has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct arising from an assessment as to whether conduct was improper or unethical relating to the practice of their profession. It is therefore directed at a broader range of conduct than that which occurs "in the practice of" a person's profession.
6. The words "unethical" or "improper" are not defined in the National Law. The Macquarie Dictionary defines "improper" relevantly as not 1. "in accordance with propriety of behaviour, manners etc. or abnormal or irregular and "unethical" as "contrary to moral precept; immoral"; and 2. "in contravention of some code of professional conduct." There is no reason to suppose that the words should be given a different meaning in the National Law.
7. Assistance in determining what is meant by "improper" can also be gained from what the High Court of Australia said of the word "impropriety" in R v Byrnes & Hopwood [1995] HCA 1. If conduct is not in conformity with standards of professional conduct and practice it can be seen as improper.

Complaint Two: Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct sections 139B(1)(a) and (l)

1. The evidence clearly establishes that between 20 April 2016 and 24 May 2016 Ms De Lore cared for Patient B from time to time during his admission to the Clinic in her role as a registered nurse.
2. The Commission submits that we can find particular 1 proved, in the form alleged by it, on the basis of Ms De Lore's admission. The particular does not refer specifically to the initiation of non-therapeutic contact, which is what Ms De Lore appears to deny. We accept that submission.
3. There is some evidence to suggest that Ms De Lore may have initiated non-therapeutic contact with Patient B. In a witness statement made by Patient B's mother she says her understanding is that Ms De Lore contacted Patient B via email on 27 May 2016 several days after his discharge from the Clinic on 24 May 2016. The Commission submits that this evidence is more reliable that Ms De Lore's apparent assertion that Patient B initiated the non-therapeutic contact.
4. We are not able to make a clear finding that the first non-therapeutic contact with Patient B was made by Ms De Lore. However, on the evidence before us we are satisfied that following Patient B's discharge, Ms De Lore breached proper professional boundaries in that she inappropriately maintained contact with Patient B by telephone, email, and/or social media for a non-therapeutic purpose.
5. In relation to particular 2, Ms De Lore denies a sexual relationship with Patient B. She admitted engaging in a personal relationship with Patient B however she says it was not physical or intimate in nature.
6. Again, the Commission submits that Ms De Lore's admission is, in substance, an admission of the particular alleged, which is of a "personal and/or sexual relationship" with Patient B. We accept that submission.
7. Further, the evidence is consistent with a very intimate relationship and highly suggestive of a sexual relationship. Patient B's mother says that Patient B and Ms De Lore "had a relationship" and that they each spent weekends at the other's home. In a witness statement the CEO of the Clinic, records that Ms De Lore acknowledged to her that her relationship with Patient B was "more than just a friendship".
8. Whatever the true nature and extent of the relationship between Ms De Lore and Patient B was, we are satisfied the evidence establishes that between about mid-2016 and November 2016, Ms De Lore inappropriately entered into and maintained a personal relationship with Patient B.

Complaint Three: Professional Misconduct section 139E of the National Law

1. The Commission submits that the conduct of Ms De Lore, which we have found constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct, when considered individually and cumulatively is of a sufficiently serious nature to amount to professional misconduct.
2. There is no comprehensive exploration in the case law as to when unsatisfactory professional conduct will amount to professional misconduct. The concept as contained in s 139E should be given a purposive interpretation. The Tribunal is required to not only consider the object of the protection of the public but to recognise that object also includes deterring the practitioner, and other practitioners from repeating the same misconduct: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Saeid Saedlounia [2013] NSWMT 13 at [43]-[50] and Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35].
3. As explained by Basten JA in Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWCA 186 "[t]he term 'professional misconduct' does not have a specific meaning; it is merely a category of 'unsatisfactory professional conduct' which is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation": see [19].
4. In our view when the complaints are considered individually and together there has been a significant departure from the standard of conduct to be expected of a nurse.
5. Ms De Lore breached the standards that apply to the nursing profession. She engaged in serious boundary violations culminating in personal relationships with two vulnerable clients. One of those relationships was sexual. Ms De Lore's conduct is aggravated by the fact that she entered into her relationship with Patient B soon after the section 150 hearing was held in relation to her relationship with Patient A. Such a breach of professional standards is serious.
6. Ms De Lore's conduct is compounded by her lack of candour with the Council and her breach of the undertakings she had provided.
7. We find that the unsatisfactory professional conduct displayed by Ms De Lore is of a sufficiently serious nature to constitute "professional misconduct" under s 139E of the National Law.
8. We are satisfied that the complaint of professional misconduct as detailed in complaint three is proved.

