Decision: The Applicants' application for orders pursuant to ss 69 and 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the Tribunal Act) that the hearing/parts of the hearing of these applications and the Tribunal's decision be confidential is refused. The Tribunal's temporary confidentiality orders dated 9 October 2025 are set aside.

The Applicants' application for a stay of the operative decisions pursuant to s 32(2) of the Tribunal Act is refused. The Tribunal's temporary stay orders dated 14 August 2025 are set aside effective as of 17 January 2026.

................[Sgnd]............................................

Senior Member J Lye

Application for confidentiality orders and non-publication of decision - application for stay of decision

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth) - s 35; s 41

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) - s 9; s 32; s 69; s 70; s 71

Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) - s 20-5; s 30-10; s 30-20; s 40-15

A v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 1307

ATP Group Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2015] AATA 225

Australian English Colleges Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 543 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185

Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [202] AATA 1250 Borella and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 3748 Burnett and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 687

Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation) [2025] ARTA 2028

Cerrah and Tax Practitioners' Board (Taxation) [2022] AATA 7

Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1982) 5 ALD 32 Cross and Tax Practitioners Board (2020) 171 ALD 337; [2020] AATA 1471 Cross and Tax Practitioners Board [2021] AATA 441

Delis and Tax Practitioners Board [2015] AATA 820

Delis v Tax Practitioners' Board [2016] FCA 570

Evans and Tax Practitioners Board (2019) 165 ALD 176; [2019] AATA 1408

Gao and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 3651

Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4210

Hopfner v Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 851

Kender and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 4445 Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 124 Re Crossan and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2002] AATA 216

Re Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board [2011] AATA 73

Re Kurukkal and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 146; (2004) 38 AAR 482

Re Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64; (1979) 2 ALD 33

Re XTWK and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2007) 98 ALD 131 [2007] AATA 1890

Re VBN and Ors and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and a Party Joined [2006] AATA 718; (2006) 92 ALD 475

Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798

Shi v Migration Institute of Australia Ltd [2003] FCA 1304

Spooner and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) [2025] ARTA 2218

SRD v Australian Securities Commission [1994] FCA 1252; (1994) 52 FCR 187; 123 ALR 730

Stasos v Tax Agents' Board of New South Wales [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974

Nicholas Beaumont, What are Reasonable Prospects of Success (2004) 78 ALJ 812

Code of Professional Conduct, Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth)

Explanatory Memorandum Administrative Review Bill 2023 (Cth)

1. Mr Zartaloudis and Conquest Services Pty Ltd (the Applicants) have each applied to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Tax Practitioners' Board (the Respondent) to cancel their registrations as tax agents and not to permit them to re-register as tax agents for a period of 3 years (the proceedings).1

1. These are my reasons for decision on 2 interlocutory applications brought by the Applicants in the course of the proceedings:

(a) to stay the operation of the Respondent's decisions until the applications are heard and determined (the stay application);2 and

(b) for the hearing of the applications be conducted in private and/or that certain personal information about Mr Zartaloudis and two extended family members are not published in the Tribunal's final decision (the confidentiality application).3

1. For the reasons which follow, I have decided to refuse both applications.

1. The first Applicant, Mr Zartaloudis is an accountant who has provided tax agent services since 2001. He is the sole director of the second Applicant, Conquest Services Pty Ltd (Conquest) as trustee for the Conquest Services Trust (the Trust) which operates his business. The business operates across three streams of work - tax and accountancy, financial planning and superannuation.

1. The Tribunal set out a detailed description of the regulatory regime which operates under the TASA, in Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board.4 For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the Applicants are each required to be registered as tax practitioners under the

1 Tax Agents Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TASA), s 40-25.

Tax Agents Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TASA) in order to provide tax services and a condition of their continuing registration under the TASA is they are each a fit and proper person to hold registration.

1. On 18 July 2025, the Respondent determined that:5

(a) the Applicants had breached s 30-10(1) of the TASA - the requirement to act with honesty and integrity by making false statements in their applications for renewal of tax agent registration in 2020 and 2023;

(b) the Applicants had breached s 30-10(2) of the TASA - the requirement to comply with taxation laws in the conduct of a tax practitioner's personal affairs by collectively failing to enter into an approved payment plan to pay tax related debts, by defaulting on payments plans and by failing to lodge business activity statements or by lodging late;

(c) on the basis of (a) and (b), Mr Zartaloudis was no longer a fit and proper person within the meaning of the TASA based on his significant pattern of non-compliance with his tax obligations.6 As such his registration was terminated on the ground that he no longer met the requirement in s 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA - a registered person must be fit and proper; and

(d) that consequent upon the determination that Mr Zartaloudis (as director of Conquest) was not a fit and proper person, that Conquest's registration should also be terminated under s 40-15(1)(b) of the TASA.

(collectively, the reviewable decisions).

1. The reviewable decisions were due to take effect from midnight on 14 August 2025. On 14 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order by consent of the parties which temporarily stayed the operation of the decisions pending hearing and determination of the Applicants' stay application. The temporary stay was subject to the condition that the business did not engage new clients.

1. On 9 October 2025, Tribunal also temporarily prohibited disclosure or publication of sensitive personal information about Mr Zartaloudis's health as well as personal information about 2 extended family members, pending hearing of the confidentiality application.

1. Mr Zartaloudis is a qualified accountant who has been a registered tax practitioner since around 2001. He established his business which has operated since 2002. It provides 3 streams of services to its clients - accounting and tax, financial planning and mortgage broking services. The business focusses on high net worth clients.7

1. Conquest was incorporated on 1 May 2002 and Mr Zartaloudis is and has always been its sole director.8 The Trust was established by deed in 2007.9

1. Mr Zartaloudis has been registered as a tax agent with the Respondent since 2010.10

1. Mr Zartaloudis' commercial affairs are complex by his own design. He is associated with 22 corporate and trust entities.11 Different entities and trusts own and operate the various service streams in the business while others appear to support other business interests.

