1. Under ss 105 and 108 of the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic), the decisions of the respondent of 2 October 2024 to revoke the applicant's WWC clearance and to issue a WWC exclusion to the applicant are set aside and the Tribunal directs the Secretary to give the applicant a WWC clearance.

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Secretary to the Department of Government Services (Secretary) to issue a WWC exclusion to the applicant (KTA)[1] on 2 October 2024. This occured upon a reassessment of KTA's WWC clearance. It is a category C application, to be determined under s 108 of the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) (WS Act).
2. KTA held a WWC clearance (or the equivalent under prior legislation) from 25 August 2017 to 2 October 2024. She worked in the university sector. After that, in 2022, she qualified as a teacher. She worked as a teacher of mathematics in high schools, in 2023 and in 2024, until prevented from doing so by the interim suspension of her teaching registration. This was issued on 12 June 2024 by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT), arising out of the events the subject of this proceeding.
3. The circumstances of this case are unusual. It is not suggested that there is any risk of physical or sexual harm to children at the hands of KTA herself. However, the Secretary opposes the issuing of a WWC clearance. The Secretary submits that a combination of factors relating to KTA entail that the tests under the WS Act are not satisfied, such that KTA poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. Additionally, it is submitted, she does not satisfy the 'reasonable person' and the 'any type of child-related work' tests, and that it would not be in the public interest to grant a WWC Clearance to KTA.
4. Here, the offence which triggered the WWC exclusion was a breach of an intervention order (IVO) by KTA on on 2 August 2023. This IVO had been put in place on 6 April 2023, to protect KTA's then 16 year old daughter from her mother's overly persistent and inappropriate contacts with her. (The daughter did not live with KTA, in circumstances explained below.) On 2 August 2023, KTA visited her daughter's school, unannounced, with the gift of a cake for her. There were further breaches of the IVO in January 2024, as well as 'uncharged acts', which, similarly, involved KTA reaching out to her daughter between September 2023 and January 2024. In April 2024, she contacted the principal of her daughter's new school, interstate, by sending an email. The Secretary argues that KTA's breaches of the IVO indicated a disregard for the law, and a failure to prioritise her daughter's emotional needs ahead of her own.
5. However, the matter to which the Secretary accords perhaps the most signifance is KTA's failure to intervene to prevent her daughter from being sexually abused by her ex-husband. This includes during the period before that relationship finally ended, and KTA moved out of the family home in 2019. The husband was subsequently charged, and found guilty of serious sexual offences against their daughter. On 1 August 2023, he was jailed for eight years and nine months.
6. In terms of risk to children, the Secretary argues that KTA lacks insight, such that she would be unable or unwilling to comply with mandatory reporting obligations in the course of carrying out child related work, should the need to do so arise. In this regard, the secretary also refers to KTA having provided a reference for her ex-husband at the time of his sentencing, and raises issues concerning her mental health.
7. As described below, KTA's family history and circumstances are complex. They include significant matters which KTA regrets. In particular, her poor relationship with her daughter, the fact that she was not aware her daughter was being abused by her ex-husband and her personal response to those matters. And she described her ex-husband's attitude and conduct towards her as being abusive as well.
8. The fact that there is no suggestion of any risk of physical or sexual harm to children at the hands of KTA herself infuses the analysis required to be conducted in this review at many points. The conduct of KTA's ex-husband is shocking, and was harmful to his daughter. But that harm was not perpetrated by KTA. I have accepted that KTA was unaware that the abuse was occurring.
9. This places the assessment of risk in a different context to most WS Act reviews. The risk which the Secretary says needs to be considered, is the risk of KTA not becoming aware of harm being done to children, or of there being a possibility of such harm, perpetrated by another, during the course of her engaging in child-related work, or of her not reporting such circumstances.
10. With regard to the triggering offences (that is, the breaches of the IVO) as decscribed below, I regard these as being of lesser concern. They do not in all the circumstances, connote risks to children in child-related work.
11. In the light of the evidence, I have found this risk is negligable or nil. Accordingly, I have determined that the decisions of 2 October 2024 to revoke the applicant's WWC clearance and to issue a WWC exclusion should be set aside.

1. KTA was born in China. She is an Australian citizen. She came to Australia in 2005 as a student, aged 20. She formed a relationship with her future husband and became pregnant that year. They married in 2006 and later that year, their daughter was born. Between 2011 and 2015 the family lived interstate. In 2015, they moved to Victoria.
2. The marriage was not a happy one. KTA said her husband was disrespectful to her, angry at times, financially controlling and abusive.
3. From around 2010, KTA and her ex-husband generally slept in separate rooms. On some occasions, the daughter slept in her father's bed, including at his request. This started when she was small, and continued to occur, albeit on a less frequent basis after the age of perhaps seven or eight, into her teens. KTA said her daughter and her husband had a close relationship, but she did not suspect anything in the nature of sexual abuse.
4. In hindsight, there were matters which might have been interpreted as warning signs, but these were not picked up by KTA, nor by the maternal and paternal grandmothers, who lived with the family for extended periods at different times (see below).
5. KTA and her husband separated in September 2019. She moved out, and the daughter (having by then turned 13) remained living with her father. He had long term employment, and lived near the daughter's school. In contrast, KTA had less money and did not live near her daughter's school. Her accommodation varied, and was not suitable for the daughter. KTA and her husband divorced in 2021.
6. KTA completed a degree course at the University of Melbourne to become qualified as a teacher during 2021 and 2022. In 2023, she worked as a teacher at a peri-urban area outside Melbourne. In 2024, she transferred to another school. This came to an end when her VIT registration was suspended on 12 June 2024. KTA received an interim WWC exclusion on 15 July 2024[2], and a final WWC exclusion on 2 October 2024.[3] Her teaching registration was finally cancelled on 21 October 2024.
7. As KTA said in giving her evidence, she did not have a good relationship with her daughter. She said 'it wasn't a good relationship growing up - I deeply regret this'. The daughter had a closer relationship with her father. It appears KTA was focussed on her own studies and career.
8. After she moved out in 2019, KTA saw her daughter on weekends. She was living some distance from her daughter and her ex-husband. During the COVID-19 pandemic she did not have much opportunity to visit her daughter. While she said they had enjoyed outings together, such as shopping or going to a spa, KTA said that her attention was not on her daughter - 'my mind was somewhere else'. She was not attuned to her daughter's psychological state. Asked in this hearing if her attention with regard to her daughter was focussed on her school results, KTA said she was focussed on herself, and what energy she had left was focussed on her daughter's school performance. This included tutoring her daughter in relation to her school studies.
9. In early September 2022, the daughter, then 16, divulged to a friend that she had been sexually abused by her father. This had gone on for many years. The friend told her mother, and the Child Protection Unit (Child Protection) at DFFH intervened. The daughter was placed with a friend's family. Later, apparently towards the end of 2023, she was placed with relatives interstate.
10. Following the husband's arrest for sexual assault of his daughter in September 2022, KTA's behaviour was characterised by multiple, apparently obsessive, attempts to contact both her daughter, and also, at times, Child Protection. KTA's contacts with Child Protection were unsatisfactory from both parties' point of view: she felt disrespected and misunderstood by them, and they concluded she was not coping with the revelations of the ex-husband's abuse of her daughter very well, and did not regard her as an appropriate person to care for her daughter in the circumstances.
11. A 'Family Reunification Order' was made in the Melbourne Children's Court on 16 November 2022..A letter of 23 February 2023 to KTA from a Senior Child Protection Practitioner at DFFH[4] quoted that order as providing that:

