South Dural Residents and Ratepayers Group Inc. v Roads and Maritime Services

The Application for Access

1. The Applicant sought access to the following information: All documents, records and files including electronic files, being evidencing or recording the scope of works and calculations of the cost of works relating to the proposed road infrastructure for the planning proposal to rezone land in South Dural for urban development the subject of a Gateway Determination by the Minister of Planning and Infrastructure dated 7 March 2014.
2. The scope of the access application was clarified, to confirm that the Applicant was seeking: ... documents dealing with the scope and calculations of the RMS figures, as you [the Applicant] have been advised by Hornsby Council that the amount was originally $150,000 and is now calculated at $300 million or more. You seek all calculations and scope held by Roads and Maritime with regard to the proposed road infrastructure in South Dural.
3. The scope of the application was further clarified, to confirm that the request related to information from April 2016 to September 2017. Initially the Respondent identified 28 documents which it withheld or redacted. The Applicant sought administrative review of the decision.
4. The parties have been in conciliation discussions and certain documents have been released, but 17 documents out of the original 28 remain in contention.
5. The Tribunal has been provided with a consolidated schedule of documents showing those released and those withheld in whole or part.
6. In relation to the remaining 17 documents, the agency has determined that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. It relies on different grounds for different documents. The following are all the Table items in s14 of the GIPA Act upon which reliance was placed: 1(e), 1(f), and 4(c). The Respondent also later relied on Table item 5(e). The relevant provisions in the Table to s14 GIPA Act state as follows: 1 Responsible and effective government There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects (whether in a particular case or generally):… (e) reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency, (f) prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions,… 4 Business interests of agencies and other persons There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects: … (c) diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person. … 5 Environment, culture, economy and general matters There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects: … (e) expose any person to an unfair advantage or disadvantage as a result of the premature disclosure of information concerning any proposed action or inaction of the Government or an agency. :…

