1. This application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.[5] The

Tribunal's review of the Panel's decision is by way of rehearing.[6] The

review is not a hearing de novo,[7] nor is there any requirement on the Applicant to identify errors made by the Panel in making its decision.[8] The Panel's decision is reviewed on its merits and the objective of the Tribunal is to produce the "correct or preferable decision".[9] 2. The term 'correct or preferable decision' as used in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) was considered by Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) in Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 286 at [140]. Such observations apply equally to the use of the term in section 46(1) of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014.

"Preferable" is apt to refer to a decision which involves discretionary considerations. A "correct" decision, in the context of review, might be taken to be one rightly made. It is, inevitably, a decision by the original decision-maker with which the Tribunal agrees.

1. The Applicant correctly asserts that the First Respondent's Facebook profile notes that the First Respondent is a "Councillor Darwin City Council". The profile page also states that the First Respondent is a "Business Owner at Laksa House Darwin" and notes where she went to high school, the city in which she lives and her relationship status. In her profile picture, the First Respondent is not in her Darwin City Council uniform.
2. To constitute the performance of official functions within the meaning of clauses 2 and 4 of the Code of Conduct, such functions must be identified with some degree of precision.[10] That reference is made in the First Respondent's Facebook profile, or in some posts, to her position as a City of Darwin Councillor does not transform what is clearly a personal Facebook account into an official Facebook page for her role as a City of Darwin Councillor. The mere fact that the person setting up a Facebook page holds the position of a City of Darwin Councillor and is identified on the Facebook page as holding such position, cannot convert private acts carried out by the person into the performance of official functions. The Panel was correct to conclude that the First Respondent was not performing official functions when making the impugned posts.

1. To establish a denial of procedural fairness, the onus is on the Applicant

to prove that, through the actions of the Panel, an opportunity to advance

his case has been lost.[11] In Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [37], Gleeson CJ stated that "[w]hether one talks in terms of procedural fairness of natural justice, the concern is

to avoid practical injustice". 2. It is not at all clear from the evidence adduced and submissions made by the Applicant precisely how the Applicant, in the proceedings before the Panel, lost an opportunity to advance his case. The Applicant was aware of the wording of clauses 2 and 4 of the Code of Conduct. He was aware that, unlike clauses 3, 5 and 6 relied on by him in making the Complaint, clauses 2 and 4 stipulated that, to apply, the First Respondent had to be performing official functions. Finally, the Applicant was aware that the First Respondent was contesting the assertion that she had breached clauses 2 and 4. 3. The Panel had to consider whether the impugned Facebook posts of the First Respondent were made in the performance of the First Respondent's official functions. The Panel's need to consider this issue was not something that should have taken the Applicant by surprise. It is an issue that arose clearly from the text of the Code of Conduct. There was no denial of procedural fairness by the Panel.

1. The Panel came to the correct decision in relation to clauses 2 and 4 of the Code of Conduct. The decision of the Panel is confirmed.[12]
2. The general rule in Tribunal proceedings is that parties are to bear their own costs.[13] Pursuant to section 132(1) and, in the case of review proceedings, section 133, the Tribunal retains a discretion to make an award of costs based on the considerations enumerated in those sections. Neither the Applicant nor the First Respondent indicated that they wished to be heard on the questions of costs. Consequently, the general rule in section 131 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 should apply.

1. The decision of the prescribed corporation in the Code of Conduct Complaint brought by Sam Weston against Amye Un dated 18 February 2025 is confirmed.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.

[1] Decision Notice - Code of Conduct Complaint dated 18 February 2025, [49].

[2] Decision Notice - Code of Conduct Complaint dated 18 February 2025, [22].

[3] Decision Notice - Code of Conduct Complaint dated 18 February 2025, [24].

[4] Applicant's Written Submissions dated 5 June 2025, [13].

[5] Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 33.

[6] Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 45.

[7] Nulite Pty Ltd v Northern Territory Liquor Commission; Director of Liquor Licensing [2023] NTCAT 20, [37].

[8] Kasper v Psychology Board of Australia [No 2] [2015] NTCAT 179, [16].

[9] Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 46(1).

[10] Duncan v ICAC [2014] NSWSC 1018 (29 July 2014), [71].

[11] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [38].

[12] Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 50(1)(a).

[13] Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 131.