1. Orders do not legally meet of consider the objectives of the Act 2. Orders breach the intention of the Act

1. ACAT failure to give proper consideration of and / or reasonable weight on "evidence" before the court;

1. Application was unsuccessfully filed twice on order on order to be refiled with better particulars to enable the claim met 2. Application relied on "Expert" who did not file appropriate. undertaking or warrant on approved Tribunal form; 3. Application relied on verbal opinion of unlicensed ''builder" without any relevant qualification and capacity; 4. ACAT procedures and administration deficient and prejudicing Respondent from access and participation in the public authority's determination of the matters; 5. ACAT after Legislative Assembly members advised of breach of human rights advised after the fact of NEW capacity to file APPEAL without compliance of Law, previously unavailable, was now accepted without any basis of appeal identified as VALID due to ACATs failures to administer decisions in a timely cost effective manner;

1. Nature of ACAT in administering Hearings and or to consider the effect and well being of Respondent and Representative in the matter harassed and threatened by personal Violence on ACAT record;

1. Failure of ACAT to consider weight or guidance on the incapacity of the Respondent to understand or meet what is a convoluted claim of unknown and undermined possibilities of future events;

1. ACAT decision of "balance of probabilities" based on what appears "balance of undeterminable possibilities with no evidence of fact to support"
2. ACAT failure to consider or weight and address ACAT's determination of "legal disabilities" caused by the Applicants behaviour and Applications.
3. ACAT failures to not only avoid blatant discrimination but careless disregard to being seen to be indiscriminate or to NOT interfere within the evidence and assessment of that evidence withheld from the respondents;
4. ACAT failure to administer the Law and justice, by withholding any reasons for decisions for some FOUR MONTHS,
5. ACAT application of LAW quoting reasons of decisions made simultaneously in the same hearing as basis of the decision made at the same time!
6. Non compliance with law was forced by ACAT irresponsibly, willfully carelessly and with no just cause;
   1. ACAT wilfully and carelessly makes decisions with no identified reasons available for FOUR MONTHS;
   2. ACAT wilfully and carelessly delays providing reasons; that must be known as ACAT references precedent in reasons to decisions made simultaneously by the member at the same time on same day! But deliberately obfuscates up to FOUR MONTHS TO MAKE sure APPEAL is seen an IMPOSSIBLITY without further unreasonable delay; expense; waste of limited public resources; in breach of the ACAT act and its objectives;

