ALSTON & WINDSOR
[2015] FamCA 169
•18 March 2015
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ALSTON & WINDSOR | [2015] FamCA 169 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property made in relation to marriage – Identification of property – add backs – contributions – other factors |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 75(2), 79
Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Alston |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Windsor |
| FILE NUMBER: | LNC | 390 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 18 March 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Hobart |
| PLACE HEARD: | Hobart and Launceston |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Benjamin J |
| HEARING DATE: | 15, 16 & 17 October & 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 18 November 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Marcus Turnbull |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Levis Stace & Cooper |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | In person |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: |
PROPERTY ORDERS
The father shall pay to the mother the sum of $37,876 within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
B Street and units at C Street
Within thirty (30) days of the date of Order the father and the mother shall do all acts and sign all documents as are necessary to:-
a.transfer to and/or vest in the mother, the father’s interest in B Street, Suburb D (‘B Street Property’), Unit 2, C Street, Suburb E (‘Unit 2, C Street Property’) and Unit 3, C Street, Suburb E (‘Unit 3, C Street Property’),
b.Seek and obtain a release from the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group for the father in respect of his personal obligations contained in the mortgage/s over B Street Property, Unit 2, C Street Property and Unit 3, C Street Property.
As and from the date of these Orders the mother is entitled to all of the rents and profits from B Street Property, Unit 2, C Street Property and Unit 3, C Street Property.
As and from the date of these Orders the mother shall pay rates, taxes, insurance premiums and principle and interest on the mortgage/s in respect of the B Street Property, Unit 2, C Street Property and Unit 3, C Street Property and shall indemnify the father in that respect.
F Street
The parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to effect a sale of F Street, Suburb D (‘F Street Property’) subject to:-
a.the method of sale, whether by auction or private treaty, shall be as agreed between the parties; in the absence of agreement within thirty (30) days or if any agreement for method of sale breaks down, then by auction at the request of either party.
b.the parties shall instruct a legal practitioner (agreed by them) to act on the sale of the F Street Property; failing agreement a licenced legal practitioner shall be nominated by the President of the Law Society of Tasmania, at the request of either party.
c.the F Street Property shall be listed for sale with a licenced real estate agent and auctioneer, agreed between the parties; failing agreement the licenced real estate agent and auctioneer will be the person nominated by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania at the request of either party.
d.the listing price, reserve price for auction and sale selling price of the F Street Property shall each be as agreed by the parties; failing such agreements, such price, reserve or sale price shall be as determined by a valuer nominated by the President of the Tasmanian Division of the Australian Property Institute at the request of either party.
e.from the date of this Order until the completion of the settlement of the sale of F Street Property, the mother and father shall equally pay all outgoings on the property; including but not necessarily limited to the payment of council rates, water rates and interest on the mortgage.
f.at settlement of the sale of F Street Property the proceeds of sale shall be applied as follows:-
i.payment of legal costs and disbursements of the legal practitioner acting for the parties on the sale;
ii.payment of the real estate agent’s commissions, fees and reasonable advertising and auction expenses;
iii.any fees or charges paid or payable to the Law Society, the Real Estate Institute and/or the Australian Property Institute in implementing the orders for the sale;
iv.in re-payment of any mortgage secured over the F Street Property;
v.if one or other party has paid outgoings on the F Street Property, such as council rates, water rates and interest on the mortgage, which is or was payable by the other party, pursuant to this order, re-imbursement of that sum; and
vi.in payment of the net balance of the proceeds of sale equally between the parties.
In the event the mother is liable for capital gains tax assessed on the her income as a consequence of the sale of F Street Property; within twenty one (21) days of the mother forwarding to the father a copy of the assessment issued by the Australian Taxation Office, the father shall pay to the mother one half of the tax calculated on that sale at the highest rate of tax payable by the mother in that assessment.
Other property
IT IS DECLARED THAT the mother is the sole and absolute legal and beneficial owner, as against the father, in respect of:-
a.G Street, H Town (‘the G Street Property’);
b.I Street, Suburb D (‘I Street Property’);
c.J Pty Ltd investment in the mother’s sole name;
d.European motor vehicle;
e.European motor vehicle;
f.Japanese motor vehicle;
g.bank accounts in the name of the mother ;
h.bank account/s in the name of K Pty Ltd; and
i.furniture, chattels, superannuation and other property in the mother’s possession and/or control;
IT IS DECLARED THAT the father is the sole and absolute legal and beneficial owner, as against the mother, in respect of:-
a.L Street, H Town (‘the L Street Property);
b.M Street, Suburb D (‘the M Street Property’);
c.N Street, Suburb D (‘the N Street Property’);
d.J Pty Ltd Investment in the father’s sole name;
e.O Pty Ltd investment in the father’s sole name;
f.bank accounts in the name of the father;
g.bank account/s in the name of P Pty Ltd; and
h.furniture, chattels, superannuation and other property in the father’s possession and/or control.
Indemnities
The mother shall indemnify and keep indemnified the father in respect of claims by her arising from her business K Pty Ltd for the amount outstanding to her and/or the business by the father in the sum of $67,000.
BY CONSENT the father pay and indemnify the mother from:-
a.payment of outgoings in respect of the L Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
b.payment of outgoings in respect of the M Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
c.payment of outgoings in respect of the N Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
d.all liabilities associated with the business, P Pty Ltd;
e.unless otherwise provided for in these orders, all liabilities on assets that the father retains in accordance with these Orders.
The mother shall pay and indemnify the father from:-
a.payment of outgoings in respect of the B Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
b.payment of outgoings in respect of the Unit 2, C Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
c.payment of outgoings in respect of the Unit 3, C Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
d.payment of all outgoings in respect of the G Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
e.Payment of outgoings in respect of the I Street Property including but not limited to rates, land tax, water charges and insurance premiums;
f.the ANZ car loan;
g.the mother’s Commonwealth Bank of Australia credit card;
h.unless otherwise provided for in these orders, all liabilities on assets that the mother retains in accordance with these Orders.