1. There are 7 employees in the business. They were previously employed by a separate entity Z Personnel Pty Ltd (Z Personnel). Mr Zartaloudis told the Tribunal that these employees were recently transferred to a new entity called Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd as trustee for the Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Unit Trust. 12 The sole shareholder of that entity is Conquest and an employee (Mr Yu) is its sole director and Secretary.13 Mr Yu features later in these reasons because he has recently agreed to purchase a 20% stake in the business.

7 Witness statement of Dimitrios Zartaloudis, 5 September 2025 (first witness statement) [18].

1. The Applicants' and associated entities' combined tax debts as at the time of the Respondent's decision were $2,590,315.14 There is a lengthy history of the entities' collective non-compliance in paying their taxes and associated liabilities which is not disputed and the Applicants have failed on more than one occasion to enter into or adhere to payment plans with the Commissioner of Taxation.15 While not relevant to the grounds in this proceeding, Mr Zartaloudis identified receiving a summons for non-lodgement of income tax, BAS and PAYG instalments for Conquest as long ago as 2012.16

1. In 2018, the Respondent issued a warning to Mr Zartaloudis about the possibility of deregistration should he continue to remain non-compliant with his tax obligations. He told the Tribunal he took steps at the time to ensure his own and his entities' tax payments were brought up to date.17

1. Unfortunately, that did not last and the more recent instances of non-compliance have resulted in the Respondent's decisions. In total, there were, at the relevant time, 53 outstanding lodgements.18

1. The Applicants' non-compliance with their tax obligations has also resulted in litigation:

(a) In 2012, the Commissioner of Taxation issued a summons to Conquest for non-payment of tax, GST and PAYGW.19 This legal action resulted in court costs being incurred by Conquest and another entity CGH Personnel Pty Ltd and resulted in taxes/PAYGW being paid. It seems the court costs were paid on 13 October 2025;20

14 Hearing Book T2 page 85. The Applicants contend this figure involves double counting because it includes director penalties for unpaid employee entitlements. I have included the full amount given the penalties are a debt of the relevant entity.

18 Hearing Book T5 page 119. The Respondent also sought to lead evidence concerning other alleged conduct by the Applicants which had not been the subject of the review decisions. The question of whether this evidence is relevant to the issues the Tribunal must determine in these applications will be the subject of a separate hearing but has not been taken into account in this decision. See Annexure B to the Respondent's stay submissions and Annexure A to the Respondent's submissions in reply.

19 Goods and Services Tax and Pay as You Go Withholdings. Staff were formerly employed by another entity, CGH Personnel Pty Ltd. First witness statement [24].

(b) In or around 18 July 2025, the Commissioner of Taxation commenced wind up of the entity which had employed the employees of the business - Z Personnel for unpaid tax.21 Those proceedings have recently been dismissed by consent;22 and

(c) On 25 July 2025, the Commissioner of Taxation also commenced proceedings against Mr Zartaloudis personally and as director of Z Personnel (for director penalty and income tax). These claims amounted to nearly $800,000.23 Mr Zartaloudis told the Tribunal those claims have since been paid.24

1. Mr Zartaloudis lodged 2 statements in support of the stay and confidentiality applications. In these, he expressed regret to the Tribunal that his conduct had necessitated the action taken by the Respondent against him and Conquest.25 He identified physical and mental health issues, cited COVID difficulties and said that loss of key staff and cash flow difficulties had led him to put off lodgements even though he knew that would lead to further debts.26 I note in responding to the earlier allegations of breach in 2018, Mr Zartaloudis had similarly expressed shame to the Respondent that his tax affairs had fallen into non-compliance and offered as explanation, ill health leading to surgery and loss of key senior staff for his defaults in payment of various taxes.27

1. The Respondent's decisions solely addressed issues arising from tax non-compliance and did not identify any failing by either Applicant in respect of their work for their clients.28 Mr Zartaloudis told the Tribunal that regardless of his personal circumstances, he had prioritised his clients' work and needs, particularly during the COVID pandemic.29 He referred to the risks he said the business had assumed for clients during COVID.30 He also

21 First witness statement [26] and exhibit DZ-3.

22 Witness statement of Dimitrios Zartaloudis, 15 October 2025 (second witness statement) [5] and exhibit DZ-21.

23 First witness statement [27] and exhibit DZ-4.

24 Second witness statement [5] and exhibit DZ-21.

25 ASIC report Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd.

28 Contrast Birdseye where in addition to tax non-compliance, the Applicants had incorrectly claimed deductions for their clients which led to adjustments and in some cases, penalties. Birdseye [82].

told the Tribunal that the business was currently owed approximately $1M by its clients and that he was taking advice about recovering those debts.31

1. Mr Zartaloudis estimated the annual turnover of the accounting and tax stream of the business to be between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000.32 During the stay hearing, the Applicants confirmed the net profit of the tax and accounting stream was $210,191 for the 2024 financial year and is estimated to be around $500,000 for the 2025 financial year.33

1. In opposing both applications, the Respondent argues that the decisions under review are serious because they identify significant long term non-compliance by the Applicants as well as multiple false statements made by the Applicants to the Respondent for renewal of their registration.34 Those misstatements were about the Applicants' tax positions and Mr Zartaloudis acknowledges having made them.

1. Since lodging their applications for review, Mr Zartaloudis has gone to some effort to 'make inroads' into repaying the outstanding tax debts and becoming 'tax compliant'.35 The Tribunal was also told at the stay hearing that the outstanding PAYGW and superannuation contributions for the employees of the business have recently been repaid.36

1. Mr Zartaloudis also told the Tribunal that 'since the Respondent started investigating me and the business more generally, I have recognised the need to restructure the business by merging with a larger firm, or selling it, or transitioning the business to existing staff.'37 It appears he told the Respondent the same in April 2024, advising that he had recently entered into merger discussions with a large firm.38

1. The Tribunal was informed that Mr Zartaloudis has reached an agreement to sell down 20% of his business to an employee (Mr Yu) and that Mr Yu is currently seeking re-registration

31 First witness statement [22]-[23] and exhibit DZ-1.

as a tax agent along with Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd.39 Mr Zartaloudis told the Tribunal that his longer term plan is to sell more of the business to Mr Yu.40 He also said he had already been telling some clients that Mr Yu will be taking over the business.41

1. The Tribunal was told that Mr Zartaloudis' ability to continue to repay all the debts depended upon the Applicants' ability to continue to practise as tax agents. The Tribunal was informed that Mr Zartaloudis is presently the only registered tax agent in the business.42

1. Deregistration of the Applicants under the TASA does not directly impact the financial planning and mortgage broking work streams of the business. However, the Tribunal was told the tax and accounting work stream was significantly larger and more profitable than the other 2 work streams and depended on the tax accounting stream for its customers.43

1. Sections 32, 69, 70 and 71 Tribunal Act are set out in full at Annexure A to these reasons.

Section 32 of the Tribunal Act - stay of decision

1. The general rule is that a reviewable decision will continue to operate while the Tribunal undertakes its review.44 However s 32(2) Tribunal Act provides an exception to that rule and gives the Tribunal discretion to stay or otherwise affect the operation of the decision if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.