1. Endemic systemic failure's of the public authority ACT Courts and Tribunal; ACAT; to administer Justice;
   1. Not having sufficient APPLICATION filed to enable the Respondent determine what of relevance or basis of claim can be made out or met;
   2. Respondent unable to understand or consider what was claimed is irrelevant to ACAT as decisions note ACAT has the responsibility to define and apply the correct Law. The Respondent is to weight for decision to be able to understand if anything has been found in dispute; to identify any "Law'' Sections and Regulations ACAT may have applied or failed to apply in defining what ACAT might consider as legally relevant;
   3. Respondent unable to identify or agitate matters in a reasonable manner and without prejudice to the decisions made;
   4. ACAT decisions based on manufactured "balance of what might of might not be possibilities" of unknown future events unable to quantify or determine in any reasonable if at all capacity of these imaginary damages today on "balance of probability"
   5. discriminately ACAT members hand picked irrelevant legislation without reasonable assessment of its application to prejudice the Respondent and imply terms not capable of inclusion "as implied terms" under the Legislation in the matter;
   6. ACAT Orders not based on nor were they reasonably made in consideration of and or appropriately weighted the relevant Laws in prescribing or administering the matters within the appropriate legal procedures required to enable ACAT to and be seen to conduct the administration of the public authority with due care and consideration of determining Law consistent with achieving justice;
   7. ACAT Senior Members provided miss-directions; statements of fact that were false and misleading and at the very foundations of and pivotal matters that affected the matter so it could NOT EVERY be reasonably possible to identify on any "balance of probability" the parties the Applicant was made against or the cause of action pressed.
   8. ACAT lake of legal required "timing notices" (phone calls to say hearing in two hours be there)
   9. ACAT lake of attendance to its Jurisdiction limits (Claim what you like will hear it ex-party; verbally alter claim and determine matter in Parties absence to what should be if not amended application filed heard in competent jurisdiction;
   10. ACAT altered without approval the Chessell file; the respondents SERVICE ADDRESS. On inspection 15-20 times were RED TAGED AS ALTERATIONS made by Registry without consent. Their was only ONE bono fide NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS;
   11. ACAT interfered with the application of Law and the pursuit of Justice by altering the Respondents capacity to have served, consider, reflect, seek advice and agitate reasonably matters.
   12. A lot of pivotal elements of the case file were interfered with. NO documents or information had been served and this is prescriptive the breaches of Law and actions in obtaining these orders. Presumed reasonably to be Illegal in the Courts administration of Justice
   13. Orders were made after the Members had applied procedures, directed evidence, squashed the giving of evidence, and did not allow evidence to be fully completed.
   14. While the appeal (denied by Registry as available due to ACAT not providing reasons of decisions that enable consideration and required to be itemised as deficient in APPEAL) made the day or there by to many orders. The ACAT registry failed to direct procedure or manage the hearings in compliance of seeking Justice.
   15. While the appeal (denied by Registry as available due to ACAT MEMBERS not providing reasons of decisions that enable consideration and required to be itemised as deficient in APPEAL) made the day or there by to many orders; The ACAT SENIOR MEMBERS failed to direct procedure or manage the hearings in compliance of seeking Justice.
   16. While the Respondent was unavailable / incapacitated; or unaware of ACAT decisions ACAT Senior MEMBERS pressed on regardless on the basis of their own personal feelings and imaginations of what a decision made might have been based on "the possibilities to substantiate what they derived to be the "balance of probabilities" in the matter.
   17. ACAT placed no weight on the Matter's importance being of or above the HIGHEST JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT; gave no weight or consideration to the Tribunal's incapacity to administer the basic fundamental issues required in an application (jurisdiction; basis; content; capacity or inclusion of real / relevant evidence) to enable a reasonable person respond other than to dispute claim.
   18. ACAT is wilfully careless or an incompetent jurisdiction in compliance with it's fundamental obligations and Legislative Law's the Public Authority is to administer the public office;
   19. ACAT refer to the informal setting provides capacity to consider its failure to administer the public authority in compliance with the Law to prejudice anyone asking for procedural fairness, as valid under "5A" to reduce it's costly; time consuming waste of limited public funds to apply in the pursuit of justice;
   20. ACAT in written decision, prejudices parties attending the Public Authority for raising any error of fundamental basis causing legal issuies to be packaged up as reasons to remove a person subjected to what ACAT determine a legal disability (of ACTA's causation in failure to administer the law competently) "is distracted by peripheral procedural issuies {of minor importance; not essential and superficial}
   21. ACAT considers a parties failures to appeal ACAT's decisions based on failures to apply Law / error of law resulting from ACAT's administrative incompetence caused by the cost; and time ACAT takes to provide procedural fairness is a waste of public funds as this incompetence is considered peripheral procedural issuies that allow ACAT to discriminately refuse addressing those very fundamental failures that caused it's decisions to be made ERRORS OF LAW.

[1] AA 16/2019 Reynolds v Chessell & Chessell, AA 17/2019 Reynolds v Powley & Powley

[2] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 9, 15-16, 19-20

[3] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 19, see also page 9 "Please just take my paperwork" and page 16 "You've got my submissions, you've got everything there".

[4] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 21-22

[5] Civil dispute application filed 20 June 2018

[6] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89

[7] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89

[8] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89 at [16]- [18]

[9] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89 at [20]- [30]

[10] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89 at [31]

[11] This date appears to be an error. Mr Reynolds lodged an application on 17 October 2018 to set aside Senior Member Robinson's orders.

[12] Transcript of proceedings 7 December 2018 pages 2-3

[13] Transcript of proceedings 7 December 2018 pages 3-4

[14] Transcript of proceedings 7 December 2018 pages 4-5

[15] Transcript of proceedings 7 December 2018 pages 7-8

[16] Transcript of proceedings 7 December 2018 pages 8-9

[17] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4

[18] The date of 25 October 2018 was the date nominated by Mr Reynolds in his application. As noted earlier, the decision was dated 23 October 2018.

