Ada has extensive subject matter expertise in administrative law and provides advice to Commonwealth agencies on complex legal issues and the conduct of litigation. Ada also regularly appears as solicitor advocate in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal Circuit and Family Court and Federal Court of Australia.
Ada specialises in advising and representing various government clients, particularly the Department of Home Affairs, the National Disability Insurance Agency and Services Australia. With over 10 years of experience undertaking volume litigation and advice as a solicitor, she has extensive experience in meeting key deliverables and managing timelines.
Experience
- Ada regularly provides advice that demonstrates an understanding of the needs of government agencies and the relevant legislative context in which they operate. Ada has had carriage of thousands of judicial review proceedings for the Minister for Immigration conducted in the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia, including most notably:
- In BML19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1437 (23 November 2023) Ada took the Court succinctly through the 700+ pages of medical documents tendered by the applicant on the day of the hearing regarding his medical condition. Ada argued that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed as there was an insufficient explanation for the delay and where the proposed grounds of appealed lacked merit. This saved the Court and the Department time and resources as the hearing was able to proceed, despite the late tendering of documents.
- In Barber and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 2651 (22 August 2023) Ada argued the applicant failed to pass the character test and there was not another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked. Over two day hearing, Ada successfully argued that considering the nature and seriousness of offending conduct and the family violence committed by the appliant, the decision should be affirmed.
- Ada persuaded the Court in BXK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 278 (29 March 2023) that there was no actual or apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge.
- In Karunakaran and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 4021 (25 November 2022), Ada successfully argued that the application for citizenship by conferral should be refused because the applicant was not of good character at the time of the decision. Ada conducted robust cross-examination and made persuastive submissions that areasonable time had not passed since the applicant’s domestic violence offences and the decision should be affirmed.
- Ada is a trusted advisor in complex matters for the National Disability Insurance Agency before the AAT including:
- Duncan and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 121 (6 February 2024). It was argued that the applicant (who suffered from a major depressive disorder, fibromyalgia/chronic pain syndrome) did not meet the permanency requirements. The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the “disability requirements” under section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013. Ada briefed an expert Occupational Therapist to assess the applicant and pointed to the OT’s evidence to argue that the applicant had a perceived function lower than actual function.
- TRVH and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 1613 (3 May 2023) Ada defended the Agency’s position that supports for a condition must relate to the condition for which they gained access to the scheme (attribution policy). Ada briefed an expert psychologist to argue that front line treatment for chronic PTSD was not massage therapy, rather it was cognitive behaviour therapy.
- Kollias and National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2023] AATA 1702 (13 June 2023) Ada successfully argued against a request to issue summons to the NDIA’s two expert witnesses to produce documents to the Tribunal. Ada argued that the request lacked a legitimate forensic purpose, and the request was not relevant to the substantive issues. As a result, the Tribunal decided not to exercise the discretion in subsection 40A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to refuse the applicant’s request.
- Ada also undertook a secondment to the Department of Human Services (now, Services Australia) in 2018, conducting reviews of Tribunal decisions and having carriage of matters including:
- Lee v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 1855 (13 November 2019). Ada acted for the Department of Social Services in an appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It was conceded that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal, but Ada argued that, in circumstances where the applicant provided notice of withdrawal but later filed a further application which was summarily dismissed, the denial of procedural fairness could not have affected outcome and was immaterial.
- BDPK and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2023] AATA 2999 (19 September 2023). Ada acted for the Child Support Registrar in applying the care percentage principles to a novel case where the child had commenced boarding school. Ada took the Tribunal through the relevant factors in Polec v Staker [2011] FMCAfam 959 and assisted the Tribunal in coming to the correct and preferable decision.
Memberships
- Law Society of NSW
Relevant Sectors
Related news & insightsView all