Principles regarding protective orders

1. The relevant principal sections provide that the Tribunal may exercise any power conferred on it by Subdivision 6 of Division 3 of part 8 of the National Law in relation to proven claims against registered health practitioners: see sections 149A, 149B and 149C of the National Law.
2. Having found the complaint of professional misconduct proven against Ms De Lore we may exercise powers to suspend or cancel her registration: see s 149C(1) of the National Law.
3. The Commission seeks cancellation of Ms De Lore's registration as a nurse for a period of 2 years.
4. In determining the appropriate orders, the paramount consideration is the protection of the health and safety of the public: see s 3A of the National Law. As the Tribunal's paramount consideration is the protection of the health and safety of the public, an imposition of restrictions on the practice of a health professional is only to be made in pursuit of according with this higher objective: see s 3A National Law. Such restrictions are only to be imposed where necessary to ensure health services are provided safely, at an appropriate quality: see s 3(3)(c) National Law. This determination may only be made by reference to the facts of the particular case before the Tribunal and by considering what measures are needed to ensure future behaviour of the Practitioner, and others, is shaped in such a way that is consistent with these protective goals: Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 at [34].
5. In addition to the protection of the public being the paramount consideration, it has also been held that other relevant purposes of such proceedings include the need to maintain the standards of the relevant profession, and to deter others from engaging in like conduct: see, for example, Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 637.
6. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Do, [2014] NSWCA 307 Justice Meagher (with whom Justices Basten and Emmett agreed) referred at [35] to the importance of denunciation of misconduct, in the context of s 3 and s 3A of the National Law as follows: The objective of protecting the health and safety of the public is not confined to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular practitioner from the continuing risk of his or her malpractice or incompetence. It includes protecting the public from the similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved by setting and maintaining those standards and, where appropriate, by cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not competent or otherwise not fit to practise, including those who have been guilty of serious misconduct. Denouncing such misconduct operates both as a deterrent to the individual concerned, as well as to the general body of practitioners. It also maintains public confidence by signalling that those whose conduct does not meet the required standards will not be permitted to practise.

Consideration of protective orders

1. In our view Ms De Lore's conduct is very serious. Both Patient A and Patient B were very vulnerable patients with significant mental health issues. By maintaining a personal relationship with two former patients she demonstrated an absence of care, propriety, honesty and integrity in her nursing practice.
2. Ms De Lore's inappropriate relationship with two patients is aggravated by her ancillary conduct. For example she initially denied her relationship with Patient A. Whilst the Council were dealing with the complaint relating to Patient A she breached the undertaking she had given them. Ms De Lore sought to persuade Patient A not to provide truthful information to the Commission and/or the Council about their relationship. Soon after the section 150 hearing in relation to Ms De Lore's relationship with Patient A she entered into a relationship with Patient B.
3. Ms De Lore was not candid and honest with the Council. This is an integral part of the proper functioning of the regulatory system. By her actions she demonstrated a disregard for the Council and its role.
4. Ms De Lore has made no submissions as to protective orders. As a result we have somewhat limited measures by which we can assess the level of insight and remorse, if any, that Ms De Lore holds into her conduct now.
5. Certainly Ms De Lore had an opportunity to demonstrate insight and remorse when investigated on the second occasion by the Council and during the Commission's investigation. She chose not provide any information in this regard.
6. In our view the false representations Ms De Lore made to the Council on the first occasion it dealt with a complaint against her and entering into an intimate relationship with Patient B soon after her section 150 hearing in relation to her relationship with Patient A are evidence of her lack of insight.
7. Ms De Lore has not provided any material that would assure us that she has any insight or understanding into the standards of practice and morality required of her as a nurse.
8. Having regard to the findings made above as to the nature of the conduct and the protection of the public, we are satisfied that the disciplinary orders sought by the Commission are appropriate. Specifically that if Ms De Lore were still registered the Tribunal would have cancelled her registration and that she be disqualified from being registered as a nurse for a period of 5 years.