BY CONSENT the mother shall pay to the father $4,702.50 within sixty (60) days of the date of this order being re-imbursement of half of the fees of Q Accountants, which account the father warrants was paid by him or on his behalf ALTERNATIVELY the father may, with written notice, deduct that amount from the sum he is otherwise required to pay to the mother pursuant to these orders.
BY CONSENT in the event that the mother has not paid one half of the witness expenses of Ms R (that half totalling $235) as at the date of these Orders;
a.if the sum was paid by the father, the mother shall pay to the father the sum of $235 within sixty (60) days from the date of these orders ALTERNATIVELY the father may, with written notice, deduct that amount from the sum he is otherwise required to pay to the mother pursuant to these orders; or
b.if the sum has not been paid by the father, the mother shall pay $235 to Ms R within thirty (30) days.
CHILD SUPPORT
The mother’s child support departure application is dismissed.
THE COURT NOTES that the mother’s child support application was not heard on the merits.
General Orders
Following the expiration of the appeal period, all subpoenaed documents, except for the parties’ case summaries and expert reports, shall be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.
The parties shall each pay one half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, either as agreed or determined as party/party costs pursuant to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED THAT such payment of costs to the Independent Children’s Lawyer does not prevent either one or both of the parties claiming re-imbursement or indemnity for such costs in any inter-parent cost application/s.
All other extant applications for orders, except costs applications, be otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation. Any costs application may be dealt with in accordance with the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED THAT if the mother has not paid the outstanding costs orders totalling $9,447.50 the father has leave to deduct that sum from the amount payable by him to the mother pursuant in accordance with the property orders
IT IS CERTIFIED
Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Alston & Windsor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON |
FILE NUMBER: LNC 390 of 2008
| Mr Alston |
Father
And
| Ms Windsor |
Mother
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
Mr Alston (‘the father’) and Ms Windsor (‘the mother’) have been unable to resolve property, child support and parenting, issues following their relationship failure in 2007.
The property and child support issues were heard simultaneously with the parenting proceedings conducted between the parties. Evidence for all issues was taken at the same time and was used, where relevant, in each of the determinations. There was one proceeding but three primary causes of action.
I have taken the unusual step of delivering two sets of reasons and separate orders, one for parenting and the other for property and child support. The reason for this approach is that I will direct that the parenting reasons and consequent orders are made available to health care professionals and others. They may be used in respect of the children’s education and health care. There is no need for the parties’ property reasons and orders to be part of that disclosure. Similarly, the property orders may need to be produced to revenue and land title registration authorities, real estate agents, valuers and the like. They have no need to know the parties’ and their children’s circumstance as to parenting. In addition, I wanted to make it clear that the Independent Children's Lawyer was not involved in the property or child support proceeding.
In coming to the conclusion to make the orders envisaged in these reason I have also had regard to the reasoning I set out in the parenting decision which was delivered on the same day as these.
This couple have invited the Family Court into the dispute and have requested it to impose solutions upon them and their children. The mother and father each express a quixotic belief in the righteousness and justice of their respective causes. If I apply the law to their facts and if I get it half right, both parents are likely to be disillusioned in what they will perceive as an unquixotic outcome.
These reason address the issues regarding property and child support which arise in the context of a complex factual history, impacted by entrenched inter party conflict.
The father has re-partnered and the mother continues to exhibit sadness, distress and/or anger arising from the unexpected, from her perspective, marriage breakup and separation. This unhappiness and consequent conflict has subsisted for over seven years and shows no signs that it is diminishing. Each of the parties has at times adopted positions and attitudes which promote the conflict. These parties’ seem otherwise to be two decent people who are successful in their respective careers and who both dearly love their children. Yet, they are unable or unwilling to accommodate courses to stop the conflict which is so damaging to their children and their own financial circumstances.
Material upon which the parties relied
The father relied upon the following material:-
(a)his further amended initiating application filed 2 May 2014;
(b)his affidavit filed 22 May 2014;
(c)his financial statement filed 22 May 2014;
(d)affidavit of Ms S filed 21 May 2014;
(e)affidavit of Ms T filed 21 May 2014; and
(f)affidavit of Mr Q (single expert) filed 6 May 2014.
At the commencement of the hearing the father tendered a bundle of documents[1] which included valuations, costs orders, invoices for valuations, other documents including bank statements and accounts.
[1]Exhibit F1.
The father’s outline of case document was tendered.[2] Except as agreed in evidence in terms of some aspects of chronology, it was not evidence of the facts contained in it, but simply an outline of the case that he was presenting.
[2] Exhibit F2.
The mother relied upon the following documents:-
(a)amended response filed 6 August 2014;
(b)Notice of Risk of Abuse filed 22 August 2013;
(c)her affidavit filed 21 August 2013;
(d)her affidavit filed 8 October 2014;
(e)her affidavit filed 14 October 2014;
(f)her Financial Statement filed 6 November 2014.
The mother’s submissions for final hearing document were tendered.[3] Except as agreed in evidence in terms of some aspects of chronology, it was not evidence of the facts contained in it, but simply an outline of the case that she was presenting.
[3] Exhibit M1 and page 21 of the mother’s affidavit filed 8 October 2014 where she sets out final orders she seeks.
The mother also sought to rely upon her affidavit filed in the Federal Magistrates Court (as it then was) in September 2008. Objection was taken by the father to the mother relying on that affidavit and I determined that she could not do so but I gave her leave to call short oral evidence as to the history.
In the parenting case the Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon his outline and summary of argument.[4] That was tendered on the same basis as the similar documents filed on behalf of the father and the mother.
[4] Exhibit ICL1.
In the parenting case, the Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon the following:-
(a)affidavit of Mr U filed 20 November 2013;
(b)affidavit of Ms V filed 15 November 2013;
(c)affidavit of Mr W filed 24 April 2014;
(d)affidavit of Ms X filed 20 May 2014;
(e)updating affidavit of Ms X filed 26 September 2014;
(f)updated affidavit of Mr W filed 26 September 2014;
(g)affidavit of Ms R filed 2 October 2014 (treating Psychologist);
(h)affidavit of Ms Z filed 7 November 2012; and
(i)three family reports prepared by Family Consultant, Ms AA, dated 18 March 2014[5], January 2011[6] and 24 November 2008.[7]
[5] Exhibit ICL2.