1. Section 32 updates, but essentially preserves, the same test in the predecessor, s 41

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth).

39 First witness statement exhibit DZ-19. Mr Yu lodged his application for re-registration in July 2025.

44 Tribunal Act, s 32(1). The Applicants referred the Tribunal to Shi v Migration Institute of Australia [2003] FCA 1304; (2003 134 FCR 326 at 323 and incorrectly suggested this authority supported the view that a decision to terminate a tax agent's registration will normally be stayed unless the public interest requires otherwise. The Applicants also referred to ATP Group Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2015] AATA 225 in support of the same proposition.

1. In order to grant a stay under s 32, the Tribunal must be satisfied on the evidence before it that in all the relevant circumstances, it should exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.45

1. In Re Scott v Australian Securities and Investments Commission,46 the Tribunal set down a list of factors (non-exhaustive) which remain a relevant guide for the Tribunal in assessing and determining stay applications:
   • the prospects of success for the substantive application;

• the consequence for the applicant if the stay application were refused;

• the consequences for the respondent if the stay application is granted/refused;

• whether the application would be rendered nugatory if the stay application were not granted; and
• any other relevant matters.

1. The Respondent submitted but I do not accept that s 32 Tribunal Act introduces a 2 stage test which requires the Tribunal to first be satisfied whether the stay is desirable for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of the review before considering the Scott factors.47 The Tribunal in considering whether to grant a stay, may address factors which extend beyond the immediate process of the hearing and the determination process.48

1. I consider the correct approach is set out by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 18549 where the Court found that any order made by the Tribunal which stays the operation

45 Re XTWK and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2007) 98 ALD 131; [2007] AATA 1890.

46 [2009] AATA 798 at [4].

48 Re Kurukkal and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 146; (2004) 38 AAR 482 in which the Tribunal did not agree with the narrow test applied in Re Crossan and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2002] AATA 216. See also Re VBN [101].

49 See per Moore J at [5] and per Downes and Jagot JJ at [66].

or implementation of the decision under review must be one which secures the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application50 but permits the Tribunal to make orders bearing in mind the relevant statutory scheme - to prevent or modify consequences flowing from the reviewable decision in circumstances where it is possible the decision under review may be set aside.51

1. The Applicants' primary position was that their identities should be protected by use of pseudonyms in the Tribunal's decision, and that the hearing should occur in private.

1. The Applicants contend that in the circumstances of a case where there is no allegation of mismanagement of client funds or any breaches in terms of the handling of client matters, there is limited interest in their alleged misconduct being known.52 They also submit that disclosure could adversely impact their attempts to transition the tax agency work and this justifies the confidentiality orders sought.53

1. As a secondary matter, the Applicants submit54 that the proceedings will involve confidential information such as medical information about the Applicant as well as evidence of distressing and tragic family events (the deaths of close relatives). They contend:55

There would be harm to the Applicants and their loved ones should the confidential information be publicly available and if the confidentiality orders are not made as this will impact the efforts being made to transition the tax agent business to successors.

1. The Tribunal's primary position is that proceedings must be public.56 Section 69(3) creates an exception to this primary position and gives the Tribunal discretion to order that the whole or part of a hearing may be in private. The Tribunal has previously held and I accept that the words 'the hearing... is to take place in private' in s 69 do not necessarily render as

50 Re VBN [100], Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1982) 5 ALD 32 at 33.

51 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185 [5] per Downes J; Spooner and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) [2025] ARTA 2218 [5].

52 Applicants' confidentiality submissions [25]-[30].

53 Applicants' confidentiality submissions [29]; A v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 1307.

confidential what has passed at the hearing. A further order is required for that effect to be achieved.57

1. This is provided for in part, by s 70 which permits the Tribunal to make orders prohibiting or restricting the publication or disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of or information about a party, witness or associated person. An application made under s 70 obliges the Tribunal to consider whether the information in question is confidential in nature.

1. In considering an application under s 69 and/or s 70 Tribunal Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the factors in s 71. In particular, the Tribunal must consider the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public and weigh this against any relevant factors supporting the application for confidentiality.

1. Section 71 is a new section which largely replicates the former s 35(5) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth). It obliges the Tribunal to identified how it has balanced the principle of open justice with the need to appropriately protect sensitive information in a particular case.58

1. How that balance should be struck will necessarily require different considerations in each case, but the observations of Brennan J (as he then was) about s 35 in Re Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs59 remain apt and demonstrate the importance of the primary position in s 69(1).60

1. The Applicant contended that s 71 Tribunal Act amends the prior statutory test by requiring the Tribunal to now place greater emphasis on the protection of confidential information than it did under s 35 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This new provision, they submitted, means that the principle of open justice is no longer at the apex of considerations about confidentiality as it was under the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth). I infer that they are suggesting here that some sort of 'leaning' arises by virtue of s 71 Tribunal Act in favour of the protection of personal information.

58 Explanatory Memorandum Administrative Review Bill 2023 (Cth) [535].

59 [1979] AATA 64; (1979) 2 ALD 33 at 53-54.

60 See also Re VBN [108] and Re Pochi [56]. See also SRD v Australian Securities Commission [1994] FCA 1252; (1994) 52 FCR 187; 123 ALR 730 at 191; 734 per Hill J.