Mother may have contact with the young person at times and places as agreed between the young person and the mother; DFFH to be kept informed. This contact is subject to the young person's wishes. Mother may have overnight contact, subject to the young person's wishes, as agreed between the young person and the mother and the DFFH. Once overnight contact has commenced, it may proceed as once every two weeks and progress to more frequent overnights, subject to the young person's wishes.

1. In the meantime, in December 2022, KTA had rented a flat near her daughter's school. She said this was on the recommendation of a person I understood to be a Child Protection Officer. KTA said this was costly for her on the budget she was on.
2. The specific arrangements referred to in the 23 February 2023 letter involved contact for two hours every second Sunday and every second Friday night between 4:00 pm and 7:30 pm. KTA was not allowed to contact her daughter, or her carers, outside those times. Any requests for variation were to be made through Child Protection. KTA was advised in the letter that phoning her daughter or her carer regularly and repeatedly was considered harassing behaviour, and that if it continued, action would be taken by way of a Personal Safety Notice.
3. On 21 March 2023, an order was made by the Children's Court that parental responsibility for the daughter be conferred on the 'Secretary'.[5] This order provided for KTA to have contact with her daughter every Friday evening and every second Sunday morning, subject to the daughter's wishes or as otherwise agreed between them. DFFH was to be kept informed. Contact was not to include overnight unless agreed between the child, the mother and DFFH.
4. A DFFH file note of 21 March 2023 recorded that the daughter did not have an issue with KTA contacting her directly at times other than those prescribed in the contact condition. Also, that KTA had requested family therapy with her daughter.[6]
5. In April 2023, KTA became concerned that her daughter (then 16) was planning to meet a boy she had contacted on Snapchat. She responded on that particular occasion by telephoning her daughter 'in excess of 100 times' in circumstances where she said she was extremely concerned for her safety, and she had not responded to her mother's calls or texts.[7]
6. The daughter described KTA as being 'overbearing' in her contact with her: 'She was calling, texting and messaging me constantly as well as showing up at my house at random times on random days while I needed time to myself'.[8]
7. This led to an IVO being taken out in the Magistrates' Court in favour of the daughter, directed to KTA, on 6 April 2023. [9] This required that KTA not go within 5 metres of her daughter, or within 200 metres of her home or school. However, this was subject to anything permitted by 'a child protection order'. That is, it appears, the discretion to allow contact as described above, under the 21 March 2023 order, remained.
8. In reality, what occurred was that contact continued between KTA and her daughter. KTA said they texted each other daily and she continued to tutor her daughter.[10] KTA said that this continued until around October 2023. She said she did not know that was not allowed.
9. In the meantime, the husband was charged, and after initial denials, in April 2023, admitted the allegations against him. There was a plea hearing on 24 July 2023, and he was sentenced on 1 August 2023. He was given a total effective sentence of eight years and nine months, with a non-parole period of five years and nine months.
10. The charges to which he pleaded guilty related to the period when the daughter was between nine and 16 years old. They comprised two charges of incest (penetrating her vagina with his fingers and tongue when she was between 10 and 13 years old), one charge of indecent act with a child under 16 (having her masturbate him and watching pornography in her presence when she was in year 7), one charge of sexual activity in the presence of a child (including having her take photos of him naked with an erection when she was in year 10) and one charge of possession of child pornography.
11. The day after the sentencing, 2 August 2023, KTA breached the 6 April 2023 IVO by attending her daughter's school with a cake - 'to cheer her up'. This followed her daughter blocking her (presumably on her phone) because she was angry that KTA had given a character reference for her husband at the time of sentencing. The daughter did not respond positively to KTA's appearance at her school. She said she was 'really embarrassed and annoyed' by it.[11]
12. That visit to the school led to KTA subsequently being charged, on 15 December 2023, with breaching the 6 April 2023 IVO. That was the triggering event for the WS Act re-assessment. This came on for hearing on 12 January 2024 (see below). KTA said this was motivated by concern for her daughter's welfare, a desire to re-establish contact, and demonstrate that she loved her. This was in circumstances where there were no other family members on her side in Melbourne to give support to her during that week, when her husband was sentenced. No physical harm was done to her daughter, although she was 'really embarrassed and annoyed'. However, she acknowledged her lack of judgement and was remorseful for this IVO breach.
13. Over the four month period from 20 September 2023, it was alleged that KTA had contacted her daughter on six specified occasions. These are referred to as the 'uncharged acts'. KTA accepted most of those allegations, although she said that for several of them, the contact may have been made by her (that is KTA's) mother, the daughter's grandmother.
14. In the first week of 2024, further breaches of the IVO occurred: The daughter was sent a message with a $20 bank transfer, explaining it was for an App, to enable her to use the iPad pencil her maternal grandmother had given her, and a card with 'lots of messages' from KTA signed 'love Mum'. There was also an attempted telephone call on 8 January 2024. These actions were the subject of four of the second set of charges laid against KTA (on 16 December 2024) for breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO.
15. On 12 January 2024, the first charge for breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO came on for hearing. This related to bringing the cake to her daughter's school on 2 August 2023. KTA pleaded guilty. The outcome was that the matter was adjourned for 12 months on the basis of KTA's undertaking to comply with the IVO of 6 April 2023, and to make a payment of $100 to the court fund.
16. On 3 April 2024, KTA sent an email to the principal of the school interstate which her daughter was now attending. The daughter was now in her final year. This inquired as to her progress at school, and also disclosed the fact of the daughter's father having been jailed for incest of the daughter. (It is not apparent whether the principal was already aware of this or not.) This conduct was the basis for charge 4 of the second set of charges brought against KTA for breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO. It is not clear to me precisely how this was a breach of the 6 April IVO. KTA said she understood it was allowable for her to contact her daughter's school, as this did not involve contact, or attempted contact, with her daughter herself. She said the police had told her that after the 2 August 2023 school visit in Victoria. Nevertheless, KTA pleaded guilty to this charge.
17. The daughter's involvement with Child Protection came to an end when she turned 18, in August 2024. She is now 19.
18. As noted, KTA was prevented from teaching from 12 June 2024 and the final WWC exclusion was issued on 2 October 2024. The final WWC exclusion issued after the following submissions were received from KTA:
    • A nine page submission written by KTA dated 25 August 2024.
    • A copy of a letter from a counsellor, Mr Atif Saeed, of 25 August 2024. This was addressed to both the Working With Children Check Unit, and the VIT.
    • Some material relating to an application made by KTA to VOCAT (the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal) as a secondary victim of the ex-husband's sexual assaults, for counselling, gym, yoga and the like.
    • Two personal references for KTA from high school teaching colleagues.
19. KTA commenced this VCAT review on 30 October 2024. It was accompanied by a four page submission written by lawyers on KTA's behalf. KTA said she could not afford lawyers to conduct this case for her at VCAT.
20. Next, on 16 December 2024, as mentioned, the second set of charges for breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO was filed.
21. That second set of charges come to court on 1 March 2025. KTA pleaded guilty to two charges of breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO. These were firstly, charge 6, a rolled up charge, relating to the January 2024 bank transfer, the card with 'lots of messages' and the attempted call, and secondly, the 3 April 2024 email to the school principal. The other charges were withdrawn. The sentence imposed was an adjournment on the basis of good behaviour for 12 months.
22. VCAT received detailed submissions from the Secretary dated 20 August 2025 opposing the application, and further submissions drafted by KTA herself, dated 1 September 2025. These were very similar to those she had previously provided to the Secretary on 25 August 2024, prior to the decision under review.
23. KTA said in her evidence that in March 2025 she had filed her own report with police about abuse of her and coercive control by her husband. She said that while she did not seek to have him charged, she did want to formally record his inappropriate conduct towards her. However, this statement was not provided to the Tribunal.