[6] Exhibit ICL3.
[7] Exhibit ICL4.
The mother sought some orders in respect of child support, although there is no evidence of notification of the Child Support Registrar.
Background
The father is aged 46 and he is the owner/manager of a business. He is in good health.
The mother lives in BB Town in the CC Region in Queensland, having recently moved there from Western Australia. She is a healthcare professional Specialist. Her health is problematic.
The father asserted that the parties commenced cohabitation in about 1998 and married in 2002.
They separated in November 2007. There is an issue as to whether separation was 18 or 30 November but in the context of these proceedings not much swings upon that date.
The parties were divorced on 14 January 2011.
There are two children of the marriage, DD and EE. The children are currently residing primarily with the father in Tasmania and spend time with the mother.
Prior to the parties’ separation they had each operated their own businesses as sole traders. The mother operated her business, K Pty Ltd, and the father operated his business P Pty Ltd. There is a dispute as to the contributions each made over the period of their relationship.
After separation there was conflict between the parties as to the parenting arrangements for their two children. The father commenced parenting proceedings and eventually the arrangements became week about.
In February 2009 the mother sought permission to relocate with the children to Adelaide. At the conclusion of a defended hearing and before the making orders or giving reasons Federal Magistrate Roberts (as he then was) indicated that he would not be permitting the relocation of the children.
Consequently, the children remained in Tasmania. The mother moved to South Australia to continue her studies where she obtained a Masters degree.
The children remained in the primary care of the father.
The children spent regular time with the mother until early 2011, when the mother returned to Tasmania and the parties resumed the week about basis in terms of care of the children.
The mother sought orders that the father pay spouse maintenance to her. That application was dismissed in September 2011. On 28 September 2011 the mother was ordered to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the sum of $1,560 and the costs of the father in the sum of $1,760.
In so far as the father is concerned, those costs remain unpaid.[8] I have acknowledged this as property of the father and a liability of the mother in terms of my deliberation. I have consciously made no adjustment or allowance in respect of these costs orders in terms of any adjustment of property or including the asset that is the husband’s entitlement to the costs or the liability of the wife in terms of the costs. I have made orders to facilitate payment of the outstanding costs orders in the context of the exchange of funds provided by the orders I intend to make.
[8] Father’s trial affidavit paragraph 135.
On 15 November 2011 a final order was made by consent in the then Federal Magistrates Court that the children live week about with each parent.[9]
[9] Trial affidavit of father annexure A (page 35).
In early 2013 the mother relocated to Perth to undertake further study and the children remained in Tasmania with the father.
The mother lived in Western Australia from early 2013 and completed her Doctorate.
In April 2014 the mother moved to Queensland where she now lives and has well paid employment.
From the time the mother moved to Western Australia the majority of parenting has been provided in the father’s household. The children spent regular time with the mother in Western Australia, although the arrangements for those times were quite fraught for the children.
The parties have been involved in constant conflict and almost constant litigation since separation.
The father has re-partnered and now lives with Ms T, who has three children from a previous relationship, FF aged 15, GG aged 18 and HH aged 20. The elder children live independently and FF resides with Ms T, the father and the children.
At the time of this hearing EE was in grade 6 at II School in Suburb D and DD in year 7 at JJ School in H Town.
In these proceedings the mother was unrepresented. She had the assistance of the children’s maternal grandmother through much of the hearing. She also had the assistance of her friend, Mr KK.
At the commencement of the hearing the mother asked if Mr KK could assist her in terms of managing the documents and understanding the process, essentially as a McKenzie friend. There being no objection from either the Independent Children’s Lawyer or counsel for the father I allowed that course, although Mr KK did not have a ‘speaking part’. During the course of the hearing the mother asked permission for Mr KK to read the family reports[10] so that she could discuss that with him in terms of her prospective cross-examination of the Family Consultant. Upon Mr KK giving an undertaking to the Court under oath that he would not discuss the report further with any other person apart from the mother that material was made available to him. This was done with the consent of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and counsel for the father.
[10] Exhibit M2, M3 and M4.
Notwithstanding that assistance, I accept it is always difficult for a party who is unrepresented. I have had regard to that difficulty in the management and running of the hearing and in terms of considering the submissions and assessing the evidence of the mother.
It was an agreed fact that a determination had been made, in relatively recent times, that the mother’s income for the purpose of child support had been determined on her capacity to earn income at a rate of $130,000 per year.
The mother applied for jobs in 2010, 2011 and 2012 but was not successful in obtaining those jobs.[11]
[11] Exhibit M16.
In these reasons any statement of fact is to be regarded as a finding of fact unless the contrary is clear from the context of the statement.
I have considered some of the evidence of the witnesses in respect of the children’s proceedings as part of the holistic approach I adopted to determine the weight to be given to the credit of the parties, in the property proceedings.
Witnesses
The father
The father relied upon his affidavit and financial statement referred to earlier in these reasons.
He amended his financial statement in terms of a number of areas, namely that:-
(a)his income will be approximately $135,000 gross per annum which will mean it will be about $200 per week less than set out in his financial statement;
(b)his liability to the ANZ visa was about $4,671 and Citibank was about $11,835 (agreed at the end of the hearing as $10,651); and
(c)there was no longer a liability in respect of his American Express Card.
In terms of the father’s financial statement and I am satisfied that he works in his own business and earns about $2,600 per week gross. Ms T lives with him and works in his business. She is paid about $874 per week. Given the documentation produced by him and the comments I will make later about the quality of his evidence, I accept that evidence.
The father gave evidence as to the income of his business from 1996 through to 2001, which evidence I accept, that he earned about $22,900 in 1996, $45,400 in 1997, $16,900 in 1998, $27,800 in 1999, $76,400 in 2000 and $8,152 in 2001.
During most of the marriage the father earned a good income from his business, particularly in the later years. I accept that the father has made significant financial contribution at the time the parties commenced living together and in the years that followed both before and after separation.
I accept his evidence in relation to the downturn of the business and the reduction in the production of the models where he undertakes repair work.
