@Kharon
I don't believe that two 'cherry picked' paragraphs from the hundred or so pages provide anything like a fair assessment of this issue.
Apologies if it appears to be "cherry picking".
I know nought of the issue, only what the AAT has written.
Can you explain why you feel the ruling is in error - the paragraphs I choose seemed to sum up AAT's reasoning.
Para 36 states
The same is true of the Authority’s reliance upon the statement of Mr Coglan’s companion
If the Authority wished to rely upon that statement as evidence of the truth of its contents it was bound to call the witness to permit Mr Quadrio to cross-examine the witness. Whilst the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, reliance on a statement of a witness, not called in the proceedings and whose absence is not explained, would deny procedural fairness to the other party.
Para 36 is in Mr Quadrio's favour, not CASA's
BH