1. Section 108 of the WS Act sets out the three part test which the Tribunal must apply in determining this review:

• First, under s 108(1), in exercising its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must determine whether in the circumstances it would be appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance, having regard to the 10 matters to which the Secretary must consider under s 65(2).
  • Second, under s108(2), it must determine to refuse the application unless satisfied that:

(a) a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while engaged in any type of child-related work; or > > (b) the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children; and

• Third, under s 108(3), the Tribunal must refuse to give a WWC clearance unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

2. Importantly, in determining whether it would be appropriate to refuse to give a WWC clearance, s 11 of the WS Act requires that the protection of children from sexual or physical harm must be the paramount consideration.

1. The hearing was conducted by Zoom. KTA participated in the hearing from China. She had gone there in July at short notice upon being invited by a longstanding friend. It is apparent she took up this option in circumstances where she was de-registered as a teacher, could not find work, had a WWC exclusion, was allowed little or no contact with her daughter (who is living interstate) and had no income apart from Centrelink payments. She intends to return to Australia later this year.
2. KTA has proficiency in 'everyday' English. Her expression orally and in writing is on occasion imprecise. A Mandarin interpreter attended the hearing, as KTA was concerned she may not understand some of the legal language which might be involved, or not be able to respond effectively to some questions which might be asked during the hearing. As it turned out, and with the Tribunal checking in during the course of the hearing, KTA was happy for the hearing to be conducted entirely in English, without the interpreter being required to assist.
3. The only witness to give evidence at the hearing was KTA herself. This was despite the Secretary stating in its submissions that her two referees and the counsellor who authored the 25 August 2024 report, Mr Saeed, were required to attend for cross-examination. It is not clear that KTA had in fact read and/or understood the import of that part of the Secretary's submission.
4. Having observed her at length in the hearing, I accept KTA gave truthful evidence. The Secretary did not submit otherwise. I accept she was not aware of the sexual abuse perpetrated on her daughter by her ex-husband. I also accept that for a significant period, she was genuinely uncertain as to what she was and was not allowed to with regard to contact with her daughter.
5. It is clear KTA had an unusual relationship with her daughter, and this contributed to the events which transpired. At the same time, she herself was a victim of abuse. While it might be that a person having a different background, age, marital circumstances, financial capacity and personality might have handled the relationship with her daughter differently, that is not the key question in this case.
6. As is often the case in matters of this nature, the evidence generally includes content which is of uncertain accuracy nor import. For example, many of the key passages in the Child Protection case notes are redacted. Also, I am conscious that such notes are taken by officers who are acting in necessarily dynamic and uncertain circumstances, to seek to protect children, and the conclusions they draw in the course of doing so certainly do not comprise legal proofs.