I accept his assertion there is no intellectual property as their task is to fit material requested and there is no testing in relation to that material. As the models came along they did drawings and then installation.
The father gave evidence as to the motor vehicles and their providence.
In his evidence the father impressed as to the difficulties that he has had in communications with the mother since separation. In some of his emails he was somewhat authoritarian and abrupt, however, he was seeking to make sensible arrangements for the children using the names recorded on their birth certificates and having them arrive back at reasonable hours to return to school. I generally accept his evidence in that regard. Some examples of the issues surrounding the communication difficulties between the father and mother were set out in paragraph 19 of the father’s trial affidavit.
The mother asserted that the father had a liability of about $80,000 to his former wife at the time they commenced cohabitation. I refer to this elsewhere in the reasons and I accept the father’s evidence supported by his National Australia Bank document.[12]
[12] Exhibit F3.
I generally accept the father’s evidence that each of the parties ran their own businesses. They assisted each other in minor ways from time to time in terms of the businesses, but there was no overwhelming contribution one to the other over the period of the marriage.
In cross-examination the father listened carefully to the evidence and was frank in giving answers. He at times provided answers which were contrary to his interests. Some examples of those were about his October 2013 emails, as to being dictatorial or inflammatory. He acknowledged that the electronic traffic was a continuation of the war between him and the mother.
The father conceded that in private conversations between him and Ms T he may have used derogatory terms against the mother, and may have participated in a conversation which the children may have unintentionally overheard.
He generally impressed as a thoughtful and reasonable person coping with what he regarded as difficult circumstances over many years following the breakdown of the marriage.
Another example of the father’s admission against his interest was his concerns about the children and the mother identifying them as Aboriginal and his concerns about that identification for the children when they were at school.
The father was cross-examined in relation to the payment of the children’s dental fees. He said he refused to pay the account in the context that he was concerned that once he started paying bills they would come in at an increasing rate. The father obfuscated in relation to part of this evidence and I am satisfied that he was, to a certain extent, engaged in the conflict with the mother in terms of the finances between the parties.
I have taken this into account in terms of contribution and in terms of his approach to parenting.
The father was cross-examined in relation to his ANZ home loans as at June 2000[13] and was re-examined in relation to the home loan as at the date of separation. The father’s evidence in this area was not satisfactory. He avoided answering some questions or was ‘cute’ in answering questions. The father often relied upon poor memory in circumstances where I conclude that he had knowledge but did not wish to make admissions against his interests. An example of this was the letter of demand he sent the mother in February 2008 for funds. The father had significant assets, although this must be seen in the light of the mother having taken $65,000 from the bank account a short time before.
[13] Exhibit M10.
I generally regard his evidence as reliable, albeit from his subjective point of view.
Ms T
Ms T is the father’s partner. They have been in a relationship for approximately four years and have been living together for two years. Ms T provided evidence contained in her affidavit of 21 May 2014, which was read into evidence.
Ms T has three children of a previous relationship, to whom I have referred earlier. Ms T, the father, the subject children and FF live at the father’s rented home in Tasmania.
Ms T provided evidence that she had carefully formed a relationship with the children and that that relationship was developing well.
She agreed with the facts asserted by the Family Consultant at paragraph 52 of the most recent family report. In terms of the household she described a well functional household which has occasional issues but nothing of major consequence.
Ms T gave evidence that ‘swearing’ was uncommon in her house, that she occasionally swore and that the father rarely swore. She conceded using occasional swear words in terms of her teenage daughter and in relation to gentle disciplining of one of the subject children when he used an inappropriate word during a game.
Ms T was cross-examined as to the facts attributed to the children by the State Care and Protection Authorities. She said that she had never hit the children, but has sometimes called them names. She said of this that the only thing she could think of was using terms such as ‘cheeky little bugger’ or the like in a light-hearted sense.
I am satisfied this could have been a misinterpretation by the boys given the conflicted life in which they exist.
Ms T gave some examples of DD getting upset on a couple of occasions, one in relation to a bike ride and one in relation to a tea towel.
She was cross-examined by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and answered questions carefully and thoughtfully.
She was very forcefully cross-examined by the mother and made some concessions against her interest including some overly strong wording in text messages, but came across as a forceful, thoughtful and effective witness.
Ms T said the boys are rarely apart and they seem to draw strength being together. I accepted that evidence and gave it some weight.
The cross-examination by the mother of Ms T showed that the mother had spent a significant amount of time and effort gaining ‘intelligence’ in relation to Ms T including a damaged door, the rental of one of the parties’ properties to Ms T’s elder daughter, other aspects about the parties lives which were at times irrelevant and at times concerning given that level of knowledge and the level of cross-examination.
Whilst Ms T’s evidence is subjective, I am satisfied that she is a witness of the truth and I generally accept that which she asserted.
Ms R
The children’s psychologist, Ms R, gave evidence as to her treatment of the children. She was careful in giving that evidence in not disclosing any confidences of the children which could inhibit the clinical relationship between them and their therapist.
In relation to EE, Ms R said that she noticed an improvement in his presentation. She said he says he feels guilty that he may be holding DD back from living with their mother.
Ms R said that final orders providing a base for the boys living arrangements would be better for the children. She said both children need certainty of arrangements and those arrangements need to be fixed.
She is confident that EE’s earlier thoughts of self-harm are no longer in place although she is concerned that EE is disempowered, as set out in her report. Ms R says that EE now has strategies available to him to better manage the conflict to which his parents have exposed him.
Ms R said that the children could make their own arrangements as a conduit to access; the adverse side to this is that it may restrict the time spent with the other parent. That approach, given all of the evidence, may set the parties and children up for failure.
Ms R was frank, careful and thoughtful. She was careful of the needs of her patients, the children. I generally accept her evidence
Ms V
Notwithstanding the Notice to Admit the Independent Children’s Lawyer made enquiries to see whether Ms V could be made available for the trial. Unfortunately Ms V was on leave and was not able to be contacted.[14] I had some regard to her evidence, albeit that it was not in any way pivotal in the determination.
[14] Affidavit of Ms Z sworn and filed 7 November 2012.