Prohibition order

1. The Commission seeks an order prohibiting Ms De Lore from working as an assistant in nursing or providing any mental health service for a period of 5 years. It did not make any specific submission addressing the prohibition order sought.
2. We can make a prohibition order if we are satisfied that the practitioner poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public: see s 149C(5)(a) of the National Law. An order of this kind is aligned with the protective purpose of the legislation.
3. The question of whether a person poses a substantial risk to the health of the public must be assessed by evaluating the risk posed to the public if that person were to be involved in the provision of health services.
4. A prohibition order should only be made where there is some basis to find that there is a possibility that the practitioner will engage in the provision of unregistered health services and place the public at substantial risk through so doing. In this matter there is no evidence as to Ms De Lore's future employment plans.
5. In our view there is a substantial risk to the health of members of the public because the available evidence demonstrates that Ms De Lore has replicated the same pattern of failing to adhere to professional boundaries with vulnerable patients. She has shown a willingness to mislead regulators and has not been candid with employers.
6. In our professional experience it is not unknown for nurses whose registration has been cancelled to seek work in the aged care and disability sectors. The specific health issues for patients in these sectors make them particularly vulnerable. In some instances care may be provided in the patient's own home with fewer safeguards or oversight than would otherwise be available.
7. In this case a prohibition order ensures that the protective purpose of the cancellation of Ms De Lore's registration is not significantly undermined. This is because if Ms De Lore were permitted to provide health services as an assistant in nursing, mental health service or other care services during the interim period when her registration was cancelled, it would substantially diminish the protective purpose of any order that cancelled her registration and may undermine confidence held in the profession.
8. For the reasons set out above we have framed the prohibition order in broader terms than that sought by the Commission, to cover the provision of care services in the aged care and disability sectors.

Costs

1. The Commission seeks an order for costs. Ms De Lore seeks that each party bear its own costs. Ms De Lore refers to her unemployment, medical issues and financial hardship.
2. The principles relevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs are the subject of recent discussion in the High Court of Australia in Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25. The High Court stressed that the awarding of costs is a discretionary matter, but the discretion must be exercised judicially by reference to relevant considerations. Their Honours further explained the general rule that costs follow the event is not affected because of a respondent's impecuniosity, rather a successful party should be compensated for the expenses it has incurred: see also Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342.
3. The Commission has been wholly successful. Accordingly an order for costs will be made in their favour.

Orders 1. The complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct are proved. 2. Under s 149C(4)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), if Ms De Lore was still registered as a nurse, the Tribunal would have cancelled her registration. 3. Under s 149C(4)(b) of the National Law, Ms De Lore is disqualified from being registered as a nurse for a period of 5 years from the date of this decision. 4. Under s 149C(4)(c) of the National Law, the Tribunal requires the Nursing and Midwifery Board to record the fact that had she been registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled Ms De Lore's registration for a period of 5 years from the date of this decision. 5. Under s 149C(5) and (5A) of the National Law, Ms De Lore is prohibited from providing a health service as defined by s 4(a),(c),(f),(g),(h) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), including but not limited to, working as an Assistant in Nursing, Personal Care assistant, or disability support worker, until such time as she is permitted to register as a nurse. 6. The Registrar is requested to notify the Nursing and Midwifery Council of NSW and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency of Orders 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above as soon as practicable. 7. Ms De Lore is to pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission, to be agreed or assessed. 8. Under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), disclosure to any person or entity of the names, addresses or any other identifying information of any patients or any family member of Ms De Lore referred to in the evidence in the proceedings, is prohibited.

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: 30 June 2020