1. The Secretary referred to statements in prior WWC decisions that psychological evidence can be very useful to the Tribunal in conducting reviews. This is true, although these statements are generally made in the context of there being some history, and the possibility of an ongoing threat, of physical or sexual violence towards children by an applicant, and so an assessment is required of the extent to which this has dissipated. That is not the nature of the risk being considered here. The evidence relating to mental health is to be considered in that context.
2. The only substantive information the Tribunal has relating to KTA's psychological circumstances is the 24 August 2024 report from the counsellor, Mr Saeed. He was not made available by KTA for cross-examination by the Secretary. Although useful, as the Secretary submitted, Mr Saeed's report falls well short of providing a full and up to date assessment of KTA's psychological state.
3. Further, it is apparent Mr Saeed is not a psychologist. While he has written a five page report titled 'Comprehensive Assessment and Formulation Report', which sets out matters including Medical History, Mental State Examination, 5Ps Formulation and Recommendations, it is apparent that his relevant qualification is Master of Social Work.
4. KTA did see a clinical psychologist, who wrote a report in March 2023 for the purposes of her VOCAT application. However, that report was not provided to the Tribunal.
5. It is apparent Mr Saeed saw KTA when she was at a low ebb, apparently due to having lost her ability to teach due to the suspension of her registration by the VIT, on top of the traumas associated with her ex-husband's conduct. Mr Saeed referred to her having to deal with feelings of guilt, shame and unresolved grief. She was remorseful, upset, dishevelled, fatigued and spoke in a subdued monotone. However she had shown a strong commitment to her therapy sessions. She had established and was adhering to a self-care routine, including yoga, establishing regular sleep patterns and reducing alcohol consumption. Asked if she had used alcohol for 'emotional numbing', KTA said yes. In his report, Mr Saeed said this had been hindering her ability to address her trauma effectively.
6. KTA saw Mr Saeed four times around July/August 2024, and she said there was a final telehealth consultation in early 2025. However, she could not afford to continue to see Mr Saeed.
7. KTA said she no longer drinks at all. She sleeps better now. She is more socially connected, she dances and attends church. Her demeanour in the hearing was 'normal'. She does speak in a low, calm, manner, with less emotion than others might, concerning the issues the subject of this case. KTA's demeanour did not reflect the things described at the time she saw Mr Saeed.
8. It was submitted that the Tribunal should be very wary of accepting that KTA had made such apparently good progress in regards to her mental health, despite not having continued with her therapy.
9. The Secretary was also critical of KTA's statement in the hearing to the effect that she was never properly diagnosed with depression. In that regard, I note Mr Saeed did not purport to diagnose depression, although he did note the presence of symptoms of anxiety.
10. In the Secretary's submissions, the significance of the evidence about KTA's mental health was that it aligned with what it described as KTA's failure to prioritise her daughter's emotional wellbeing ahead of her own emotional needs. From this, it extrapolated a potential inability to take action where necessary to protect children she has contact with while engaging in child related work. As indicated in the analysis below, in my view, this is somewhat of a long bow.

1. It is clear that KTA's marriage was not a satisfactory one, and that her relationship with her daughter was complicated. The daughter had a closer relationship with her father, and lived with him until September 2022, with KTA at that stage only seeing her daughter on weekends. KTA's response to the revelation of the abuse was also complex, and she was not able to provide the support her daughter needed.
2. The Secretary drew attention to a number of matters which could be described as 'red flags' with regard to the sexual abuse perpetrated on the daughter. These illustrate the unsatisfactory relationships within the family. But they did not of course occur in a working with children environment. They relate to the domestic environment, where harm was perpetrated by a person other than KTA. Hence, while they comprise evidence of relevance to the working with children environment, the relevance is, in that sense, indirect.
3. As stated above, I am satisfied that KTA did not know of the abuse while it was occurring. In hindsight, she acknowledges she should have been more aware of what was going on. But, as she said, she was often physically absent, given that the marriage relationship was breaking down, or had broken down, over the years prior to her moving out of the family home in 2019. KTA said that the relationship was going badly, even in 2010. The father had the primary parental role. After 2019, her contact was further restricted, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and her home and work being far from the family home where father and daughter lived together. Also, due to financial constraints, she lived in a share house, and there was no room for the daughter to stay with her.
4. KTA also said that it was not just she who failed to pick up that abuse was occurring, or had occurred. At one point, KTA's mother would come from interstate to help them for about three months each year. The abuse also occurred while the husband was staying at his parents' house interstate. KTA said her daughter also disclosed to her that 'inappropriate' conduct occurred while the daughter was on holiday with the father and his sister, and 'no one has noticed anything'. Father and daughter had a close relationship, but neither KTA, nor the grandparents nor other relatives, picked up that sexual abuse was occurring. KTA said that around 2016 to 2019 when the marriage was breaking down, 'we spent more time apart focussing on ourselves'.[12]
5. The 'red flags' referred to by the Secretary were as follows.
6. The daughter sleeping in the same bed as her father on some occasions: This started with helping the daughter get to sleep, as a very young child. Sometimes, the daughter asked to sleep in her father's bed and at other times, he initiated this. (KTA slept in a separate room, with the daughter, where there were bunk beds.) Often, KTA was working very late. KTA said the daughter sleeping in her father's bed occurred while a grandparent was staying with them too. Beyond the age of seven or eight, KTA said, this happened only very rarely, for example, when they watched a movie together.
7. Purchase by the father of a sex toy for the daughter: In her statement to police of 15 September 2022, KTA said that her husband had asked her 'casually, almost jokingly', within the last two years if it was ok to buy the daughter a dildo. She said she responded if she wanted it and needs it, she thought that was okay. However, in her oral evidence, KTA said she did not in fact recall her husband telling her that he would do this. She said at that point, when making her statement to police, she was in a state of shock, in the light of the disclosure made by her daughter shortly before. I also note there is no reference to an interpreter being involved at the time this statement was prepared.
8. The position in relation to the sex toy is inconclusive. It is but one detail as to the family circumstances. It is not of major significance for the purposes of this decision, in relation to the risk posed by KTA to other children while engaged in child-related work.
9. The evidence is similarly inconclusive in relation to the suggestions raised in KTA's police statement of 15 September 2022, and in the Child Protection material, of KTA being aware of the father masturbating in front of his daughter, calling her his 'little wife' or taking her to a nudist beach. It does appear that the ex-husband would on occasion be naked in the home, especially early in the marriage, and engaged in watching pornography, and that on occasion, KTA asked him not to do this. But exactly what events occurred, and the exact extent to which she was aware of these matters in the course of, and after, the marriage, and how serious they appeared to be at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, is not clear. KTA was clear, however, that neither she, nor any grandparents, were aware of the sexual abuse of their daughter, and I accept that.
10. Consistent with this is the information about the daughter's attempt to tell her mother that her father liked to kiss her vagina. The daughter said this was when she was about seven years old, and they were living interstate. This was the last time she tried to tell an adult about what her father had done. Mother and daughter were walking to the park. The daughter said her mother was distracted on her phone and she didn't think her mother actually heard her say that.
11. To the extent these events occurred, they might well be a cause for criticism of KTA (including by KTA herself) in carrying out he role as a parent. But in my view, this has limited relevance to the questions to be determined in this case, concerning the extent to which KTA a poses a risk to children while engaged in child related work.