Mr W
Mr W is the Principal of JJ School, H Town where DD commenced high school in 2014. Mr W’s affidavit material[15] was read into evidence subject to weight.
[15] Affidavits filed 28 April 2014 and 26 September 2014.
Mr W thinks well of DD and believes that he has leadership potential into the future. There were a number of minor incidents during the year which have been resolved at lower level and are not, in the circumstances of boys approaching or entering puberty, of concern.
Mr W added in relation to DD words to the effect that he is a ‘lovely boy who is young for his age and is a young man who he would happily have at his school, he has a good sense of justice and he makes good decisions’.
Mr W was cross-examined by the mother in relation to school events and confirmed his earlier evidence.
His evidence was credible and reliable.
The mother
The mother provided evidence contained in the following documents:-
(a)her amended response filed 6 August 2013;
(b)her chronology contained in Exhibits M1 and M2;
(c)her Notice of Risk of Abuse filed 22 August 2013;
(d)her affidavit filed 21 August 2013
(e)her affidavit filed 14 October 2014;
(f)her affidavit filed 8 October 2014 (this had annexed to it a copy of Exhibit M4) (trial affidavit)[16];
(g)her financial statement dated 13 October 2014 which was filed 6 November 2014;
[16] Part of the mother’s trial affidavit had been struck out earlier in the hearing and only the part not struck out was read into evidence.
In addition there is her evidence contained in her financial statement filed 6 November 2014, where she discloses that she works as a health professional and earns about $1,826 per week, plus rent on a number of properties bringing her income up to about $2,335 per week.
The mother gave oral evidence that she is currently earning about $130,000 a year plus bonuses. The amount of those bonuses is unclear. In August 2015 she will finish her internship and she will be able to bill Medicare which, apparently, makes a difference in terms of her ability to earn greater income.
The mother says that she has a business in Tasmania, K Pty Ltd; however, given the history provided by her, the father and the Single Expert I am satisfied that it has no value. She disclosed no other occupant in her house who earns income.
The mother gave oral evidence that she said wanted DD to live with her in believing that she was a good mother. DD’s wish that he lives with the mother had been one he had expressed for some years.
The mother gave evidence that she would not be returning to Tasmanian, unless there was some catastrophic event such as illness of her mother or the like. She said that she did not want the alternative orders or to discuss the alternative orders sought by the father except to say that if this was the arrangement there ought to be equal time in Tasmania.
The mother tendered a letter from Dr LL as to EE’s weight.[17] The context of this evidence was hard to discern.
[17] Exhibit M17.
The mother was cross-examined in relation to the evidence given by Ms S. The mother asserted that the evidence of Ms S was fabricated. I do not accept that this was the case and I find that the mother is either unable to remember or is falsely denying the evidence of Ms S.
I prefer some of the evidence of Ms T as against that of the mother. I have alluded elsewhere to the interactions between Ms T and the mother.
At times, when giving evidence, the mother showed a tendency to become histrionic and occasionally I needed to ‘bring her back,’ to ask her to focus on the question and listen to the question. She very much focuses on her own needs, such as her education in South Australia and Western Australia, where her career was her main focus.
The mother asserted that the note allegedly from EE was something to which she had no involvement. I reject her evidence in that regard.
The mother met most of the costs of the flights for the children to and from Tasmania and at times for her mother when required by the father.
The mother gave evidence about how she felt about the breakdown of the marriage and her perceptions of her business. It is clear that the mother continues to mourn the loss of her marriage and the end of her marriage which came as a terrible shock to her.
I have been careful in my assessment of her evidence, given that she was self-represented and was clearly in distress and at times overwrought by the sudden and unexpected loss of the marriage. Her evidence was emotionally charged and she used evocative words such as ‘betrayal’.
The mother said that the father was in a better financial situation than her and that she had no knowledge of his income and was kept absolutely in the dark about that income. Her evidence was that she only found out about the extent of his income when she received a child support assessment after separation.
The mother said she never saw the father’s financials and had no access to the accounts. She was distraught and teary in giving this evidence.
Counsel for the father cross-examined the mother in relation to this evidence, and the mother was shown a report from Mr MM of NN Pty Ltd.[18]
[18] Who provide financial advice dated June 2004 (‘the NN report’).
The mother initially asserted she had never seen that report before and noted it was addressed to the father at his business address. When pressed in cross-examination she conceded that the investment advice given to the parties by Mr MM was in fact followed by the parties in their purchase of forestry investments. The mother then agreed that she had attended at a meeting but said she arrived late and was not present for the same amount of time as the father.
The mother continued to assert that she had not seen the report. Eventually she was taken to pages in the report where she identified comments and words which had been written by her in the report.
I do not accept that this was an error in memory. The mother’s evidence in terms of her assertion of her lack of knowledge of the father’s financial circumstances was damaged by this.
The mother was asked about investments in the purchases of property; the B Street property in 2000, the N Street property some time later, the subsequent purchase of the F Street property and then the purchase of the C Street properties. On each occasion the mother went to the bank with the father and conceded she would have known his financial circumstances.
The mother’s assertion that she did not know about the father’s finances were likely fabricated or reconstructed.
The mother said that the minimum qualification for her profession is a Master’s Degree. She said it was absolutely necessary for her to leave the State to obtain that qualification. She said that she and the father agreed that she would wind down her business so that they could travel interstate.
The mother was winding down her business not to move interstate but in terms of her spending more time parenting and continuing to run her business on a lesser basis, having regard to the economic success of the father’s business.
The mother says that the reason she left the State was that it was forced upon her. I do not accept that explanation and I am satisfied the mother left the State to improve her academic qualifications firstly in South Australia and then in Western Australia. That was a decision she took.
I do not reject the whole of the mother’s evidence, however, I treat it with caution.
Evidence of Family Consultant
Ms AA (‘the Family Consultant’) has had an opportunity to see these children over a significant period of time. She has prepared three reports which were read into evidence namely:-
(a)Report 24 November 2008 (interviews for November 2008);[19]
(b)Report 23 January 2010 (interviews 12 January 2011);[20] and
(c)Report 18 March 2014 (interviews 5 March 2014).[21]
[19] Exhibit ICL4.
