Medical Board of Australia v Belich
[2023] QCAT 475
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Medical Board of Australia v Belich[2023] QCAT 475
- Add to List
Medical Board of Australia v Belich[2023] QCAT 475
Medical Board of Australia v Belich[2023] QCAT 475
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Medical Board of Australia v Belich [2023] QCAT 475 |
PARTIES: | Medical board of australia (applicant) v michael belich (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR073-22 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 December 2023 |
HEARING DATE: | On-Papers Hearing |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Judge Dann, Acting President |
ORDERS: |
together with a copy of these reasons.
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PROCEDURE – where the applicant Board has referred the respondent practitioner to the Tribunal seeking disciplinary findings and orders – where the applicant seeks an order that the applicant be exempted from the requirement to give a copy of the referral to the respondent – where the applicant further seeks an order that this application and the substantive proceeding be determined in the absence of the respondent – where in the alternative the applicant seeks an order for substituted service – where the applicant has provided evidence of its efforts to locate and attempts to serve the respondent – whether the Tribunal should order that the applicant be exempted from giving the respondent a copy of the referral – whether the Tribunal should order that the substantive proceeding be determined in the absence of the respondent – whether the Tribunal should order substituted service Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14A Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 3A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 3, 37, 92, 93 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 rr 19, 39, 40 Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (Cth) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 45 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 116 Health Ombudsman v Mekingrailas [2021] QCAT 199 Legal Services Commissioner v Rider-Bell [2011] QCAT 669 Miscamble v Phillips & Hoeflich (No 2) [1936] St R Qd 272 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Allison [2020] WASAT 136 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]This decision is about whether and, if so, how the Medical Board of Australia (Board) might proceed with progressing a disciplinary referral of a medical practitioner, in circumstances where he is no longer registered, in all probability is outside Australia and may well be unaware of the fact of the referral.
What does the Board want ?
- [2]The Board seeks the following orders:[1]
- pursuant to section 37(4)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, (the ‘QCAT Act’), the Board be exempted from the requirement under section 37(2)(a) of the QCAT Act to give a copy of the Form 22 Referral to the Respondent because the Board has made all reasonable attempts to give the copy of the Form 22 Referral to the Respondent but has been unsuccessful; and
- pursuant to sections 93(1)(b) and 93(2) of the QCAT Act, this Application, the Form 22 Referral and the substantive proceeding (OCR073-22) be determined in the absence of the Respondent, because the Board has made reasonable inquiries to attempt to find the Respondent and the Tribunal can be satisfied that the Respondent cannot be found.
Or in the alternative that:[2]
- service of the Form 22 Referral and any other document that requires personal service during the conduct of this matter be served by:
- (i)emailing the documents to [the respondent’s email address]; and
- (ii)either:
- posting the documents/s (sic) to the Respondent’s last known place of residence of [the respondent’s last known place of address (the ‘Broadbeach Address’)]; or
- leaving the documents with someone who is apparently an adult living at the Respondent’s last known place of residence of [the Broadbeach Address].
What are the facts of this matter ?
- [3]The underlying proceeding is a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Board against the respondent, a practitioner who held general registration and specialist registration in general practice.
- [4]At a high level of abstraction, the referral alleges the respondent engaged in a number of inappropriate practices relating to the prescribing of drugs to numerous patients over a number of years (and to himself), whilst practicing in general practice on the Gold Coast. The referral alleges he is subject to immediate action taken by the Board on 13 February 2020 to prohibit him prescribing certain types of drugs, including any drug of dependence listed in Schedule 4 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (Cth) (Standard), any drug listed in schedule 8 of the Standard and certain types of performance and image enhancing drugs.