The Evidence

1. Mr Langford, Director, North West Precinct, RMS gave evidence by open and confidential affidavits and in confidential hearing. He has held this role for 18 months. He has held equivalent roles in RMS for approximately 5 years.
2. He is accountable for road network performance across the Western and Northern parts of Sydney. All projects and proposals that have the potential to impact on the road network in this precinct are referred to his team for consultation.
3. The South Dural planning proposal was a major development in the precinct. RMS had been in contact with the developer as part of the developer assessing the impact of the development on New Line Road and Old Northern Road. RMS did not agree with the developer's assessment of the impact and indicated that RMS would not support the outcome of that assessment.
4. Given the scale of the disagreement between the developer and RMS, the DP&I asked RMS to undertake its own assessment of the South Dural Planning Proposal, specifically in regards to the road infrastructure requirements and cost of upgrades required to New Line Road and Old Northern Road. Mr Langford's team assessed the road infrastructure aspects of the Proposal, which involved strategic modelling, preparing strategic design drawings of the road upgrades, identifying residential properties which would need to be acquired to allow for the upgrades, estimating the costs of the upgrade works and property acquisitions, and liaising with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in regards to the Proposal.
5. There was a large difference in the costs estimates prepared by the proponent versus the costs estimates prepared by RMS and this raised serious concerns for RMS. RMS provided the results of that assessment to the developer and DP&I .
6. Mr Langford stated that even though the South Dural Planning Proposal has been withdrawn, it is possible that another proposal for the South Dural area could be made in future. Alternatively, the Government may allocate funding to proceed with the New Line Road and Old Northern Road upgrades in future. Mr Langford's evidence was that planning for the road network looks well into the medium term future and needs to take into account future development proposals in the surrounding areas which could have an impact. It would be short sighted to only take regard of this particular development when surrounding areas are also the subject of development proposals. He also gave evidence that road planning needs to look not only at the subject area, here South Dural, but to have regard to 'upstream' and 'downstream' effects that new and improved road works might have on other roads. For example, it would not be regarded as good planning to relieve a bottleneck at one point simply to move it a couple of kilometres down the road. It is these considerations, amongst others that led the agency to form a view about the cost of road works that would be required.
7. Mr Langford stated that he believed that disclosure could prejudice RMS's ability to impartially assess any future proposal and negotiate financial contributions. He also said that it could prejudice RMS's ability to procure contractors to undertake the upgrade works in future (by way of competitive tender processes), as the market would know RMS's estimates of rates and total costs for the works and therefore, RMS's ability to obtain a lower price and achieve best value for money would be hindered.
8. He was also concerned about the disclosure of any information relating to potential property acquisitions, as these properties were identified for internal assessment purposes only and the owners of these properties have not been consulted (as the proposal did not reach a stage that required that sort of consultation). Therefore, property owners may be distressed to learn that their properties had been considered for acquisition. Additionally, disclosing the valuations of these properties could prejudice RMS in any future negotiations with these owners.
9. Finally, RMS' assessment of the impact of the Proposal was based on a detailed analysis of the proposed development, which includes information which is commercially sensitive to the developer. Without the developer's consent he did not think it appropriate to disclose to information as it may reveal the developer's costs and methodology to competitors. The Tribunal made an order allowing the Respondent further time to approach the developer to seek consent but nothing further has been forthcoming.
10. In his confidential affidavit and evidence Mr Langford stated that the circumstances in this case were somewhat unusual. The RMS assessment was performed expeditiously to assist the DP&I to assess the costs and impacts of the development. Usually there would be some form of public consultation on traffic impacts of a proposed development, and Mr Langford is concerned that to release the information before any proposal is fully developed and displayed for public consultation could cause public anxiety relating to land which may or may not be identified for resumption.
11. He says release of the information now could also adversely affect the government's ability to negotiate competitively in relation to future upgrades of the relevant main roads by revealing details of the agency's work on likely costs. It appears that improvements to the road network in the North West Precinct are under continuous review, and even if it may seem that a project is some way off in the future there is potential for it to be given priority through reallocation of funding if the need for greater urgency is established.
12. He also provided confidential commentary on the reasons for withholding each of the documents in contention.
13. The Applicant referred to an email released to it which stated that: - "TfNSW and RMS currently have no funding allocated for the upgrade of the infrastructure required to enable development of the South Dural Urban Release Area, within the 4 year budget nor the 10 year planning horizons."
14. The Applicant places great reliance on this document to submit that given the apparently very long time horizon that it was difficult to see how there is any relevant connection between the disclosure of this information now and any likely prejudice the Respondent might suffer, because for all intents and purposes, nothing is happening. The Gateway determination has concluded, the proponent has withdrawn and RMS is apparently not considering road upgrade works for the SD area at the moment. It says even if the SD proposal is resurrected property markets will have no doubt changed by then, and so the information the Respondent does not want to release would not be current and capable of prejudicing the effectiveness of its functions.

THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES

1. The GIPA Act is designed to provide open access to government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. This open access policy is expressed in a number of places in the GIPA Act including ss 3, 5, 9, and 12. These provisions provide strong public interest grounds in favour of disclosure. Further, examples of factors favouring disclosure are set out in s12(2) GIPA Act and the Applicant says the most relevant in the present case are: (a) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance. (b) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public. (c) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds. (d) The information is personal information of the person to whom it is to be disclosed. (e) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that an agency (or a member of an agency) has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct.
2. I am unable to see a sound basis for reliance on paras (d) and (e).
3. Against these positive factors are the public interest considerations against disclosure which can only consist of those items (or grounds) set out in the Table in s14 GIPA Act (s14(2)). The positives and negatives must weighed against each other to determine whether the negatives override the positives (s13 GIPA Act). The principles that apply to the determination are set out in s15 GIPA Act. This requires, in the first place a "rather abstract analysis" of the reasonable likelihood of the disclosure having the claimed prejudicial effects on future supply of similar material to the government (Department of Education and Training v Mullett [2002] NSWADTAP 13). This analysis is then applied to the facts of the case at hand as part of the weighing process under s13 GIPA Act, following the principles in s15 (Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19).
4. Section 14 requires consideration of whether the disclosure could reasonably be expected to have the effects referred to in the various provisions of the Table in s14. It was held in Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSW ADT 298 that the test to be applied is an objective one approached from the viewpoint of a reasonable decision maker. Something which could be reasonably expected is something more than a mere possibility or risk, and must be based on real and substantial grounds not purely those which are speculative or hypothetical.
5. The principles of interpretation to be considered are as follows:

Clause 1(e)- reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency

1. For the public interest consideration against disclosure in clause 1 (e) to apply, the Respondent must establish that the information in issue could reasonably be expected to 'reveal a deliberation' in such a way to 'prejudice a deliberative process' of the Respondent. That is, a relevant connection must be established between the deliberation as contained in the withheld information and the Respondent's 'deliberative processes' (Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Fire and Rescue (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 113).
2. The meaning of the term 'deliberative process' was considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") in Re Waterford and Department of the Treasury (No 2) (1984) 5 ALD 588 (Re Waterford) at [58] to [61], in the context in which it appeared in section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act Cth), as it applied at that time. Although clause 1(e) of the GIPA Act and section 36 of the FOI Act Cth are not the same, they both deal with the disclosure of information concerning the 'deliberative process' of government or an agency, and as such Re Waterford remains instructive.
3. The Tribunal defined 'deliberative process' as 'involv[ing] the weighing up or evaluation of the competing arguments or considerations that may have a bearing upon one's course of action... It by no means follows, therefore, that every document on a departmental file will fall into this category... documents disclosing deliberative processes must, in our view, be distinguishable from documents dealing with the purely procedural or administrative processes involved in the functions of an agency'.' The Tribunal adopted this analysis in Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Fire and Rescue (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 113.
4. There are two general elements which must be satisfied in order for this public interest consideration against disclosure to apply: i) the information must reveal a deliberation, consultation, opinion, advice or recommendation; and ii) disclosing the information must be reasonably expected to prejudice a deliberative process.
5. This requires there to be a connection between the opinion, advice or recommendation and the relevant deliberative process (Luxford v Department of Education and Communities (NSW) [2016] NSWCATAD 118, at [103]).
6. In Miskelly v Transport for NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 207 at [72], the Tribunal described the first element of this public interest consideration against disclosure as follows: The 'deliberative process' of an agency has been described as its 'thinking processes ... including those by which it seeks internal input and discussions as to different courses of action, evaluates the wisdom of them, and the relative benefits and detriments of them: Cameron v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 13 at 66, or its 'internal thinking': Fire Brigade Union v Fire and Rescue (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 133. The Tribunal also accepted that "prejudice" has its ordinary meaning: "to cause detriment or disadvantage" or "to impede or derogate from" (Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [60]).

Clause 1(f) - Prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of that agency's functions

1. The Respondent has statutory functions as a roads authority under the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) (Roads Act) and was exercising these functions in considering the South Dural Planning Proposal.
2. The Respondent relies on the affidavits of Mr Langford and submits that disclosure of the withheld information could prejudice the effective exercise of the Respondent's functions in outsourcing works for the road upgrade projects in future, as the market would be privy to sensitive information about the Respondent's costs estimates.
3. The Applicant submits that as the email referred to above indicates nothing regarding road infrastructure upgrades in the SD area is in - train, or real, or current, the Applicant does not believe that reliance can be placed on these considerations against disclosure. It referred to Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93 at paragraph [68], where it was stated that: '… (3) the appellant needed to show more than a mere possibility, risk or chance of prejudice . It must be based on real and substantial grounds. (4) It will not be sufficient for the decision-maker to proffer the view, it must be supported in some way …' (citations omitted)
4. It says the RMS information cannot 'prejudice it' or be 'sensitive' as nothing is being considered at this time. Any information it has would be subject to market forces and fluctuations, making whatever is contained in those documents fairly out - of - date and defunct as far as being sensitive or prejudicial to the effective exercise of its functions, at this time.