1. The triggering event, this being a category C application under the WS Act, was the 12 January 2024 finding of guilt, in relation to the charge of breaching the 6 April 2023 IVO, by visiting her daughter's school on 2 August 2023.
2. As described above, the other breaches of the IVO relied on by the Secretary comprise the 'uncharged acts' and the early January 2024 contacts.
3. While the 12 January 2024 finding of guilt is the only trigger for the re-assessment being reviewed, I accept that the framework of the WS Act is such that the uncharged acts and the conduct the subject of the 1 March 2025 findings needs to be considered in a similar way. Each comprises an 'other matter' relevant to the application under s 65(2)(j), and the tests in s 108 are broadly expressed, such as to capture this additional conduct.
4. KTA's failure to become aware of the sexual abuse of her daughter also needs to be considered in the calculation of risk. Indeed, in my view, it is the more significant issue. That matter is also dealt with as part of the analysis under the statutory criteria below.

Section 65(2)(a) - the nature and gravity of the conduct and its relevance to child-related work - Breaches of IVOs

1. The first breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO occurred on 2 August 2023. KTA arrived at her daughter's school, with a gift of a cake. She simply turned up in the corridor at the conclusion of a school period. In her statement, the daughter said this left her feeling embarrassed, annoyed and uncomfortable in front of her friends. The daughter described KTA as 'giggling and in a happy mood'.[13] Given the timing of this event, being the day after KTA's ex-husband had been sentenced, and that the daughter having just blocked her mother (presumably on her phone) after becoming aware that she had given her father a reference as part of the sentencing process, it is apparent there are complex family dynamics behind this, and I do not purport to have a full understanding of what these are.
2. Next are the breaches of the IVO comprising the 'uncharged acts'. The descriptions of these at [32] of the Secretary's submissions, together with my comments from the evidence, are as follows:
   • On 20 September 2023, KTA sent her daughter a photograph of herself standing naked in front of a mirror.[14] KTA said this was sent from a spa, of the kind they had attended together before. She said her daughter was interested in design. The comments accompanying the photo about the interior design of the premises are consistent with that.
   • Between 13 and 19 October 2023, KTA made multiple calls to her daughter. The daughter described this as 'constant contact'. KTA agreed she had done that.
   • On 16 November 2023, KTA sent her daughter an email attaching a store gift card of $50 stating 'to buy school supplies, Love Mum'. KTA said she did not recall that.
   • On 21 November 2023, KTA sent her daughter an email with the subject 'Signs of Mr Wrong' and a photo of a page in a book. KTA agreed she had done this. She said she was reading a book about how to raise girls.
   • On 23 November 2023, KTA sent her daughter a text message stating 'I dreamt you were sick last night, is everything alright?' With regard to this, KTA said this could have been her mother using her phone, but she didn't know.
   • Between 7 December 2023 and 7 January 2024, KTA's daughter received a multitude of emails from her grandmother's email address, many of which she believed to be from the applicant. With regard to this, KTA said she didn't know.
3. Concerning these contacts, the daughter said: 'This behaviour makes it hard for me to balance my mindset and is upsetting as I am trying to concentrate on school and she continues to try to control me and contact me and does not make me feel great at all'.[15]
4. Next is the January and April 2024 conduct the subject of pleas of guilt on 1 March 2025 for breach of the 6 April 2023 IVO. These comprise first, the bank transfer message, the greeting card and attempt to telephone on 8 January 2024. And second, the 3 April 2024 contact with the interstate school principal.
5. The effect of KTA's evidence was that she acknowledged she had breached the 6 April 2023 IVO, although the circumstances of the latter breaches varied, and that she only came to understand over time what she was and was not allowed to do.
6. In my view, KTA's plea of guilty to the school visit charge, and to two of the December 2024 charges (with the others being withdrawn) indicates an acceptance by her that she breached her obligations by contacting her daughter more often than she was allowed to (and sometimes much too often). In her oral evidence at VCAT, KTA certainly accepted that she should not have breached the IVO in the ways she did. She also said that if the situation arose again, she would seek legal advice as to what her exact obligations were.
7. In my view, the ambiguity of the documents, and of the processes relating to the IVO, as described above, and KTA's consequent lack of understanding of what she was and was not allowed to do in terms of contact with her daughter, at least partially explains these breaches. The Secretary submitted that a five year IVO (which this is) is not imposed lightly against a parent. That may be, but as stated, it was subject to 'anything that is permitted by a child protection order about child arrangements; BUT ONLY IF the respondent does not commit family violence while doing so'.[16] That condition creates a potentially substantial carve out from the terms of the IVO.
8. Most commonly, in WS Act reviews where the applicant has breached IVOs, the question is as to the extent to which there remains a risk to children of past sexual, violent or threatening conduct, by the applicant themselves, being repeated.
9. That is of course not the case here. The contacts, while misguided, and apparently obsessive, and motivated more by KTA's own needs, and complex reaction to the revelation of the abuse of her daughter, were not malicious. They were not accompanied by any kind of threat, either to the child, or to her ex-partner. In terms of the assessment of the scope of the potential impact on children, while KTA is engaged in child-related work with other children, these actions on their face cannot objectively be regarded as suggesting a serious threat.

Section 65(2)(b) - the period of time since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct

1. The conduct took place between August 2023 and April 2024 - a period of eight months, which finished 18 months ago.

_Section 65(2)(c) - in the case of an offence, whether a finding of guilt or a conviction was recorded for it or a charge for it is still pending; and

Section 65(2)(d) - in the case of an offence, the sentence imposed for it_

1. In each case, only minor penalties were imposed. As noted, the outcome relating to the 2 August 2023 school visit was no conviction, a 12 month adjourned undertaking and a $100 fine.
2. The outcome of the second proceeding was no conviction, with a 12 month adjourned undertaking.