1. I do not agree. Section 71 ensures an adequate balance is maintained between the principle of open justice and the need to protect sensitive, confidential and/or personal information.61 However, the primary position remains as per s 69(1) Tribunal Act that hearings must be in public. As the Full Court observed in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185 per Downes and Jagot JJ,62 that primary position creates a 'norm' and in determining an application for confidentiality the Tribunal must acknowledge that primary position and weigh the countervailing considerations against it. The mandatory factors in s 71 exist to ensure that the Tribunal demonstrates in every case how it has balanced the competing principles to reach its decision on an application for confidentiality.

Should confidentiality orders be made under ss 69 and/or 70?

1. The Applicants have sought the following orders:

(a) that the hearing of the proceeding is to take place in private, and that only the parties, witnesses, their representatives and officers of the Tribunal are present;63 and

(b) prohibiting or restricting the publication or disclosure of information that may tend to reveal the identity of the Applicants, witnesses, or other entities associated with the proceedings using pseudonyms.64

1. In the alternate, the Applicants have sought orders under s 70 prohibiting the disclosure of medical information of the Applicant and personal information of two deceased relatives.65

1. In evaluating both the primary and the secondary positions, I have had regard to and weighed the following material factors as well as the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public:

61 Explanatory Memorandum Administrative Review Bill 2023 (Cth) and Carter and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 632 at [18].

62 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [74].

63. Such orders are sought under s 69 Tribunal Act.

64 Such orders are sought under s 70 Tribunal Act (the primary position).

(c) the deterrence effect which arises from public awareness of the Applicant's activities and the Respondent's activities as a regulator;

(d) the fact that the Applicants do not dispute the tax liabilities;

(e) the fact that the non-compliance with the Applicants' associated tax liabilities appears to be longstanding;

(f) the fact that the non-compliance does not relate to the Applicants' mishandling of client matters - it is limited to their own tax non-compliance;

(g) the multiple court proceedings against the Applicants on related matters which appear to have been conducted in public;

(h) the Respondent's warning to Mr Zartaloudis in 2018, that the Respondent may take regulatory action if he remained non-compliant with his tax obligations;

(i) the nature of the personal information of Mr Zartaloudis which is sought to be protected;

(j) the medical information suggesting the Applicant suffers from both physical and mental health ailments66 and is receiving treatment for both conditions;67

(k) the evidence about the personal information concerning family members, and the fact that many of the relatives whose information has been disclosed, are deceased;68

(l) the Applicant's evidence that he is likely to suffer embarrassment and some distress these proceedings as well as from any disclosure of his personal information;

(m) whether clients and/or employees are currently aware of these proceedings and the potential for harm (if any) for clients of the business or employees (if any) if the proceedings were not held in public; and

67 First witness statement [63]-[68]; Second witness statement [27]-[32].

(n) the potential adverse effect on the business and any current negotiations for the sale of more of the business if the proceedings were not conducted in private.

1. In considering these factors, I accorded significant weight to the primary position, that Tribunal proceedings should be heard in public and have noted particularly that this proceeding concerns regulatory action taken by the Respondent and the associated deterrence effect publication of such proceedings will have, regardless of the outcome. Further, I am mindful that the open conduct of these proceedings is consistent with and promotes the Tribunal's objectives under s 9 of the Tribunal Act.

1. Against this I weighed the material factors in favour of the orders sought. Turning first to Mr Zartaloudis, I do not dispute that there is evidence that he is suffering from both physical and mental health ailments. At this stage, I express no final view about how severe those health issues are, but do note he is seeking treatment for all his health conditions and that on the available evidence, he does not appear on the evidence, to face any immediate risk. His health conditions, their timing and any treatment may be relevant to the Tribunal's decision in these proceedings including whether Mr Zartaloudis is fit and proper to be registered as a tax agent. I consider it premature to order at this stage that they not be disclosed in the Tribunal's final decision. That is a matter best weighed and determined after the evidence is heard and tested at the substantive hearing.

1. I note that the medical report exhibited to Mr Zartaloudis' first statement suggests he is also worried about his professional reputation and the consequences of the Respondent's decision and it also notes he has exhibited certain symptoms since 2020 in light of a range of personal matters and physical health conditions.

1. I acknowledge these proceedings are serious and likely to be embarrassing and stressful for Mr Zartaloudis and his family (as they would be for many applicants bringing applications in the Tribunal), and note his honest submission that he would prefer that they were not conducted in public. However, as the majority in the Full Court observed in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185,69 harm to a person's reputation is not likely to be sufficient reason alone for a

confidentiality order in the context of regulatory action. Relevantly, the medical report does not suggest a severe condition or disclose any immediate or perceived harm to or risk for Mr Zartaloudis.70 I am ultimately not persuaded that these matters are sufficient to outweigh the public interest in regulatory proceedings being in public.

1. Conquest is a corporate entity and so I have not considered any impact upon it (as it is effectively a vehicle controlled by Mr Zartaloudis as its sole director and shareholder).

1. Mr Zartaloudis concedes he was warned by the Respondent as far back as 2018 that deregistration was a risk if tax liabilities were not paid.71 He does not dispute he owed the taxes assessed and he also told the Tribunal that he was sorry for his conduct and regretted that it took the Respondent taking this action to get him to comply with his obligations.72 These concessions are relevant and I have taken them into account. They suggest that Mr Zartaloudis' present circumstances and the public scrutiny that any deregistration would entail, were foreseeable and avoidable.

1. I have also taken into account that Mr Zartaloudis has concurrently been involved in more than one Court proceeding which has disclosed the Applicant entities' tax non-compliance. There is no suggestion these other court proceedings were subject to any confidentiality orders.73 Regardless of whether these ultimately settled or were conceded, is difficult to accept that I should conduct the Tribunal's proceedings in private, when related court proceedings have been conducted in public.

1. Next, I have considered the personal information about Mr Zartaloudis' relatives in his evidence. The first point to note is that the relevant parties are deceased and so their reputations cannot be directly impacted by any disclosures. However, Mr Zartaloudis speaks of a potential adverse impact their circumstances had on him and would have on his family if disclosed. I accept the information about these individuals is personal and of a sensitive nature but there was no evidence to suggest the information about his relatives is confidential.