T4(c) - diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person

1. The Respondent submits that the information is primarily as follows: 1. property acquisition cost estimates; 2. budget estimates; and 3. Muller partnership report dated 29 January 2016 (commissioned by RMS)
2. The Tribunal has observed that the term "competitive commercial value" "connotes information of commercial value gained in, or relating to, a competitive commercial or business context, including competitive information relating to the competitive purchase and provision of government services" (McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44 at [80]).
3. The Respondent contends that the property acquisition cost estimates have commercial value as these relate to the estimated market price of the properties and disclosure of this information would diminish its value as it would hinder the Respondent's negotiating position in future.
4. The Respondent also contends that the budget estimates also have commercial value, as these reveal the Respondent's estimates of costs for certain works that the Respondent may procure in future and disclosure of this information would greatly diminish its value, as the market would be privy to the Respondent's costs estimates and baselines.
5. The Respondent also contends that the Muller partnership report has commercial value, as the Respondent paid for this report to be prepared and it estimates (and details) the costs of works for potential future road upgrade projects. Disclosure of this information would greatly diminish its value, as the market would be privy to the Respondent's costs estimates and baselines.
6. Finally, the Respondent considers that the disclosure of the information to which access has been withheld could reasonably be expected to expose the developer to a disadvantage because details about the proposed development, the scale, timing, cost and impact on the road network would be disclosed to the developer's competitors. This is particularly concerning in circumstances where Council has determined not to proceed with the development as originally proposed. To disclose this information now without consent of the developer would reveal the developer's methodology and costs to the market (including competitors) could impact on the developer's ability to submit a competitive development proposal at a future time.
7. In answer to this, the Applicant says that property values are freely available to most people on the internet and that there is no 'competitive commercial value' attached to this information that is in some way special such that it cannot be released now. The Gateway determination is at an end, and the SD area road infrastructure upgrade is in the far future apparently. It says by the time this type of information might become relevant or useable or valuable, the property market would have no doubt changed. It cites cases which have said that information which is aged or out-of-date has no remaining commercial value (Cannon v Australian Quality Eggs Farms Limited (1994) 1 QAR 491 at [56]), and, that information of commercial value may expire with the passage of time (Re Brown and Minister for Administrative Services (1990) 21 ALD 526 at 533).
8. The Applicant further submits that as the Respondent is a government instrumentality it is 'not for profit' so cannot be concerned with commercial issues surrounding information. This indicates a very limited view of the scope of commercial value of information. The agency regularly enters into commercial arrangements involving commitment of public funds and it is of vital importance that it expends them wisely by maintaining commercial confidentiality of its bargaining position.

T5(e) - premature disclosure of information concerning proposed action or inaction

1. The Respondent submits that the disclosure of the information at this stage could reasonably be expected to give the Applicant (or other members of the public to whom the information is disclosed) an unfair advantage for any future development that may occur in the South Dural precinct.
2. The information sets out, in detail, the impact of a development of this scale on the road network, the cost of that impact and the types of developments and construction activity that would need to occur to support such a development. To release that information now would reveal to the market the costs of such construction activity, impacting on RMS' ability to competitively tender for that work at a future time. To disclose this information to the Applicant would give them an advantage over other developers in that they would have access to sensitive budget and pricing information which is not available to other developers.
3. The Applicant effectively repeats its argument that according to their information no road improvements proposals are on the horizon so that disclosure can hardly be said to be premature. It also disputes the characterization of the Group as a developer, and says it is simply a representative of SD residents.

Consideration

1. I have examined the documents still in contention. I have reminded myself of the Respondent's evidence. I have considered the public interest factors for and against release of each of the documents in contention. I have borne in mind the general presumption which favours disclosure and accorded it considerable weight. I have considered the grounds for refusal to disclose using the principles set out above; asked myself whether it is reasonable to expect that the claimed effects may occur; then assigned weight to those grounds which I consider have been made out. I have then balanced the factors for and against disclosure to determine whether the negative factors outweigh the positive. My analysis and decisions on the documents follow the Respondent's document numbers.