Section 65(2)(e) - the ages of the applicant and of any victim at the time the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct

1. The breaches of the IVO occurred over the period from just prior to the daughter's seventeenth birthday, through to when she was 17 years and seven months. KTA was 38.
2. The Secretary submitted, correctly, that the daughter was at a particularly vulnerable juncture in her life when the IVO contraventions occurred, with her father having just been sentenced for sexually abusing his daughter.

Section 65(2)(f) - whether or not the conduct has been decriminalised or has ceased to be subject to disciplinary charges since the Applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged in it

1. The relevant conduct has not been decriminalised.

Section 65(2)(g) - the applicant's behaviour since the applicant engaged, or allegedly engaged, in the conduct

1. Most of the matters referred to by the Secretary under this heading have been dealt with under other criteria.
2. One matter not so dealt with is set out in the Secretary's submissions at [57]:

Another matter which weighs against the applicant is that in her submission in response to the interim WWC exclusion she disclosed suspicions that her ex-partner has committed other offences when they lived in NSW - she indicated that she 'will contact police to report this'. It is concerning that she had not reported this immediately, particularly against the background of failing to identify her husband's abuse of her daughter over a number of years.

1. This suspicion concerns children other than KTA's daughter. Asked about this in the hearing, KTA said she did raise this when she made her own report to the police in March 2025. Asked why she did not report it at the time (between 2010 and 2015), KTA's response was, in effect, that she did not have any proof. It is apparent from KTA's evidence that this is a recollection which became a suspicion after the daughter's revelations in September 2022, and KTA was reflecting back on things her ex-husband had said in the past.

Section 65(2)(h) - the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the applicant

1. This is the key consideration under the WS Act.

1. With regard to her knowledge of mandatory reporting obligations as a teacher, KTA indicated she had undertaken training on this in 2023 and in 2024 in conjunction with her employment as a teacher. That is, of course, after the revelation of the conduct by her ex-husband. That was in September 2022. She did say during the course of giving her evidence, that she may have had some training on this in 2022, during her teacher training, but this was only a tentative reflection.
2. In any event, KTA was quite clear that if a child reported abuse to her of the type her ex-husband had perpetrated, she was under an obligation to report it. She also articulated in some detail an understanding of the abuse of power in such relationships.
3. Additionally, KTA undertook a further online child protection awareness training course in August 2025. She said this was through the NSW Child Protection Authority. She described it as having similarities to the other modules she had completed previously. She completed it over a couple of hours a day, over three or four days.
4. KTA emphasised that her practice, as a teacher, was to be mindful of, and actively protect, the wellbeing of children. For example, if there is potential trouble in the schoolyard, or if she observes children making nasty remarks about other students, she speaks to the perpetrator, and if there were signs of anything of a serious nature, she would report it.

1. KTA produced two signed references from teaching colleagues at the school she worked at in 2023. One was an integration aide who commented positively on her control of a boisterous all-boys maths class, as well as the attention given to a member of the class with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The other also noted her consistently calm demeanour (which, I note, was apparent in the giving of her evidence).
2. The Secretary submitted that these references should be given little or no weight given that KTA had failed to make these witnesses available for cross-examination. Her failure to follow through with the request she said she had made to the school management to produce evidence of positive actions she had taken for the welfare of students (not responded to by the school) by say, making an FOI request, was also criticised.
3. I agree the non-attendance of the two referees significantly reduces the impact of their statements. As to the other matter, realistically, in the circumstances, I am not sure what supporting documentation KTA would have been able to obtain without legal assistance.
4. Overall, however, the failure to produce these witnesses for cross-examination is of much less significance in the assessment I need to make in this particular case, as opposed to most other WS Act reviews. That is because here, there is no suggestion of there being any risk to children posed by KTA herself.

PPA v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety

1. The Secretary referred to the case of PPA v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety.[17]
2. This was a case in which, similarly to the present matter, the applicant was the wife of a person who had been found guilty of criminal abuse of his own children, and the applicant had failed to intervene to protect them. In that case, PPA had actually been charged with the offence of failing to disclose a sexual offence committed against a child under the age of 16 years. She was acquitted.
3. The Tribunal found that PPA did not represent a risk to children if engaged in child-related work, and overturned the Secretary's decision to issue a negative notice.
4. The Tribunal described the context and issue for determination, and its finding on that issue, as follows:[18]

The Secretary concedes that the protective concerns raised 'principally call into question her capacity to protect her own children' - from their father if he were in contact with them. These concerns arose from PPA's failure to believe - and then report and act on - what her children are said to have told her about their father having abused them.

The Secretary is concerned however that PPA's 'lack of insight', and the fact that she still does not accept that her husband committed the sexual abuse offences against her daughters raises the threat that PPA might not respond appropriately to another child she comes into contact with another child she comes into contact with while working with them if that child were to report sexual assault.'

The relevant concern is whether PPA would now recognise an abuse allegation if a child made one, and whether she would report it if one was made to her, whether she believed the child or not. I accept that she does, and she would.

1. The Tribunal found that the likelihood of a future threat posed by permitting PPA to engage in child-related work was negligible, based on PPA's evidence at hearing and attendance in relevant treatment and programs.
2. The Secretary submitted that the present case should be distinguished from PPA on the basis that here, KTA had failed to intervene despite having had mandatory reporting training for the purposes of working as a school teacher. The Secretary acknowledged that KTA accepted her daughter's allegations after her ex-husband made admissions to her. Nevertheless, the Secretary said, KTA's 'ongoing support for her ex-husband is a concern, particularly in circumstances where it plainly distresses her daughter'. Next, the Secretary submitted that KTA's breaches of the IVO at a time when her daughter was particularly vulnerable show a concerning lack of emotional awareness, as well as a disregard for court orders even after police intervention. Finally, the Secretary referred to the fact that a five year non-contact order is in place, to protect the daughter.
3. I do not accept those submissions. Of course, each case is determined on its own merits. But in my view, the position of KTA is overall more meritorious than that of PPA.
4. In the case of PPA, the evidence was that one of her children had reported abuse to her, but she had dismissed the child's concerns, saying her father wouldn't do anything like that. She also blamed another of her children for lying, and she believed the authorities had planted ideas in the childrens' heads. Also, after the husband was found guilty, she continued to believe he was not guilty.
5. Aggravating factors of that type are not present here.
6. Concerning the 'ongoing support for her ex-husband', I deal with this matter below.
7. In summary, to the extent that PPA raises considerations relevant to this case, they are more favourable to KTA than they were to PPA.