[20] Exhibit ICL3.
[21] Exhibit ICL2.
The mother did not challenge the professional or practical qualifications of the Family Consultant, but challenged her in a number of ways including assertions of bias, misstatement of facts and the like. The mother set these out in detail in her trial affidavit.[22]
[22] Paragraphs 71 to 85.
Given the evidence of the mother and the evidence of the Family Consultant, I am not satisfied that the substance of the complaints made by the mother of the Family Consultant have been established.
I am satisfied that the Family Consultant has adopted a careful and thorough assessment of these children over a period of about five and a half years. The Family Consultant was provided with a copy of the report of Ms R. The evidence of the Family Consultant was that the observations of Ms R were similar to her own.
The Family Consultant observed that that parental conflicts and difficulties of the parents had significant impact upon the children.
The Family Consultant observed that the children love both their parents, that EE expresses the absence of empowerment and that DD, typical of his age, is not happy about the ongoing emotional investigation of him.
Interestingly, the Family Consultant formed the view that DD was mature for his age. Mr W gave evidence that DD is ‘young for his age’. I also accept the evidence of Ms R that she observed that DD, at his age, ‘lacks insight’. What I make of this, evidence, I do not know.
I accept the Family Consultant’s evidence that DD has a strong view that he wishes to live with his mother and is likely to do so. The Family Consultant says that if an order is made contrary to those views it may be that DD will simply decide to stay with his mother at some stage, although the Family Consultant was comforted by the mother’s evidence that once a decision was made she would abide by that decision.
The Family Consultant provided evidence about the benefit of these children having their relationship at the present time, which as they get older will provide a bond for them through life. The problem she says when siblings are split can be real in the sense of jealousy by one child of the other and vice versa. It sets up a division between the children where one child is always going to feel like a visitor in the other sibling’s home.
The indications for separation, observed by the Family Consultant, were that EE at times feels bullied by his older brother and DD may become disruptive if he is not given a voice. That is not the evidence currently from the school.
The Family Consultant believed that if DD can grow up in one home for the next two or three years he will focus more on his peers and his parents will be less significant to him. The Family Consultant said these children need a secure place.
As to the mother the Family Consultant’s evidence was that the mother does not have emotional stability and displays significant distress. That distress was clear to me during the hearing
I accept the evidence of the Family Consultant that DD has a strong alignment with his mother.
The Family Consultant gave evidence about the name change which I have alluded to elsewhere in these reasons.
I generally accept the evidence of the Family Consultant and the assessments made of her although the ultimate decision rests with me given that I have seen, read and heard all of the evidence in a broader context and over a longer period of time.
Ms X
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon two affidavits by Ms X. Those affidavits were filed 12 May 2014 and 26 September 2014 and were read into evidence without controversy. They were accepted by both the mother and counsel for the father.
Ms X is a teacher employed at II School. She has taught both the children.
These boys continue to be shown as well grounded, nice children who work well at school. The evidence of Ms X is of the difficulties the children have suffered as a consequence of the constant conflict between their parents. There have been minor issues but nothing of any consequence.
Mr U
Mr U is a teacher at II School. His affidavit evidence filed 20 November 2013 was read into evidence without controversy. He is one of EE’s teacher and speaks well of the child.
Mr U observed that the child is sensitive and does well. He observes some difficulties, as do most teachers, arising out of the conflict of these parents.
I accept that evidence.
Ms S
Ms S is a teacher at II School and has been involved with both children over many years.
Ms S had two of her affidavits read into evidence being, her affidavit filed 13 January 2010 and her up to date affidavit filed 21 May 2014. Her affidavits were read into evidence subject to weight.
Ms S had filed a number of affidavits initially at the request of the mother and then at the request of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Her last affidavit was filed at the request of the father.
Impressively, when asked why she provided the affidavit material for the father Ms S said that she had been concerned about the impact of the conflict upon the children and felt that it was important that her observations come before the Court.
When Ms S was approached by the father’s solicitors to swear her last affidavit she said that they had offered an opportunity to her not to be involved but she thought it was appropriate to do so, given her focus on the children.
Ms S is employed as an Assistant Principal, she undertakes Religious education and is co-ordinator of the school’s OO Program. She has seen the children over a number of years. Ms S has given evidence, which I accept, of the awful impact on these children of their parent’s conflict.
This includes the father’s initial refusal for the children to be counselled and his initial refusal to permit the children to be involved in the OO program so they can deal with the sadness arising out of their parent’s relationship breakdown.
The father eventually reconsidered that position and allowed the children to be involved.
Ms S gave evidence as to the conflict between the parties as to whether the children should be baptised. The mother sought baptism and the father opposed it. She also gave evidence as to the mother’s desire for the children to be involved in Indigenous activities and the father’s view that they ought not to be involved.
Ms S’s approach was to try and explain the difference. Her evidence was of someone who was focused on the needs of the children.
A number of issues of her evidence were challenged by the mother and I make it clear that I prefer the evidence of Ms S.
One of these areas was in relation to the events set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of her 21 May 2014 affidavit. It is clear that the mother had difficulties with the children in 2012 with regard to them wanting to run away from her home.
I accept the evidence which the mother conceded to Ms S that she placed deadlocks on the doors when she left the children at home. Ms S endeavoured to explain the dangers of this to the mother but she did not listen to her. That undermined the good professional relationship that Ms S had with the mother.
After that event and after Ms S had filed an affidavit in the proceedings in November 2011 Ms S had heard that the mother’s then relationship (with another person) had ended. Ms S telephoned the mother to see how she was coping.
After the discussion the mother invited Ms S to her home to have coffee. When Ms S arrived at the home she asserted she was subjected to a torrent of yelling, abuse and accusation. Ms S said that when she sought to leave the mother initially prevented her from doing so and caused Ms S to feel extremely unsafe.
The mother denied Ms S’s version of events. It was open for the mother to call the witness who was present at that time and she did not do so.
Given the quality and presentation of the evidence, and the quality of the mother’s evidence, I accept the versions provided by Ms S.