70 Witness statement of Dimitrios Zartaloudis, 15 October 2025 (second witness statement) exhibit DZ-33.

1. Even if I were satisfied the evidence is confidential, Mr Zartaloudis is again advancing it on the basis that it is relevant to a key issue in his case - whether he is fit and proper. As such it may be relevant to the Tribunal's final decision. The appropriate time to consider whether and how that evidence should be referred to in the Tribunal's final decision will be after the evidence is tested. In any event, having read the evidence, I am not presently persuaded that it is sufficiently sensitive to outweigh the primary position that the hearing should be in public.

1. My final assessment goes to the submission that there is prejudice to the operation of the business, including the current and proposed sell down of parts of the tax and accounting stream of the business if the confidentiality orders are not made. In considering this issue I:

(a) accept the tax and accounting stream of the business is profitable;

(b) infer that the negotiations for the sell down of 20% are completed but depend on Mr Yu's and Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd's registration as tax agents to come into effect; and

(c) note the second sell down of 50% to Mr Yu is proposed to occur at some time in the future.74

1. I accept the initial 20% sale depends on the existence of a viable business. I also accept it may offer some prospect for protection of the jobs of the existing employees.

1. The Applicants referred the Tribunal to Re VBN where the Tribunal was persuaded to grant confidentiality orders under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). I note that in Re VBN, the Tribunal had reason to believe that clients of the relevant business were not aware of the Applicant's circumstances and further that there was a real threat the viability of the business if the Applicant's identity were known in connection with the proceeding. The Applicants contend a similar situation exists in this case.

1. I accept the Respondent's decision to terminate the Applicants' registrations could impact the business and/or the 20% sale to Mr Yu. However, I question whether the arguments

which have been put to the Tribunal about the alleged impact on the business would directly result from a public hearing. I note:

(a) the Respondent's decisions were made in July 2025. The applications to the Tribunal were filed on 8 August 2025 (3 months ago).75 They are not currently private;

(b) these proceedings do not concern allegations of Mr Zartaloudis' or Conquest's mishandling of client matters;

(c) the evidence discloses that Mr Zartaloudis has been attempting to merge or sell the business since at least April 202476 and recently refused another offer made by a buyer who was aware of his circumstances77 In such circumstances, I am not persuaded that his circumstances or the fact that he is looking to sell the business are confidential;

(d) and infer both from his key position of trust in the business, from his application for re-registration as a tax practitioner78 and from the existence of the current court proceedings, that Mr Yu is presently aware or is highly likely to be aware of some or all of the Applicants' circumstances;

(e) the evidence suggests the negotiations for the sale to Mr Yu have already concluded79 and steps have already been taken to transition the employees to a new entity, controlled by Mr Yu;80

(f) Mr Zartaloudis told the Tribunal that some of the clients are already aware of and have been prepared for his intention to exit the tax side of the business if Mr Yu is registered as a tax agent;81 and

80 Second witness statement [18]; ASIC report Conquest Co Pty Ltd. The company was registered on 12 September 2025.

(g) given the public nature of the court proceedings and these proceedings to date, there is a reasonable prospect that both the clients and employees and members of the industry are aware of some or all of the Applicants' circumstances from these sources.

1. For similar reasons, I am also not persuaded that a public hearing could or would likely affect Mr Yu's decision to further invest in the business and in any event, it is not imminent.

1. These matters cumulatively suggest there is little practical advantage to the viability of the business from these proceedings being conducted in private from this point onwards.

1. It follows, that I have not identified any individual factors which outweigh the primary position that the hearing should be in public. I am also not satisfied that cumulatively, these factors would outweigh the primary position.

1. I would also note that these proceedings concern regulatory action. This is an added factor in favour of their being conducted in public.

1. In all the circumstances, I am not presently satisfied that the hearing of the applications should be conducted in private and/or that the identity of the Applicants or certain personal information about the Applicant and his extended family members should not be published.

1. There is nothing preventing the Applicants from making a further application for confidentiality once the evidence in the proceedings has been heard. Such an application could be considered on its merits with the benefit of assessment of its materiality to the Tribunal's decision.

Should the stay application be granted under s 32 Tribunal Act?

1. Here, I have considered whether the stay is desirable for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of the review with reference to each of the Scott factors.

The prospects of success for the substantive application

1. The Tribunal's consideration of the Applicants' prospects for success for the purpose of the stay applications requires a preliminary evaluation of the prospects of the application but

not a preliminary hearing of the evidence.82 The Tribunal is only required to be satisfied at this stage that there are some prospects for success.83

1. The Applicants have admitted their lack of compliance on tax matters, and failure to correctly report to the Respondent but contend there remains some prospect for the applications because:84

Should the Applicants succeed in overturning the Respondent's decision on the question of fitness and propriety, then the decision to terminate the Applicants' registration will come under scrutiny, given the range of lesser sanctions available.

(a) the allegations against the Applicants do not concern allegations of client facing misconduct or other adverse matters in respect of their handling of clients' tax matters; and

(b) Mr Zartaloudis' personal circumstances contributed to his lack of tax compliance.

(a) neither Applicant has demonstrated a basis for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a different decision to deregistration would be correct or preferrable. In this regard the Respondent draws attention to the fact that the Applicants concede the tax non-compliance occurred and that each misstated their position to the Respondent;85

(b) Mr Zartaloudis' health conditions also adversely affect his fitness and propriety for registration and weigh against his prospects for success;86 and

(c) the Tribunal should have regard to the fact that the Applicants have demonstrated such a sustained pattern of non-compliance with their tax obligations, and

82 Poivedin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 124 [39-[40].

83 The Applicants referred to and relied on the Tribunal's decisions in Kambourakis [36]-[37] and

Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4210 at [7].

85 The Respondent referred to and relied on the Tribunal's decisions in Cavallaro, Cross and Dadwal in support of this position.

unwillingness to rectify their non-compliance such that they may be unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future.87

1. The terms 'reasonable prospect of success' and 'prospect for success' in a litigation context, can refer to a range of possible outcomes for a party. A dispute may have some prospects on a particular aspect but the question of the range of likely outcomes if it proceeds to hearing will often depend upon the hearing and evaluation of evidence, and in some cases, can turn on the question of witness credibility.88 A matter can be assessed as having prospects subject to these matters.