Document 4

1. This document has been withheld completely, and is a string of internal emails dealing with cost estimates for road and intersection upgrades. The estimates are noted to be in 2016 'rounded' dollars and are described as being 'high level strategic costing for planning purposes only'.
2. I do not accept the submission of the Applicant that as it appears any roadwork is in the rather distant future that the submissions of the Respondent lack a substantial basis. I do accept the Respondent's submission that the road network in the Precinct is under constant review and that there is potential for the upgrading timetable to be changed and funding reallocated. One consequence is that tenders for roadwork may be sought in the short to medium term and revelation of the agency's detailed thinking on costings could have an impact on the agency's bargaining position when tenders are evaluated. I also pay particular attention to the evidence of Mr Langford that premature release of information about possible resumptions could lead to public disquiet and trigger claims for compensation which may not be soundly based.
3. However, it is my view that this material is of such an age, and sufficiently general in nature that it could not reasonably be expected to have any of the effects claimed by reference to the items in the s 14 GIPA Table. I am unable to see how release of this information would be reasonably expected to prejudice the agency's competitive position, deliberative processes, effective functioning or result in some unfair advantage or disadvantage to a person. It should be released.

Document 6

1. This is part of an internal email chain which has been completely withheld. Another part has been released. The document does contain some material relating to land acquisition which if released could be reasonably expected to prejudice the agency's operational effectiveness or diminish the value of its commercial information or put it at competitive disadvantage (i.e. by constraining its negotiating ability), or expose persons to unfair disadvantage (e.g. by creating uncertainty about the impact of the agency's plans (however vague) for their property). I would regard these considerations as outweighing those in favour of disclosure in respect of this information.
2. Much of the document seems to me to consist of material that could not reasonably be expected to have these effects. Some of this material deals with costs but is both dated and general, and for the reasons given in respect of document 4 I do not consider it meets the reasonable expectation threshold in the s 14 GIPA Table. I therefore remit the document to the agency for reconsideration and redaction.

Document 7

1. This 'document' is a collection of documents including the Muller partnership concept design estimates, which is a substantial, detailed costing of upgrading New Line Road. So far as this document is concerned it is my view that it could reasonably be expected that disclosure would prejudice the agency's operational effectiveness or diminish the value of its commercial information or put it at competitive disadvantage (i.e. by constraining its negotiating ability), or give an unfair advantage to contractors tendering for RMS work by exposing the indicative cost basis which the agency is using. I regard these considerations as very strong, and would affirm the agency's decision to withhold this document.
2. Included in the 'document' is an email chain which appears to be a copy of Document 6, and a 1 page schedule of updated cost estimates following a similar schedule in Document 4. These two items should be treated similarly to Documents 4 and 6 respectively.

Document 11

1. This is also a collection of documents. The bulkier one contains details from the Muller partnership report including drawings of possible road work upgrades superimposed on aerial photographs. The same considerations as apply to Document 7 (Muller partnership report) apply to this document. Disclosure could also reasonably be expected to expose persons to unfair disadvantage (e.g. by creating uncertainty about the impact of the agency's plans (however vague) for their property). I regard these aspects as having very great weight and would affirm the agency's decision to withhold the document.
2. The second item withheld is an internal email which contains material indicating deliberations of the agency, references to land acquisition, and high level costing figures. For the same reasons as for Document 6 this document should be remitted to the agency for reconsideration and redaction.

Document 13

1. The document withheld is a 2016 Ministerial briefing note (of 2 pages) containing RMS 'initial cost estimate' for upgrading the roads around the SD Precinct. There is a little detail of the integers which go to make up the estimate, but they appear very much 'high level" and seem derived from Document 4. For the same reasons as for Document 4 I am of the view that it cannot be said that disclosure would be reasonably likely to have the prejudicial effects claimed.