Communication post-separation
The father complains that communication between him and the mother has been difficult. He sets out some examples in his trial affidavit.[23] In many ways these concerns are objectively supported by the material contained in the mother’s affidavit in particular the text message traffic between the mother and father from October 2012 to September 2014.
[23] Paragraph 19.
I have been particularly taken to text message numbers 53, 97, 127, 128, 136, 137, 139, 140 and 157. I have read those text messages and those around them so that I could understand the context.
The mother’s mental health
The father raised issues about the mother’s mental health in his affidavit. I have given no weight to his assessment of the mother’s mental health given that he has no training or expertise in that area.
The mother was cross-examined on behalf of the father, as to her mental health.
In his affidavit filed the 22 may 2014 the father says:-[24]:
I am aware that [the mother] has previously been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. I do not know however whether this is reoccurring or not. I have not received any advices from Windsor Henderson Lawyers as to whether it is intended that further information be provided as was raised in the Family Report.
[24] Paragraph 36.
I am concerned that the mother is single minded in her quest for the children and will struggle to promote the father in their lives if she is successful. She has involved the children in these proceedings, as is clear from comments made to the Family Consultant.
In the March 2014 family report the Family Consultant says at para 48:-
He [the father] said it had been specified to [the mother] that the boys should not fly on the overnight plane from Perth[1] and that there had been problems about the Christmas holiday contact; he described how they had rushed to the airport from their holiday at [PP Town] in order to get the boys onto a flight arranged at the short notice, only to find the tickets had not been correctly booked. He described it as being “a disaster all around”. He stated that he sends “lots” of emails and gets no replies.
The difficulties about time in January 2014 with the lack of response and the overnight flight, the mother’s late return of the children when they were to go on a school trip to Canberra, were indicative of the mother’s concerns about her time, rather than the children’s needs. The approach adopted by the mother in regard to EE’s threat of self-harm was not child focused.
Issues of fact
The mother arranged for the children to fly back from Western Australia on a number of occasions on the overnight flight. She sought to compare this to an overnight ferry ride where the children had beds and ability to work around them. I do not believe her. The mother adopted that course as she wanted to spend more time with the children irrespective of the impact that such a flight would have had upon the children and upon those who were called upon to care for them.
I find that the mother has booked the children on the overnight flight despite requests from the father to the contrary. This had led to escalation of conflict between the parties including threats by the father to terminate proposed visits, which has inflamed the situation and upset the children in terms of the time they clearly like to spend with the mother.
The father has at times demanded to know who is looking after the children, when the mother is at work. This has caused the mother to incur significant expense by bringing the children’s maternal grandmother or maternal aunt to Western Australia. She has lost airfares. These are just indicators of the inadequate and poor communication and continuing conflict between the parents.
The booking of overnight flights by the mother has an element of perverse inflexibility or even mischievousness by her. Similarly, when booking air tickets the mother used the surname ‘Alston-Windsor’ when she knows that it was not the children’s registered surname and that it would upset the father. Her excuse about the impact on her and the airlines was risible. It was acting out her anger and using the children against the father.
In relation to the overnight flights from Perth, these will no longer be a concern, as the mother no longer resides in Perth.
Christmas return
The father endeavoured to make arrangements for Christmas/New Year 2013/2014 well in advance. His earlier emails were in October 2013 in circumstances where he said that when the children came back to him they were tired, crabby, irritable and unable to get on with each other. He said it took between one to two weeks for them to settle. Given the overnight flight his concerns were at some levels, reasonable.
However, the father required the children to be returned well before Australia Day in circumstances where the children were not commencing school until the first week of February 2014. I accept that the father needed to arrange things such as school uniforms, settling the children and computer training for high school for DD. However, the narrowing of the time, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances of a full day travel to and from Western Australia, was arbitrary and inflammatory.
The mother’s response to this was equally difficult. It reflected an atmosphere in which the children bore the brunt of the conflict between their parents.
It is significant that that the children’s psychologist, Ms R, reported[25]:-
[EE] explained, with a stage of high emotion, that he has struggled with his parents’ inability to come to an arrangement whereby they can share access in a way that it is not so difficult. [EE] provided a history of poorly organised access visits, and phone based arguments between his parents regarding access that he finds distressing. He described a sense of insecurity because he does not know what is happening or when.
[25] Annexure F to Affidavit of Ms R being page 18 of 19 – and being page 3 of her report 28 September 2014.
She goes on to say:-
[EE] is experiencing an absence of empowerment within the family dynamic. He is experiencing mild to moderate levels of anxiety and stress with regard to the prolonged and problematic situation between his parents.
The parents must share the responsibility for enmeshing these children in their conflict, the mother actively and the father at times passively, through requiring a carer and not assisting with the cost of the children’s airfares, when he was well able to do so.
Child Support
In her application the mother seeks orders relating to child support. There is no formal application for a departure order, there was no evidence of notice to the Child Support Registrar.
There was no clear outline of the basis for the departure application. The mother raised child support as an addendum to property but not in accordance with the requirements under the Family Law Act and Child Support (Assessment) 1989 Act.
I raised this with the mother in the first part of the hearing and said that unless the issues were properly addressed I would not deal with her child support application. I said it would be dealt with administratively, as is anticipated in the Child Support (Assessment) 1989 Act. The mother did not raise the matter further and I make no final determination with regard to child support. I dismissed the application for those orders, noting that I had not heard it on the merits.
Property
As to property there are issues regarding valuation, disclosure, initial contributions, contributions during the marriage, post separation contributions and future needs.
The mother sought to retain certain items of property as did the father.
The father’s case was that the property ought to be adjusted so as 70 per cent of the property be retained by him and 30 per cent to be retained by the mother. The mother’s case was that the property division ought to be adjusted as to 60 per cent to her and as to 40 per cent to the father.
The parties agreed that particular property should be retained by each of the parties, subject to the percentage division and that one property ought to be sold.
Evidence of single expert as to value of the parties’ businesses
Mr Q is a chartered accountant who was appointed a single expert for the purpose of valuing the businesses of the parties. His affidavit filed 6 August 2014 was read into evidence without objection. His affidavit contained valuations of the father’s business, P Pty Ltd in 2007, 2012 and 2014.