- [5]
- [6]The Board, through its solicitors, has taken a significant number of steps to bring the matter to the respondent’s attention[5]:
- It has engaged a private investigations and process serving service to locate and serve the respondent. Personal service of the respondent at his last known residential address at [the Broadbeach Address] was unsuccessful[6];
- It obtained a ‘skip tracing report’ (amongst other further inquiries) from the process servers. That report identified [the respondent’s email address] as an email address associated with the respondent; a mobile phone number that was associated with the respondent in 2021 but appeared to be inactive; a residential property owned by the respondent at [the address of a residential property owned by the respondent] and two companies of which the respondent is a director. The first is Integrative Medical Clinics Pty Ltd. That company’s company extract listed the respondent’s address as [the respondent’s address on the company extract for Medical Clinics Pty Ltd] in 2013. The company extract also identified a principal place of business as Tower 1 Southport Central Suite 1202, Level 2, 56 Scarborough Street, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215. A telephone number for Integrative Medical Clinics Pty Ltd was identified but appeared to be disconnected. A Facebook profile that appeared to be inactive since 2011 was also identified. The skip tracing report recommended that the respondent be served at [the address of a residential property owned by the respondent]. This was attempted but unsuccessful[7];
- It emailed the respondent and asked him if he was able to accept service of the proceeding by an email sent to his email address [the respondent’s email address] on 16 May 2022. He did not reply so, on 7 June 2022, by further email to that same email address, the Board sent a copy of each of the Form 22 and an application for a non-publication order for patient information (in Form 40) and again asked the respondent to confirm receipt. Again, the respondent did not respond to that email. There is no evidence from the Board’s solicitors that the emails to the email address for the respondent bounced back or were undeliverable;
- On 24 June 2022, the Board asked the respondent’s last known legal representative to share the contact details for the respondent or his power of attorney. That legal representative replied setting out that they had passed along the correspondence to the respondent’s father and next of kin.
- [7]On 5 August 2022, the Board’s solicitors wrote to the Tribunal’s registry, setting out steps they had taken to try to give the referral to the respondent. Enclosed with that letter was a letter dated 20 July 2022 from the respondent’s father, who is resident in New Zealand. Mr Belich Senior said relevantly:
- That the respondent is presently travelling outside of Australia and he understands the respondent has no current plans to return to Australia;
- He has only periodic and sporadic text message contact with the respondent. So far as he is aware, the respondent has no fixed address;
- Prior to the respondent’s departure in 2020, he became concerned about the respondent’s mental health and he was appointed as his son’s attorney;
- His information is that his son’s mental health is not good, but that information is dated. He remains concerned from his text communication, travel plans and decision making that the respondent is unwell;
- He has no knowledge of the respondent working as a medical practitioner in Australia or overseas since around February 2020;
- He has concerns about his son’s capacity to engage in these proceedings. He says he does not know if the respondent is well enough to understand the gravity of the situation or any documents;
- He does not know when or whether he will receive contact from the respondent in the future;
- He was unsure of the extent of his authority and obligations as an attorney but asked that the letter be brought to the attention of the applicant and the Tribunal;
- He is concerned about the respondent’s opportunity, in these circumstances to obtain a fair hearing;
- He is happy to receive further communication about the matter.
- [8]The Board’s solicitors, by email on 9 August 2022, asked him to bring the proceeding to his son’s attention.
- [9]In an undated letter to the Board’s solicitors but apparently sent on 4 September 2022, the respondent’s father stated on “the very few occasions that I have tried to speak to Michael about either this matter or a return date to Australia he becomes very upset and then does not communicate with me for long periods of time. At times when Michael’s moods are very low he has admitted to suicidal thoughts and I remain very concerned as to his safety. I am of the view that contact from you would be detrimental to his wellbeing and would potentially put his health at further risk”. Mr Belich Senior concludes again with an observation about whether it is necessary for the matter to be pursued where the respondent is not treating patients and there is no prospect of that occurring in the immediate future.