1. There is a difference between assessing a case as having poor prospects or unlikely to be successful and saying it is wholly unarguable.

1. The breaches identified in this case concern large tax liabilities which were sustained over multiple financial years (including beyond the COVID period) and they also include multiple acts of misstatement by the Applicants on their renewal applications. They also concern failure to pay employee entitlements in the form of PAYGW and superannuation. The conduct is not disputed.

1. The Tribunal has previously observed89 and I accept that where an applicant has not disputed key findings of the Board which lead to a finding that they are not fit and proper, those admissions may count against the grant of a stay.

1. I note the tax debts in this case exceed the size of the tax debts in Birdseye where a stay was refused by the Tribunal.

1. In Borella and Tax Practitioners Board,90 the Tribunal found (in similar circumstances) that the Applicant's continued failure to pay taxes demonstrated a reckless pattern of behaviour and a sanction less than termination from registration would be insufficient to deter him from future breaches.91

87 Delis and Tax Practitioners Board [2015] AATA 820 at [98].

88 Nicholas Beaumont, What are Reasonable Prospects of Success, (2004) 78 ALJ 812 at 813-814.

89 Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [202] AATA 1250 [29]-[30].

90 [2023] AATA 3748.

1. In Burnett v Tax Practitioners Board,92 the Tribunal granted a stay but later affirmed the Respondent's decision to terminate registration for Ms Burnett's lack of compliance with her tax obligations.93

1. In Cavallaro v Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation),94 the Tribunal granted a stay but later affirmed the Respondent's decision to terminate the applicants' registration for a range of tax activities, including failure to lodge/late lodgement of income tax returns, activity statements and failure to comply with superannuation obligations.95

1. In Cerrah and Tax Practitioners' Board (Taxation),96 the Tribunal affirmed a decision to terminate the applicant's registration for non-compliance with her tax obligations but reduced the period of preclusion from re-registration.97

1. In Cross and Tax Practitioners Board,98 the Tribunal varied the decisions under review but affirmed the Respondent's decision to terminate the registrations for the filing of misleading tax returns and the making of false declarations over an extended period.99 Significantly, the Tribunal also refused a stay application in the same proceeding.100

1. In Delis and Tax Practitioners Board,101 the Tribunal, in circumstances which are similar to those in this case, affirmed the termination decision of the Respondent for the Applicants' repeated failure to comply with tax obligations.102 A subsequent appeal from that decision was dismissed by the Federal Court.103

92 [2014] AATA 687.

96 [2022] AATA 7.

98 [2021] AATA 441.

100 Cross and Tax Practitioners Board (2020) 171 ALD 337; [2020] AATA 1471 [76].

101 [2015] AATA 820

103 Delis v Tax Practitioners Board [2016] FCA 570 per Davies J.

1. In Gao and Tax Practitioners Board,104 the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to terminate an applicant's registration given tax compliance issues, including in some instances, late payment.

1. In Kambourakis and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure),105 the Tribunal refused to stay the Respondent's decision to terminate an applicant's registration given tax compliance issues, including in some instances, late payment and also noted there had been prior sanctions for non-compliance.

1. In Re Kolya and Tax Practitioners Board,106 the Tribunal was persuaded to grant a stay based on potential dislocation for a BAS agent's clients following findings made concerning misleading income tax returns lodged by an applicant but ultimately declined to set aside the Respondent's decision not to register him as a tax agent.107 A subsequent appeal from that decision was dismissed by the Federal Court.108

1. These Tribunal decisions are not binding but they provide a highly persuasive body of jurisprudence on cases which are not dissimilar facts to this case. In some as in this case, the applicants' service of their clients was not in issue and in some there were also some extenuating personal circumstances. They illustrate the difficulties the Applicants will face in seeking to convince the Tribunal that it should set aside the decision to terminate their registrations for non-compliance with their tax obligations.109

1. I acknowledge the Applicants have moved quickly to make significant and frank concessions as to their conduct and to repay as many of the outstanding debts as possible ahead of the stay hearing. However, the Tribunal has held in previous cases that bare statements of regret and contrition unsupported by cogent evidence of change in conduct, are insufficient.110

104 [2019] AATA 3651 [3]-[7].

106 Re Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board [2011] AATA 73.

107 Re Kolya and Tax Practitioners Board [2011] AATA 804.

108 Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board [2012] FCA 215. See also the interlocutory application Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board [2012] FCA 492.

109 The Applicants sought to distinguish the Tribunal's decision to refuse a stay in Hopfner v Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 851.

110 Stasos v Tax Agents' Board of New South Wales [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974 at 985.

1. It is premature to assess what prospect there is for the Applicants to challenge the period of deregistration following termination, but I have applied less weight to that consideration because it is not as relevant to the stay applications as the decision to terminate.

1. Ultimately, I have concluded the Applicants' prospects of defeating the Respondent's decision to terminate their registrations may be arguable but I am not presently persuaded in the circumstances that they have good prospects.

What are the consequences for the Applicants if the stay is refused/would the result of the hearing be rendered futile?

1. The Applicants argue that the prejudice to them will be significant if the stay application is refused. Mr Zartaloudis is currently the only registered practitioner in the business providing tax agency services to approximately 40 private family groups which control approximately 700 entities and the business's ATO lodgement list comprises approximately 690 entities.111 The Applicants argued that if he is not permitted to continue to work as a tax agent while the applications are heard and determined, the tax and accounting stream of the business will be severely and adversely impacted and clients forced to go elsewhere. This, they say would cause such irreversible harm that the outcome of the applications could be rendered nugatory (futile) because the tax and accounting stream could not continue.112

1. The Applicants also suggest irreparable harm would come to the 7 employees whose employment could be at risk if a stay were not granted. It is not clear what there roles are in the business across the 3 streams but the Applicant suggests cessation of the tax and accountancy stream would lead to an 'irreversible outcome'.113

1. I acknowledge that the Respondent's decisions are necessarily adverse to the business, and may have adverse consequences for its clients and at least some employees. However, for the following reasons, I am not satisfied that the prejudice demonstrated by the evidence weighs heavily in support of a stay being granted.