Document 14

1. This document has been wholly withheld. It is an internal email chain. It contains some information relating to property acquisition assumptions and future traffic growth assumptions that the evidence shows could reasonably be expected to have the effects referred to in respect of Document 6. These parts of the document could be justifiably redacted, as the factors against disclosure outweigh the factors in favour. I therefore, remit the document to the agency for reconsideration and appropriate redaction.

Document 15

1. This is a version of Document 14 without an attachment. It should be treated in the same way as Document 14- remitted to the agency for redaction.

Document 17

1. This document sets out in some detail the design for corridor widening along part of Old Northern Road. For the same reasons as applied to the Muller partnership documents in Documents 7 and 11, the considerations against disclosure well outweigh the considerations in favour. The decision of the agency is affirmed.

Document 18

1. This document is an internal email chain containing further details concerning widening along part of Old Northern Road. For the same reasons as for Document 17 the decision of the agency is affirmed.

Document 19

1. This document contains part of Document 18 and should be treated the same. The agency's decision is affirmed.

Document 20

1. This document contains high level (but detailed) estimates regarding strategic properties which may be impacted. The claims for application of Table items 1(e), 1(f), 4(c) and 5(e) are made out on the evidence of the agency. I would accord these considerations very great weight, strongly outweighing considerations in favour. The agency's decision is affirmed.

Documents 21, 23 and 24

1. I have not been provided with separate copies of these documents, but Mr Langford advises that they are copies of documents from the Muller partnership report (parts of Document 11). I will assume this is correct and provisionally affirm the agency's decision. If the Applicant wishes to press the issue and have the Tribunal examine these 3 documents it should file and serve a submission in writing to that effect within 14 days of publication of this decision, and the Respondent will then produce the documents on a confidential basis to the Tribunal and a supplementary decision will be made. If no submission is filed within time the agency's decision is affirmed without further order.

Document 22

1. This document is a detailed breakdown of cost estimates for New Line Road improvements. It is to be treated in the same way as the Muller partnership documents in Document 7 for the same reasons. Accordingly the agency's decision is affirmed.

Document 27

1. The document dated May 2017 contains high level cost estimates, which although less dated are still very general. This material should not be withheld for the reasons given for Document 4.
2. It also contains a substantial amount of material of a detailed nature (plans and budget estimates) along similar lines to the material in the Muller partnership report. There are also references to property acquisition. There are also duplicates of parts of Documents 17 and 18. For the same reasons that the decision of the agency in regard to the Muller partnership report and Documents 17 and 18 were affirmed, so too is the agency's decision to withhold that part of the material justified.
3. It is appropriate in these circumstances for the document to be remitted to the agency to be reconsidered and redacted.

Document 28

1. This document was not supplied separately. Mr Langford advises it is a duplicate of part of Document 18. I make the same order for this document as I do for Documents 21, 23 and 24.

ORDERS 1. Documents 4 and 13-the Respondent agency's decision is set aside and the documents are released 7 days after publication of this decision. 2. Documents 6, 14, 15 and 27- the Respondent agency's decision is set aside and the documents are remitted to the Respondent agency for reconsideration and redaction. 3. Documents 7 and 11- the Respondent agency's decision in respect of part of the documents is affirmed. As to the residue of these documents the agency's decision is set aside and the documents are remitted to the Respondent agency for reconsideration and redaction. 4. Documents 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22-the Respondent agency's decisions in relation to these documents are affirmed. 5. Documents 21, 23, 24, and 28- the Respondent agency's decisions in relation to these documents are provisionally affirmed subject to the regime set out in the decision in relation to Documents 21, 23 and 24. 6. Pursuant to s 64 CAT Act it is ordered that: 1. the publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal, and of matters contained in confidential documents received in evidence by the Tribunal; and 1. the disclosure to the Applicant in the proceedings of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal, and of the contents of a confidential document received in evidence by the Tribunal be 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

Amendments 14 May 2019 - Typographical error in numbering of orders corrected. 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: 14 May 2019