1. In light of all the evidence, I am satisfied that the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by KTA while engaged in child-related work is negligable or nil. I deal with the issues raised by the Secretary's submissions under this heading as follows.
2. First, it is put that KTA's breaches of the IVO indicate an inability to prioritise the needs of her daughter over her own, and that this could occur again when she was engaged in child-related work. In my view, this unrealistically equates the domestic setting in which the IVO breaches occurred, with a professional environment, such as teaching, in which child-related work occurs.
3. Second, it is put that KTA's failure to become aware that her daughter was being abused indicates a lack of insight and a lack of judgement, which might entail that while engaged in child-related work, she would fail to realise that a child was being sexually abused, and thus would not intervene to protect children, and in particular, fail to comply with her mandatory reporting obligations.
4. In my view, this conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Contrary to this contention, in light of the experience with her daughter, KTA would be much more attuned to signs of such conduct affecting children in her care.
5. Additionally, I accept her emphatic evidence, informed by her own personal experience, that she would make a mandatory report if appropriate. I am satisfied she is aware of her mandatory reporting obligations, and has done the training.
6. The Secretary's final submissions in the hearing pointed to factors suggesting KTA was not a good mother. Perhaps. Terrible things happened. KTA greatly regrets them, and she regrets being unaware of them. But that is not the question here. In my view, it is a long bow to extrapolate from the domestic events which occurred up to 2022, that KTA would present a risk to children while engaged in the future in child related work.
7. With regard to KTA's mental health, I agree that the evidence is far from comprehensive. But that does not particularly tell against the applicant in the circumstances here. There is no suggestion of a serious adverse mental health condition. In any event, I see this contention as relating mostly to the issue raised by the Secretary of KTA's inability to prioritise the needs of her daughter over her own. As stated, that obviously occurred during a time of crisis, in 2022 - 2024, when KTA was dealing with revelations that her daughter had been seriously sexually abused, and the resultant criminal process, including the impact of this on her daughter and herself. Obviously, part of this was her feelings of guilt and regret, relating to her unsatisfactory relationship with her daughter.
8. There is a clear difference between those domestic circumstances, pertaining up to 2022, and the situation of carrying out child-related work on a professional basis from the present time onwards. As with other contentions put against KTA, the argument about mental health was made on a fairly generic basis. It was not precisely articulated how it was that KTA's mental health circumstances (which are admittedly unclear) translates into a risk towards children in practical terms, while engaged in child related work. I do not believe they do.
9. Turning to the contention that the IVO breaches indicate a disregard for court orders. As described above, there was quite a degree of confusion as to the true effect of the IVOs. In all the circumstances, this mitigates the implications of this factor to some degree, although not completely. However, KTA clearly indicated in her evidence that she regretted these breaches, and in future would obtain legal or other advice to clarify what they are.
10. In my view, the evidence does not indicate that KTA would ignore her reporting obligations (say, when working as a teacher) and thereby comprise a risk to children.
11. In my view, the risk posed by KTA to children while engaged in child-related work is extremely low.
12. I make one additional comment. I am conscious that a WWC assessment is for the particular purpose of ensuring that a person does not pose a physical or sexual risk to children. Clearly, the focus of the Act is on the assessment of risk of sexual or physical harm to children from the individual who is the applicant for a clearance, as opposed to harm caused by another. It is unclear as to the extent, if at all, that the question of the ability of a person to observe the signs of sexual or physical abuse by another falls within the scope of the WS Act. Nevertheless, even assuming it does, I am satisfied that any risk of that type from KTA is negligible.

Section 65(2)(i) - any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application

1. The matters referred to by the Secretary under this heading have been dealt with under other criteria.

Section 65(2)(j) - any other matter that the Secretary considers relevant to the application

1. Under this heading, the Secretary referred to the reference which KTA gave for her ex-husband at the time of his sentencing. This statement describes the formation of their relationship, and their life together. It focusses on the positive aspects. There is very little negative content in it. It lists at the top of the page the 'charges' brought against him. But it does not mention the harm caused by his abuse of their daughter. It states she does not believe he poses any harm to society. On its face, this statement seems quite inappropriate and lacking in empathy for her daughter.
2. This reference given by KTA is perhaps most relevant to the criterion under s 108(2)(a) - whether a reasonable person (or parent) would allow their child to have direct contact with KTA while she was engaged in child-related work.
3. Once again though, it must be borne in mind that there is no suggestion of harm having been caused to the daughter at the hands of KTA herself, but rather, an apparent lack of empathy and of understanding at the time, of the serious implications for her daughter, and therefore, a concern that if equivalent circumstances arose in a child-related work context, she might not intervene to prevent harm perpetrated by another.
4. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that this is not a determinative contrary consideration with regard to KTA's case.
5. KTA said she was placed in the position of being pressured to write a positive statement by her ex-husband and his family. She said she did not know what he might be capable of. He and his father approached her 'and asked me to write a positive reference and demanded that it be one page long'. She described herself as trying to protect her daughter as well as her.[19] In her oral evidence, KTA also referred to familial obligations. She said that she considered the fact that the request was made by her daughter's grandparents, and that she agreed to do it for them. I note in this regard, that KTA has had, or been allowed, little contact with her daughter, and her grandparents played a significant role in her care throughout her life, including both before and after her ex-husband was charged.
6. Further, it was clear KTA did not understand that the reference would be read out in court, while her daughter was present. There were a lot of aspects of the court process which she did not understand, or were not explained fully to her.
7. In her evidence to VCAT, KTA was clear and sincere: providing this reference was a mistake. She should not have done it and is sorry she did so. Asked if her ex-husband is a risk to the community, she responded with a clear 'yes'. She has not spoken to him since access arrangements were being discussed in the context of the bringing of the case against him.
8. Once again, I note that this consideration does not relate to any risk of harm to children from the applicant herself - it concerns the scenario where there is an apprehension that harm might be caused by another person, which KTA might not intervene to prevent.
9. Taking all these matters into account, in my view, in considering the extent of risk to children posed by KTA while she was engaged in child-related work, the fact of her having provided the reference for her ex-husband in 2023 does not increase that risk to any meaningful extent. Once again, I am satisfied that to the extent KTA were to observe evidence, for example, while working as a teacher, of a student potentially having been abused at home, she would exercise judgement in line with what is expected of a normal school teacher. The effect of the evidence is that she would, in any such scenario in the future, intervene to take protective measures, such as reporting the matter to the appropriate person or agencies.
10. Additionally, and in a similar vein, the Secretary referred to the statement by KTA in an email of 17 September 2022 to the police officer investigating the ex-husband's offences. This stated that she still had feelings of sympathy and gratitude towards him and might still help him out if he ever ended up homeless.
11. I am very wary of drawing too many implications from this statement, or of taking it too literally, however, for several reasons. These statements were made in amongst others to the effect that KTA believed that her ex-husband and his family had purported to hold Christian values, but that the truth would come out and evil behaviours would be punished. This email included a request that an interpreter be utilised, and there are indications in the email of KTA not fully understanding initially exactly what the police or Child Protection were alleging her ex-husband had done.
12. Finally, in giving her evidence in relation to this, KTA was emphatic that what her ex-husband had done was 'really really bad, really wrong'. She went on to articulate that what he had done had caused 'non-reversible damage to both my daughter and me. But, yeah, I don't feel sympathy for him'.
13. Similarly to the giving of the reference for her ex-husband, I do not regard that email of 17 September 2022 as indicating an increase in the risk to children to any meaningful extent.