112 The Applicants referred the Tribunal to and relied on Australian English Colleges Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 543, [38]; [28] and [29]; Birdseye [110]-[111].

1. I accept the tax and accounting stream of the business is profitable and serves a modest cohort of clients with complex needs given their structured interests. The evidence suggests that the bulk of the business's income lies in the tax and accounting stream and that a large portion of the other streams' business relies on referrals from that stream.114 I acknowledge it could take some time to build up the other streams of the business if the tax and accounting stream could not continue and given their reliance on referrals from the tax and accounting stream, those other streams may never replace the income of the tax and accounting stream.

(a) the business employs 7 people and Mr Zartaloudis is currently the only registered tax agent; and

(b) if the existing clients had to go elsewhere, it would be difficult for the business to re-engage them in the future or replace their business.

1. These are all potential consequences which flow from the Respondent's decision. The question is whether in the present circumstances, they outweigh factors operating against the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to grant a stay.

1. In evaluating the evidence on this ground, I have considered closely what I will call the Applicants' transitional plans. The evidence reveals Mr Zartaloudis has been actively contemplating the merger/sale/sell down of his business since April 2024.115 There was no explanation about why a merger he referred to in correspondence to the Respondent did not proceed.

1. Nor was there a detailed explanation for what has happened since Mr Zartaloudis was told of the Respondent's decision since July 2025, noting he has the benefit of temporary stay orders since August 2025. In that time, he appears to have 'recently' rejected an outside offer for the business because the price was unacceptably low and conducted and

114 First witness statement [14]; Second witness statement [24]-[26].

concluded negotiations with Mr Yu (timing unknown) for the sell down of 20% of the business.

1. Implementation of this agreement with Mr Yu appears to be contingent upon Mr Yu's re-registration as a tax agent together with the new entity (Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd). The evidence shows Mr Yu lodged the relevant applications for re-registration in July 2025 - suggesting those negotiations might have completed some months ago. This inference is reinforced by the fact that the employees, appear to have already been transferred to Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd.

1. The details of the agreement with Mr Yu are otherwise largely unknown. I say this because no records of the agreement were in evidence and Mr Yu did not give evidence about how the business was proposed to operate under the agreement. At the stay hearing, the results of an ASIC search for Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd were produced but there was otherwise little explanation of how the business would operate day to day if the agreement were implemented.

1. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was asked to accept Mr Zartaloudis' assertions about the agreement with Mr Yu and his contention that the business would be imperilled if a stay were not granted pending hearing and determination of the applications.

1. Mr Zartaloudis also told the Tribunal that he intends to step back from managing the business once the agreement with Mr Yu is implemented. Once again, this assertion was unsupported by any corroborating records. It is also contradicted by Mr Yu's application to the Respondent which notes Mr Zartaloudis will supervise Mr Yu.116

1. There is no definite timeframe for Mr Yu's application to be determined by the Respondent and no guarantee that he will be granted registration when it is determined. Even if Mr Yu's application were granted, it seems he will only own a 20% stake and will still work as a registered tax agent employed by the business. I infer this means both Mr Zartaloudis and Conquest117 will continue to reap at least 80% of the rewards of the tax and accounting

117 ASIC report Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd.

stream in the short time and the Applicants may still hold significant obligations for the lodgement of returns and payment of tax associated with the tax and accounting stream.

1. The evidence suggests that Mr Zartaloudis has (following due reflection over more than 12 months) landed upon a preferred commercial solution for his predicament. This preferred solution is attended by significant risk to the continuity of the tax and accounting stream of the business, but leaves the Applicants with a large income stake and Mr Zartaloudis with a significant say in its operations. In adopting this course, Mr Zartaloudis has rejected at least one offer of sale because it was not profitable enough and has not explained why another registered agent could not have been contracted in the same way as Mr Yu in the same period (ensuring the continuity of the business).118

1. My strong impression from the evidence is that the agreement with Mr Yu is advantageous to Mr Zartaloudis but relies on the Tribunal granting a stay to the Applicants while the application is heard and determined.

1. In such circumstances, I am unable to be satisfied that the stated adversity to the business is as compelling as is suggested by the Applicants and I am not satisfied it could not have been avoided.

1. Given these findings, I also cannot be satisfied in the circumstances that the applications would necessarily be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted.

What are the consequences for the Respondent if the stay application is granted/refused and the public interest?

(a) a stay is not desirable for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the Tribunal's review of the decisions in question;119

(b) The Applicants have been forced, reluctantly, by the Respondent's decisions to start bringing their tax affairs up to date. The Respondent is concerned that the

118 Evans and Tax Practitioners Board (2019) 165 ALD 176; [2019] AATA 1408 [89].

Applicants' prior conduct suggests they will refuse to comply with their obligations in the future;120

(c) Further to (b), the Respondent argued that while the Applicants' conduct to date has not adversely impacted their clients, there is a material risk that the Applicants' conduct could extend beyond their personal affairs and lead to activity which could place clients at risk.

1. The Respondent is tasked with the registration and regulation of tax practitioners and is empowered to ensure they are fit and proper to operate. There is significant public interest in allowing the Respondent to discharge its statutory obligations without impediment. As the Tribunal has previously observed, a stay does impede the Respondent.121 The Tribunal has also previously noted that tax agents, are entitled to practice without significant competition given the barriers to entry in the industry. The corollary of that is that they must accept they are subject to regulation by the Respondent.122

1. The Respondent's findings that the Applicants are not fit and proper and should be prohibited from seeking reregistration for 3 years, are serious. The volume and history of the Applicants' non-compliance is significant and they have not denied that the alleged conduct occurred. The chronology in this matter prior to and following the warning issued in 2018, suggests a pattern of behaviour by Mr Zartaloudis which includes delaying taking action to observe his obligations until forced to do so. There is a public interest in the Respondent's decisions generally being implemented and the Tribunal's task is to consider what is required to secure the effectiveness of the review.123 This interest is heightened where there is risk to the public arising from an applicant's conduct.