There was no issue as to the qualifications of Mr Q.
P Pty Ltd is a business operated by the father as a sole trader. Mr Q valued that business as at 30 June 2007, at the time of separation, at $508,000 and valued the same business as at 30 June 2012 at $1,131,000.
In July 2014 Mr Q was asked to review the 2013 and 2014 trading figures for P Pty Ltd and provide a fresh valuation of the business at 30 June 2012 to reflect the change in trading conditions that have occurred since the preparation of his previous valuation in January 2013. He revalued the father’s business in at $379,000, a reduction of about $750,000.
The reason for this change was that his earlier valuations used a methodology of ‘future maintainable profits’ of the business. This methodology was changed in his final valuation to a net tangible asset method.
The reason for this was that he was provided with the unaudited financial statement prepared by the father’s accountants for the 2013 financial year which showed that a significant customer of the father’s business, and a company who had been a customer of that business since 1993, had reduced the work it was giving to the father’s business. This work was transferred to Thailand.
The Single Expert observed:-
Following our valuation in January 2013 CCU’s sales … reduced significantly due to QQ Pty Ltd moving a substantial proportion of its manufacturing operations to their Thailand plant. As a result CCU’s monthly sales to QQ Pty Ltd have reduced from approximately $130,000 per month in 2012 to approximately $50,000 per month. As sales to QQ Pty Ltd are such a large component of the total turnover of the business, this reduction has resulted in a fifty per cent decrease in CCU’s total sales from the 2012 levels which our prior valuation was based upon. The profitability of the business has decreased significantly with a profit of 2014 expected to be 70% lower than 2012.
At page 236 of Exhibit F1, Mr Q sets out the net profit of the father’s business for the period 1996 until 2001, which was as follows:-
1996 $22,949
1997 $45,409
1998 $16,958
1999 $27,801
2000 $76,470
2001 $ 8,150
The business operated by the father had net profits from 2008 to 2009 was as follows:-[26]
2008 $357,000
2009 $277,000
[26] Valuation of Mr Q (affidavit page 34).
He provided evidence that the income of the father’s business for the period 2010 to 2014 was:-
2010 (net profit) $154,000
2011 (net profit) $430,000
2012 (net profit) $500,000
2013 (net profit) $259,000
2014 (net profit) – draft $149,000
Mr Q was cross-examined by the mother in terms of a number of issues including P Pty Ltd’s know how, the change of premises, and the retention of some vehicles despite the reduction in income.
However, the father’s income increased throughout the relationship. There was much cross-examination and complaints about payments here and payments there. It is clear however that the parties worked as a partnership in life, until separation.
But for the $65,000, $43,000, $17,186, $39,000 and $36,223 referred to above, I would have adjusted the property on an overall basis slightly in favour of the mother. I reject the father’s assertions that his contributions have been greater.
Considering all of the contribution factors and the other factors including the income earning capacity of the parties, I am satisfied that there ought to be an equal division of the property.
As I have indicated earlier the F Street property will be sold as the parties agree or by auction and the proceeds divided equally. The parties will be equally responsible for the mortgage instalments (and there may need to be an adjustment back to the mother in terms of any pre-paid interest), council rates, water rates, land tax as and from the date of these orders.
The mother endeavoured to adduce late evidence in relation to debts and provided a schedule to me[48] and provided details of the loan repayments allegedly made on her behalf by Mr UU. I was not satisfied on balance that this was a loan. I have simply treated it as a contribution on the mother’s side of the ledger. The details of the payments are set out in bank statements.[49]
[48] Exhibit M19.
[49] Exhibit M20.
The mother is to retain:-
B Street, Suburb D $425,000
2 units at C Street, Suburb E $460,000
G Street, H Town $190,000
I Street $210,000
K Pty Ltd $0.00
Mother’s motor vehicles $24,000
Bikes $1,000
Money in the bank $12,739
Furniture and effects $5,000
Superannuation $168,439
TOTAL $1,496,178
Liabilities
ANZ Overdraft $40,000
Loan on C Street $360,218
I Street $200,000
Mother’s credit card $11,058
TOTAL $611,276
NET PROPERTY RETAINED BY MOTHER $884,902
The father will retain:-
L Street, H Town $195,000
N Street, Suburb D $250,000
P Pty Ltd $379,000
Push bikes etc. $6,500
Money in the bank $3,528
Household furniture and effects $5,000
Superannuation $199,965
TOTAL $1,038,993
Liabilities
L Street loan $22,949
N Street loan $40,532
ANZ visa credit card $4,207
Citibank visa $10,651
American Express $0.00
TOTAL $78,339
NET PROPERTY RETAINED BY FATHER $960,654
The total of those two amounts are $1,845,556. Thus the total value of the parties’ property (excluding F Street) is $1,845,556 and 50 per cent of that is $922,778.
Therefore the father needs to pay to the mother the sum of $37,876 to give rise to equality.
The mother conceded that there are a number of costs orders against her outstanding, namely:
28 September 2011 $1,760
5 December 2011 $550
28 May 2012 $3,920
16 November 2012 $3,217.50
Total $9,447.50
I will be noting that if these costs remain outstanding that the father may deduct the outstanding costs of $9,447.50 from the amount he was otherwise to pay to the mother.
The father sought reimbursement from the mother in terms of the costs of the single expert, Mr Q, paid by him.[50] The total costs were $9,405. I see no reason why the mother ought not to be ordered to pay that amount, subject to any other costs orders that may be made after the conclusion of these proceedings. I intend to make that order as a partial costs order.
[50] Exhibit F4.
Ms R had given evidence and had rendered a bill for $470. The father asserted that he had paid that amount. The mother thought that she had paid her half share. Given those circumstances I raised with the parties the question of an order and they agreed that by consent if it was not paid by the mother she would either reimburse the father (if he had paid it) or would pay Ms R the one half share. I will make that order.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and twenty eight (328) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 18 March 2015.
Associate:
Date: 18 March 2015
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Constitutional Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
0
2
0