Section 108(2)(a) - whether a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work

1. A reasonable person (or reasonable parent) would of course find the abuse committed by the father completely abhorrent.
2. But that sentiment does not of course entail that this test must be found not to have been satisfied. To do so would be to act on the basis of erroneous reasoning. The abuse was not perpetrated by KTA, and I am satisfied she was not aware of it.
3. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the writing of the reference by KTA for her ex-husband, and the email of 17 September 2022 to the police officer do not entail that this criterion is not satisfied.
4. The Secretary's submissions focus on a concern that KTA would not be able to comply with her mandatory reporting obligations in the course of child-related work. As indicated, I am satisfied she does have that ability.
5. The Secretary also submits that the fact that a five-year non-contact order is still in place concerning the daughter would entail that the reasonable person would not be likely to allow their child to have contact with KTA while she was engaged in child-related work. It is often argued that while an IVO is in place, it is premature to issue a WWC clearance.
6. Once again, in my view, this is conflating KTA's circumstances with the much more common scenario of where an applicant has themselves directly caused harm to a child or to a partner in the past. Here, the postulated risk is of a different nature: that in acting as a school teacher, or in another child-related work role, KTA would fail to intervene to protect children from harm from others. The reasonable parent, viewing the matter through that prism, would not have the concerns expressed by the Secretary.

Section 108(2)(b) - whether the applicant's engagement in any type of child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children

1. The Court of Appeal has said of the equivalent provisions under the old Working With Children Act 2005, that there is 'considerable overlap' between the provisions akin to what is now s 107(1) and s 107(2). It also said, 'it is difficult to envisage a case' where the criteria in provisions akin to what is now s 107(2)(b) (that is, the 'any type of child-related work' test) 'will add anything of substance' to 'the manifold criteria' in provisions akin to what is now s 107(1), or to provisions akin to what is now s 107(2)(a) (that is, the 'reasonable person' test).[20]
2. That applies equally to s 108. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied this test is satisfied.

Section 108(3) - is it in the public interest to give the clearance

1. The Secretary's submissions on this criterion referred to a number of the matters already dealt with above.
2. Referring to Maleckas (LKQ) v Secretary to the Department of Justice,[21] it was said that evidence that an applicant is dishonest, or suffering from a serious mental illness, or had problems with drugs or alcohol, can be taken into account adversely under this test, while evidence that an applicant has skills that could benefit children or that they are a positive role model for children can be taken into account in favour of an applicant.
3. It was pointed out, correctly, that where they conflict, an applicant's strong desire to work with children must yield to the key purpose of the WS Act, to protect children.
4. But here, for the reasons set out, those things do not conflict. There is a public interest in KTA being able to work as a teacher of mathematics and related areas, especially as a Mandarin speaking female.

1. Having heard KTA give evidence, and in the light of the analysis above, I am satisfied that any risk she poses to children is extremely low. She did not perpetrate the harm suffered by her daughter at the hands of her ex-husband. She too was a victim. Further, to the extent the circumstances of her past involvement with her daughter could be seen as posing a risk, that has been mitigated by the experience she has been through and the learnings she has undergone. I will order that the decisions of 2 October 2024, revoking the applicant's WWC clearance and issuing the WWC exclusion, be set aside.
2. Of course, if KTA does wish to resume teaching, she will still need to obtain the required approvals from the VIT.

[1] On 18 December 2024, it was ordered that the applicant must be referred to as KTA. This is to protect the privacy of her daughter.

[2] This followed notification received from the Department of Families Fairness and Housing (DFFH) on 31 January 2024.

[3] KTA had been issued with a WWC Clearance (or the equivalent 'assessment notice' under the previous legislation) on 25 August 2017 and on 10 October 2022.

[7] Submissions attached to KTA's VCAT application of 30 October 2024.

[8] Police statement by the daughter dated 2 August 2023, TB 292-3.

[10] Statement by KTA of 25 August 2024 (TB 34), repeated in her submission of 1 September 2025.

[11] Statement by the daughter to police, 2 August 2023, TB 293.

[12] KTA's police statement of 15 September 2022, TB 336 at [20].

[13] Statement by the daughter to police, 2 August 2023, TB 292.

[14] In her submission accompanying her VCAT application (TB 114) KTA said this photo showed her breasts (as opposed to her whole body). I assume that was the proposition she was agreeing to in cross-examination. She was not asked about this distinction in cross-examination.

[15] Statement by the daughter to police, 24 November 2023, TB 306.

[17] [2019] VCAT 1962 (PPA),

[18] Ibid, at [67]-[69]. Emphasis in original.

[19] Submissions by KTA, 1 September 2025 at [2].

[20] Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation v OUX [2018] VSCA 178, (Priest, Beach and Weinberg JJA) at [38].

[21] [2011] VSC 227 at [90].