- [10]On 7 September 2022, Mr Belich Senior wrote by email to the Tribunal’s registrar, copying in the Board’s solicitors. He attached copies of his communications with the Board. He advised that whilst he held the respondent’s power of attorney he had not invoked it because he could not assess whether the respondent lacked capacity. He reiterated a number of matters already raised in his earlier letter to the Board’s solicitors (which he enclosed a copy of) and stated that while he has limited contact with his son, he was unwilling to provide the Board’s solicitors with the respondent’s contact details due to concerns he holds about the respondent’s mental health. He confirmed to the Tribunal that the respondent is currently travelling overseas; he does not have regular contact with him or a residential address for him and he is uncertain if the respondent has any plans to return to Australia. He articulated that he believed that contact from the Board’s solicitors to the respondent would put the respondent at significant risk. He concluded that whilst understanding the Board’s role is to protect the public, whilst the respondent is not residing in Australia or treating patients, he questioned the utility of proceeding to a hearing. He invited the Tribunal to contact him with any further queries.
- [11]At the time of the November Application, the Board stated it was not aware of any location at which the respondent was currently practicing as a medical practitioner[8].
- [12]The November Application also records that on 30 October 2022 AHPRA received an application for registration renewal regarding the registration of the respondent, submitted through APHRA’s online services portal. Consequently, while considering the Board’s application on 24 March 2023, the Tribunal asked the Board to provide further details about any information to which it has access relating to the respondent’s application to the Board to renew his registration which was received by the Board on 30 October 2022.
- [13]On 5 July 2023, the Board provided its further information to the Tribunal with a further application (the July Application).[9] The July Application confirms that the Board seeks the same orders as in the November Application.
- [14]The effect of the further material provided by the Board is that there is no information available from the online renewal application to give any sense of where the respondent is or how he might be contacted.[10] As a consequence of the respondent’s failure to provide information to the Board the application for registration was withdrawn under section 80(5) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (the ‘National Law’) on 5 January 2023. Consequently, the respondent is not currently registered as a medical practitioner in Australia.
- [15]Given the dated information about Dr Belich, the Tribunal emailed Mr Belich Senior on 11 August 2023 with a list of further questions. A copy of that email and Mr Belich Senior’s response is attached as Annexure A. In summary, Mr Belich Senior has not provided the Tribunal with any further information about Dr Belich’s whereabouts. He seeks a stay of the proceeding.
When can the Tribunal grant an exemption from the requirements under s 37(2)(a) of the QCAT Act
- [16]Section 37(2)(a) of the QCAT Act requires the applicant:
…to give a copy of the application or referral to—
each party to the proceeding;,,,
- [17]Pursuant to QCAT’s Rules:
- A copy of a referral given to an entity under s 37(2) must be given[11]:
- (i)Within the period stated in an enabling act;
- (ii)Otherwise, relevantly, as soon as practicable but no later than the prescribed period after the referral is accepted. The prescribed period is defined as, relevantly, where the copy must be given by delivering it personally to the entity, 28 days or otherwise 7 days.
- (i)
- A copy of a referral given to an entity under s 37(2) must be given[11]:
- [18]Section 37(4)(a) of the QCAT Act provides the Tribunal with the power to exempt the Board from the requirement under s 37(2)(a) if it is satisfied that:
- the applicant has made all reasonable attempts to give the copy to the person but has been unsuccessful; or
- the making and deciding of the application or referral without notice to the person will not cause injustice.
When can the Tribunal order substituted service ?
- [19]The Tribunal can make an order for substituted service where it is, for any reason, impracticable to give a document in a way provided under the QCAT rules.[12] This can occur:
What do the cases say ?
- [20]Section 45 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) provides relevantly:
“(1) When an application is accepted by the executive officer the applicant is to give a copy of the application to—
(a) each other party …
(3) The Tribunal may make an order dispensing with the requirement to give a copy of an application to a notifiable person specified in the order if satisfied—
- that the applicant has made all reasonable attempts to give a copy of the application to the notifiable person but has been unsuccessful; or
- that the making and hearing of the application without notice to the notifiable person would not cause injustice….”
- [21]In considering this provision, which is the cognate provision to s 37 of the QCAT Act, Justice Pritchard made the following observations[15]:
- The requirement for service in s 45(1) of the SAT Act reflects the fundamental principle of natural justice that a party who is at risk of having orders made against them is entitled to be put on notice of the allegations and given the opportunity to be heard in response;
- Parliament is entitled to abrogate the requirements of natural justice if it so chooses, provided it does so unambiguously. It had done so in the form of s 45(3);
- Section 45(3) establishes two limbs which constitute alternative threshold requirements to enliven the discretion that therein lies in the Tribunal to make an order dispensing with the requirement for service;
- The absence of injustice is not a requirement of each limb, nor is the unsuccessful attempt to serve an application a requirement in each of these threshold requirements;
- It appears therefore that for s 45(3)(b), Parliament contemplated cases where making an application without any notice at all to the other party would not cause injustice and necessarily contemplated that in such cases there would be some good reason to proceed without even attempting service. Alternatively, it is possible for a party seeking an order under s 45(3)(a), after having unsuccessfully attempted service, without having to demonstrate there would not be injustice to the notifiable person if the proceeding is determined without notice to them;
- The Tribunal then has a discretion as to whether to make an order dispensing with the requirement for service.
- [22]As to the exercise of that discretion, her Honour observed:
- There is a surprising lack of authority in relation to the power in the Tribunal, or in analogous decision-making bodies, to dispense with service[16];
- The onus is very squarely on the person seeking the dispensation and real grounds must be made out for the dispensation to occur[17];
- Relevant matters include[18]:
- (i)Whether an applicant would be denied relief despite best attempts to ensure service;
- (ii)Whether a respondent has taken steps to evade service;
- (iii)All the facts of the case; and
- (iv)Consequences for third parties, which are particularly relevant in the context of vocational regulatory proceedings, the purpose of which includes the protection of the public by maintaining proper standards of conduct for practitioners registered in the various professions.
- (i)
- [23]In Allison the referral alleged that the respondent nurse had compromising photos and videos of a young person. Whilst criminal proceedings had been commenced, they were not pursued. Service of the referral had been attempted by leaving a copy of the referral at the respondent’s last known address, providing a copy of it to the industrial body who had last represented the respondent and other unsuccessful attempts to contact the respondent through process servers. An email to the respondent’s last known email address, which had been used during the investigation, produced a response that the message was undeliverable because the address could not be found or was unable to receive email. Information provided to the applicant from the respondent’s former representative approximately 9 months before the referral was filed was to the effect that the respondent was living overseas, had no intention to return to Australia, had no intention to work as a nurse or seek registration as a nurse and offered an undertaking at that time not to seek registration as a nurse. The Tribunal determined, “with some misgivings”[19] to make an order dispensing with the requirement for service, noting the order involved a departure from fundamental requirements of natural justice.
- [24]In Health Ombudsman v Mekingrailas[20] the then Deputy President was dealing with an application at the final hearing stage. His Honour was satisfied that the applicant had taken “all reasonable attempts to give a copy of the referral to the respondent but [had] most likely been unsuccessful.”[21] The respondent practitioner had been convicted of a significant number of criminal offences related to boundary violations committed during his work as an unregistered health practitioner providing massage services. He had served time in custody and then, in all likelihood, as a non-citizen, been deported from Australia. The respondent did not respond to any communication to his last known email address.
- [25]As to substituted service, in Legal Services Commissioner v Rider-Bell [2011] QCAT 669, Justice Wilson observed that “QCAT Rule 40 is in almost identical terms to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule[s] r 116”. To order substituted service, I must be satisfied the method of service required by s 37 of the QCAT Act and rule 39 of the QCAT Rules is impractical.[22] I must also be satisfied that the proposed methods of service will bring the proceeding to the attention of the respondent.[23]
- [26]The purpose of service is to “to bring to the knowledge of the person in respect of whom substituted service is sought the whole proceedings, so that he or she can take such steps as he or she thinks proper to protect his or her interests and rights”.[24]
What should the Tribunal do here ?
- [27]The Tribunal is to conduct proceedings in a way that is “accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick”.[25]
- [28]The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s father is in a difficult position. However, there is no expert evidence before the Tribunal of the respondent’s mental health (such as a report from a medical practitioner) or that the respondent’s father has any expertise in mental health which would add weight to his opinions in the correspondence.
- [29]There are public policy considerations associated with the protection of the public in the brining and determination of proceedings of this kind. The paramount guiding principle for administering the National Law is that the health and safety of the public are paramount[26]. In Allison, the Tribunal observed the possibility of the respondent seeking to be registered overseas, or in another jurisdiction in Australia, where the registration body is not informed about the existence or outcome of an application of this kind was a not insignificant consideration in determining to dispense with service in that matter[27]. It may also be accepted that the nature of these proceedings is serious and has the potential to have significant ramifications on the respondent’s future ability to practice. However, of course, he is not presently registered to practice in Australia.
- [30]At the time that the referral was filed, the respondent was a registered practitioner. As such, he had obligations to keep the Board appraised of any change in the address the Board was to use in corresponding with him[28]. The Board’s efforts to give him the referral have been based on the information which he had provided to it at a time when he was a registered practitioner.
- [31]The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that it is impracticable to serve the respondent in the way prescribed by the legislation.[29] The evidence also establishes that the email address [the respondent’s email address] is associated with the respondent,[30] and that the email address [Mr Belich Senior’s email address] is associated with the respondent’s father.[31] The respondent’s father has replied to emails from the applicant from that email address and has indicated to the applicant in correspondence that he has discussed these proceedings, albeit minimally with his son.[32] There is the inference available from the respondent’s father’s correspondence to the Tribunal that the respondent is at least aware the proceeding is on foot.
- [32]Therefore, I am satisfied that emailing the referral to each of the respondent and his father will bring the proceeding to the attention of the respondent. Indeed, the email to the respondent’s father has probably already brought the referral to the respondent’s attention, at least in general terms. By reason of the inference arising from the respondent’s father’s communication to the Tribunal, I am not satisfied that the Board has been unsuccessful as contemplated in s 37(4)(a) of the Act.
- [33]Where the evidence shows that process servers have attended and been unable to serve the respondent at the street address, I am not satisfied that posting the documents to or leaving them at the Broadbeach address would bring the proceedings to the respondent’s attention.
- [34]The Tribunal will order that pursuant to rule 40 of the QCAT rules, that service of the referral be effected by substituted service by sending the referral by email to [the respondent’s email address] and [Mr Belich Senior’s email address], along with a copy of this order and these reasons.
Should the Tribunal proceed to determine the substantive proceeding in the absence of the respondent ?
- [35]Section 93 of the QCAT Act provides:
93 Deciding in absence of person
- This section applies if—
- (a)a person has not attended a hearing and the tribunal is satisfied the person has been given notice of the hearing under section 92; or
- (b)the tribunal is satisfied a person cannot be found after reasonable inquiries have been made.
- (a)
- The tribunal may hear and decide the matter in the person’s absence.
- This section applies even if the absent person is a party to the proceeding.
- [36]Section 93 of the QCAT Act must be read with section 92 of the Act which provides that:
92 Notice
The principal registrar must give notice, as stated in the rules, of the time and place for the hearing of a proceeding to—
- each party to the proceeding; and
- each other person to whom notice of the hearing must be given under an enabling Act or the rules; and
- any other person the tribunal directs to be given notice of the hearing.
(emphasis added)
- [37]In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation.[33]
- [38]The purpose of s 93 is to allow for the fair, yet efficient progression of proceedings before the Tribunal. This is consistent with the objects of the QCAT Act.[34] The requirement in s 92 of the QCAT Act that the principal registrar must give notice of the time and place for the hearing of a proceeding to the parties to the proceeding is intended to preserve the fairness to the parties.
- [39]Section 92 of the QCAT Act appears to operate notwithstanding any difficulty by the applicant in effecting service on the respondent. The fact that the principal registrar’s obligations under s 92 operate even if the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to serve the respondent suggests that it would be premature to make an order that the proceedings be determined in the absence of the respondent until a hearing date is set and the respondent is provided with notice of that hearing by the principal registrar, or attempts are made to do so.
