Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker in my matter.
I predict that Dr A will argue that he made no decisions about APTA, other than on the content of the text which was copied and pasted by White into his email to APTA of March 19. I predict that Dr A will argue that it was up to Mr White to make the operational decision whether to accept the implications of what was sent to him.
The fact that White copied and pasted that text and stated that he “agreed with” Dr A suggests to me that White was confused about who was advising whom and deciding what. When someone is given legal advice and a suggested strategy, it’s not up to the recipient to “agree” or “disagree” with the advice. It’s up to the recipient of the advice to decide whether to accept its implications and then decide what action to take as a consequence.
If White points at Dr A and says: “The content of the March 19 email was all your idea”, I predict Dr A’s response will be: “No. It was up to you to decide what, if anything, to do about what was sent to you.” Dr A is rarely silly enough to make operational decisions.
In any event, the gist of the requirements set out in the March 19 email have not been found to be unlawful. There was some bollocks in the verbose language, but the gist was a requirement for APTA to demonstrate the means by which APTA would exercise legal and effective control over all of the wandering cats at the ‘alliance’ ‘bases’.
APTA was led up the garden path by the earlier decisions to approve variations to APTA’s AOC to cover the addition of ‘alliance’ ‘bases’ without APTA having to satisfy the requirement set out in the March 19 email. I’ll bet leftie that Dr A had nothing to do with those earlier decisions.
Another aspect is that the word “decision” means many things to different people. If you’re going to allege Dr A was the “sole decision maker” in “your” matter and the decision/s was/were motivated by malice, you have to state what the decision/s was/were. For example, I’ll bet leftie that Dr A never made any decision to refuse something for which APTA applied. The March 19 email imposed a requirement for more information. It was not a refusal. And one of CASA’s standard tricks is to avoid making a decision, for which the decision-maker would be accountable, by requiring more information in the course of the process. In APTA’s case, as a matter of practicality the requirement drove you to despair and broke but CASA will say the requirement it imposed was lawful and, at the point you were driven to despair and broke, CASA had not made a final decision.
So I’d suggest you state, precisely, the “decisions” you reckon Dr A made that were motivated by malice. And “Dr A decided to shut me down” or “target me” is not a decision which, of itself, would have any effect on APTA’s or your interests.
“Dr A decided to refuse APTA’s application for….
“Dr A decided to give deliberately misleading advice, to the effect that [….] to […].
“Dr A decided to give deliberately misleading information, in the form of […], to […].
“Dr A decided to make a voodoo doll in my image and stick pins in it.”
Or whatever.
And I think you have to confront the implications of an issue I raised earlier: APTA was the entity with the AOC, not you. I suggest you try to make very clear whether you’re alleging a duty was owed to you, personally, or to APTA or to both. Remember: You and APTA are different people, APTA still exists and is still (from what I can tell) a functioning business.
(You might have already dealt with these issues in later parts of your draft material?)
(If you’re on the AGS website again for any reason, search for “negligent misstatement” and “government authority”. Just sayin’….)