[19] Verma & Anor v Reynolds (No 2) [2019] ACAT 19

[20] This date is an error as proceedings were not commenced until 20 June 2018

[21] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 6-10

[22] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 2-3

[23] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 page 5

[24] Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams [2017] ACAT 53

[25] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 15, 20-21

[29] See the discussion of this by Elkaim J in Legal Practitioner v Law Society of the ACT [2016] ACTSC 203

[30] [2015] ACTCA 56

[31] [2015] ACTCA 56 at [21]

[32] See, for example, Urbaniak-Bak v Council of the Law Society of the ACT & "RA" [2016] ACAT 156; Krown Living Pty Ltd v Lando [2016] ACAT 149; Hussain & Bilkis v Rahman [2016] ACAT 145; Superal-Wallace v Indypendent Pty Ltd & Anor [ 2016] ACAT 144; Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams [2017] ACAT 53

[33] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 pages 2-6

[34] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 pages 5-9

[35] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 page 8

[36] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 pages 9-10

[37] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 page 11

[38] Application for appeal 12 July 2019

[39] See transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 page 11

[40] That is matters XD 22/2018 (AA 16/2019) Reynolds v Chessell & Chessell, and XD 334/2018 (AA 17/2019) Reynolds v Powley & Powley

[41] Application for appeal filed 12 July 2019

[42] See Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4 at [10]

[43] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 6(c)

[44] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 7(a)

[45] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 page 8

[46] Transcript of proceedings 8 April 2019 pages 9-10

[47] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4

[48] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4 at [15]- [21]

[49] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4 at [22]- [30]

[50] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4 at [31]

[51] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4 at [9], [26]

[52] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 89

[53] Verma & Anor v Reynolds (No 2) [2019] ACAT 19

[55] For example "33) is Statements of 'Appeal' contemptible or a threat at law?"

[56] Considered at [159] to [165] and [243] to [261] below

[57] See also questions 66, 67 and 68 in Attachment A described as "involved for all three cases"

[58] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 13

[59] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 14

[60] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 14

[61] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 14

[62] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 15

[65] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 12

[73] Attachment B page 16, Attachment C page 7

[90] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 17

[107] Mr Reynolds' submission received on 2 July 2019 was not in the approved form.

[109] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 34-35

[110] Technical consultant, CMB Management

[111] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 30-34

[112] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 14; see also Attachment B page 11

[113] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 27-28, 39

[114] www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a\_id/50/N/asbestos

[115] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 28, 29

[116] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 29

[117] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 30

[118] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 29-30

[119] See also Question 32 "Eric Polleycutt is a builder"

[120] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 13, Attachment A Question 42

[121] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 26

[122] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 27, 30

[123] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 36

[124] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 37

[125] See Quotation Information 11 June 2017, Attachment B to Civil Dispute Application XD 800/2018 filed 20 June 2018

[126] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 37

[127] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 45-46

[128] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 47

[130] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 47

[131] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 79(3)

[132] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 (No 2), Rule 14(1)

[133] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 112(1)(b)

[134] see the note to section 112(1)(b)

[135] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 61(1)

[136] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 61(2)

[137] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 61(3)

[138] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 59(1)

[139] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 60(1), (2)

[140] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 sections 53, 59(4), 60(4)

[141] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 sections 60(4), 53

[143] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 (No 2), Rule 22

[144] XD 22/2018 Chessell & Chessell v Reynolds

[145] Transcript of proceedings XD 22/2018 Chessell & Chessell v Reynolds 14 February 2018 page 4

[146] Transcript of proceedings XD 22/2018 Chessell & Chessell v Reynolds 14 February 2018 page 7

[147] Chessell & Anor v Reynolds [2018] ACAT 110

[149] Powers of Attorney Act 2006 section 63

[150] Transcript of proceedings XD 22/2018 Chessell & Chessell v Reynolds 16 October 2018 page 7

[151] See for example transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 6

[152] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 6, 15

[153] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 12-19

[154] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 41, 57

[155] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 40

[156] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 40

[157] Verma & Anor v Reynolds [2019] ACAT 4

[158] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 57-58

[159] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 page 17, see also pages 23, 29-30, 38

[160] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 42

[161] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 8

[162] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 26

[163] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 23

[164] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2015 page 22

[165] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 24

[166] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 24

[167] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 41

[168] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 42

[169] A folder of documents in relation to these proceedings

[170] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 76

[171] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 2, 8

[172] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 2-3. The matter of Mr Reynolds' alleged incapacity is dealt with earlier in these reasons for decision (see [243] to [271]).

[173] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 page 5

[174] Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams [2017] ACAT 53

[175] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 15, 20-21

[176] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 17-19

[177] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 19-22

[178] Transcript of proceedings 14 June 2019 pages 26-29

[181] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 6

[182] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 page 73

[183] GP v Mackenzie & Ors [2018] ACAT 96

[184] Transcript of proceedings 6 August 2019 pages 6, 8, 21

[185] Hussain v Farhmand [2017] ACAT 107 at [41], [42]

[186] Jago v The District Court of New South Wales & Ors [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23 at [20]

[187] Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251 at [16]

[190] GP v Mackenzie & Ors [2018] ACAT 96