- [40]For these reasons and in the present circumstances, I will adjourn the application for the proceeding to be heard and determined in the respondent’s absence to a date to be fixed.
- [41]The Tribunal will consider the application further once the Board has filed its material and is ready to proceed.
- [42]The Board should take steps to provide the Tribunal with directions for the preparation of submissions and a hearing book containing the material on which the Board intends to rely. At this time, the Tribunal will not make directions requiring the respondent to file a response or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
- [43]However, it will require the Board to provide its filed material by email to the email address for the respondent and his father, so that, at any time, the respondent can indicate a willingness to be involved in the proceeding. If there is such an indication from the respondent, further directions can be made.
Orders
- [44]The orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
- That service of the Form 22 Referral and any other document that is required to be given to the respondent during the conduct of this matter be served by:
- a.emailing the documents to each of [the respondent’s email address]; and
- b.[Mr Belich Senior’s email address];
together with a copy of these reasons.
- The application pursuant to s 93(2) of the QCAT Act that the substantive proceeding be determined in the absence of the Respondent be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
- The Tribunal directs:
- a.The Board is to provide all materials filed by it in the Tribunal to the respondent by email to the email addresses set out in order 1;
- b.at the time of sending an email to the respondent the Board’s solicitor is to inform the respondent that if he wishes to be involved in the proceeding, he should respond by contacting the Board’s solicitors;
- c.when the Board has taken all steps to prepare the proceeding for hearing, it file an affidavit deposing to the steps it has taken in accordance with these directions and any response received from the respondent;
- d.the Board is to file draft directions to progress the matter with seven days of receiving these reasons.
Footnotes
[1] Application dated 25 November 2022 (the November Application); Applicant’s submissions at para [4].
[2] Applicant’s submissions at para [50].
[3] Application or referral – disciplinary proceeding filed 31 March 2022.
[4] QCAT Act s 37(2)(a).
[5] Affidavit of Luke Gallant affirmed 25 November 2022 at [2]-[10].
[6] Affidavit of Michael James Macgregor Todd sworn 28 September 2022 at [3] – [10].
[7] Affidavit of Michael James Macgregor Todd sworn 28 September 2022 at [11] – [17].
[8] Paragraph 34 of the reasons for the orders sought accompanying the November Application.
[9] I will refer to the November Application and the July Application collectively as ‘the Applications’.
[10] Affidavit of David Brockhoff affirmed 22 June 2023.
[11] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (QCAT Rules) r 19.
[12] QCAT Rules r 40(1).
[13] QCAT Rules r 40(3).
[14] QCAT Rules r 40(4).
[15] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Allison [2020] WASAT 136 at [14] – [18].
[16] Allison, op cit at [21].
[17] Allison, op cit at [23] citing the observations of Justice Hamilton in Abbott v Clark [2006] NSWSC 111 at [6].
[18] Allison, op cit at [24], [25], [29] and [32].
[19] Allison, op cit at [3].
[20] [2021] QCAT 199.
[21] Ibid at [20].
[22] QCAT Rules r 40; Legal Services Commissioner v Rider-Bell [2011] QCAT 669 (Rider-Bell) at para [10].
[23] Rider-Bell at [10].
[24] Miscamble v Phillips & Hoeflich (No 2) [1936] St R Qd 272 , 274.
[25] QCAT Act s 3.
[26] National Law s 3A.
[27] Allison, op cit at [40].
[28] National Law s 131.
[29] See affidavit of Luke Gallant sworn 25 November 2022.
[30] See affidavit of Luke Gallant sworn 25 November 2022. There is no evidence in the affidavit that the emails produced any form of bounce back or undeliverable message.
[31] See affidavit of Luke Gallant sworn 25 November 2022.
[32] Letter from Gordon Bellich to Mr Gallant (undated), contained in exhibit LG-12 to the affidavit of Luke Gallant sworn 25 November 2022.
[33] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14A.
[34] QCAT Act s 3(b).