1. In this case, the Applicants contend that a stay should not be seen as a rebuke to the regulator,124 will not impede its functions and further that their conduct does not pose a risk because it relates to their tax compliance which does not directly impact anyone other than

124 Kender and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 4445, [17].

themselves. I cannot accept this as correct because while there is no evidence that the clients are at risk, the Applicants' non-compliance with PAYGW and superannuation contributions has previously posed a significant risk to employees of the business. The evidence that these liabilities and associated penalties have recently been repaid is a step in the correct direction but there remains a risk that Mr Zartaloudis might again, put the Applicants' financial interests ahead of payment of the employees' entitlements. To that end, I note that the transfer of the employees to Conquest Advisory (Taxation) Pty Ltd has not been fully explained by Mr Zartaloudis.

1. There is also a public interest in the broader public knowing of a regulator's decision because it provides scrutiny and awareness of the related issues and also allows affected individuals to make informed decisions in managing their own affairs while the Tribunal's review takes place.125 There is also a general deterrence effect for others in the industry.126

1. In the present case, and for the reasons I covered in my decision on the confidentiality application, I am reasonably satisfied there is already information circulating about the reviewable decisions. However, I have still applied significant weight to the potential prejudice to the Respondent in this case, given its role and the nature and extent of the allegations and the Applicants' concessions about their conduct.

1. The evidence presented to the Tribunal suggests that good progress has lately been made by the Applicants to repay their current tax liabilities. I accept there is a public interest in this continuing but I have applied low weight to this evidence for the purpose of assessing the stay applications. I infer the timing of these repayments is significantly influenced by the stay application and note that it comes after a significant period of non-compliance, including with payment plans. In fact, it reinforces my observation about a pattern of behaviour by Mr Zartaloudis of only bringing his affairs to order once the Respondent has taken action.

1. My task in weighing these factors has been a difficult one given the possible consequences for the business and its employees but there are strong public interest factors operating against a stay in this case which I do not consider to be outweighed by the countervailing reasons. I am not persuaded the applications have good prospects for success. I am also concerned at the lack of evidence provided to explain the proposed agreement with Mr Yu. In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that it is desirable that a stay be granted for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.

1. For these reasons, the stay application is refused.

1. The Applicants submitted that if the Tribunal were not inclined to grant the stay application, that it should preserve the status quo for a period of 60 days to permit the Applicants and their clients a reasonable opportunity to make alternate arrangements. Given the significance of this decision and noting the time of year, I am persuaded the appropriate course is to grant that request to stay the lifting of the temporary stay orders for 60 days from the date of this decision.

32 Reviewable decision continues to operate unless Tribunal orders otherwise

(1) The making of an application to the Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.

Exception - Tribunal may stay operation or implementation

(2) However, on application by a party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.

(3) The order is subject to any conditions specified in the order.

(4) The order has effect until the decision of the Tribunal on the application for review comes into operation.

(a) the order states that it applies for a period; and

(b) the period ends before the decision of the Tribunal on the application for review comes into operation;

the order has effect until the end of the period.

(6) On application by a party to the proceeding, the Tribunal may, by order, vary or revoke the order.

Preconditions to making, varying or revoking an order

(7) The Tribunal must not make, vary or revoke an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of a reviewable decision unless:

(a) the Tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding for review of the decision a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Tribunal in relation to the making, variation or revocation of the order; and

(b) the Tribunal has taken into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision.

(8) However, paragraph (7)(a) does not prevent the Tribunal making, varying or revoking an order without giving a party an opportunity to make a submission to the Tribunal if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not practicable to give the party the opportunity.

(9) If the Tribunal makes, varies or revokes an order without giving a party an opportunity to make a submission as mentioned in subsection (8), the order, variation or revocation does not take effect until a notice setting out the terms of the order, variation or revocation is given to the party.

69 Hearings to be in public unless practice directions or Tribunal order requires otherwise

(1) The hearing of a proceeding in the Tribunal must be in public.

Note: The hearing of a proceeding is the substantive hearing of the matter before the Tribunal. Directions hearings do not need to be in public (see the definition of hearing of a proceeding in section 4).

Exception - practice directions may require private hearing

(2) Despite subsection (1), in the circumstances specified in the practice directions:

(a) the hearing or part of the hearing is to take place in private; and

(b) only the persons specified in the practice directions may be present.

(3) Despite subsection (1), the Tribunal may, by order:

(a) direct that the hearing or part of the hearing is to take place in private; and

(b) give directions in relation to the persons who may be present.

Note: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

70 Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of information

(1) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of:

(a) information tending to reveal the identity of:

(i) a party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or

(ii) any person related to or otherwise associated with any party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or

(b) information otherwise concerning a party, witness or other person mentioned in paragraph (a).

Note 1: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

Note 2: Breach of a non-publication or non-disclosure order is an offence (see section 119).

(2) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of information that:

(a) relates to a proceeding in the Tribunal; and

(b) is any of the following:

(i) information that comprises evidence or information about evidence;

(ii) information given to the Tribunal.

Note 1: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

Note 2: Breach of a non-publication or non-disclosure order is an offence (see section 119).

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the order may prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceeding.

Order can be made on application or on Tribunal's initiative

(4) The Tribunal may make an order under this section on application by a person or on its own initiative.

71 Requirements for Tribunal orders about hearings, publication and disclosure

(1) In making an order under subsection 69(3) or section 70, the Tribunal must comply with the requirements (if any) specified in the practice directions.

(2) In considering whether to make an order under subsection 69(3) or section 70 in relation to a proceeding, the Tribunal must have regard to the following:

(a) the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings in the Tribunal are held in public;

(b) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public;

(c) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents given to the Tribunal are made available to all the parties to the proceeding;

(d) any reasons in favour of making an order, including the following:

(i) in any case - the circumstances of the parties to the proceeding and other persons connected to the proceeding;

(ii) in any case - the harm (if any) that is likely to occur to a person if the order is not made;

(iii) in relation to an order under section 70 - the confidential nature (if any) of the information;

(e) any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant.