Anarene and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2015] AATA 671

Anarene and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 671 (4 September 2015)

Division	General Division
File Number(s)	2014/3646
Re	Calistus Anarene
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President J W Constance
Date	4 September 2015
Place	Sydney

IT IS DECIDED that:

1.    the reviewable decision, being the decision of the delegate of the Minister made 5 June 2014, is set aside;

2.    the matter is remitted to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that, as at 17 July 2015, being the date of the hearing, Mr Anarene was of good character and satisfies section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

...............................[sgd].........................................

Deputy President J W Constance

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP - citizenship by conferral – good character – whether the applicant satisfies the legislative requirement to be shown to be of good character – finding of guilt for common assault – provision of documents containing false personal information - consideration of mitigating factors - decision set aside and remitted

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 21(2)(h), 24

Cases

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304

Secondary Materials

Australian Citizenship Instructions (Cth) issued 1 July 2015.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance

1. Mr Anarene applied for Australian citizenship by conferral in February 2012.[1]

   [1] Exhibit R1 p.34.

2. On 11 April 2013, a delegate of the Minister refused Mr Anarene’s application. This was on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied of Mr Anarene’s identity and that Mr Anarene had not established that at that time he was of good character for the purposes of a grant of citizenship.  The delegate determined that in 2008 Mr Anarene was found guilty of an offence of assault and that in support of his application he had provided various documents which recorded different dates of his birth.

3. Mr Anarene made a second application for citizenship by conferral on 7 August 2013.[2]  On 5 June 2014, a delegate of the Minister refused this application on the basis that he was not satisfied that Mr Anarene was of good character at that time.

   [2] Exhibit R1 p.101.

4. Mr Anarene has applied to this Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision.

5. For the reasons which follow, the decision under review will be set aside and the matter remitted to the Minister with the direction that as at 17 July 2015, Mr Anarene was of good character in accordance with section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

   BACKGROUND

6. Unless stated otherwise, the following findings of fact are based on the evidence of Mr Anarene.  I am satisfied that he was an honest witness who gave his evidence to the best of his recollection.

7. Mr Anarene is a citizen of Nigeria.  He arrived in Australia in August 1999 and has resided here since that time.  He currently holds a permanent subclass 801 (Partner) visa.

   The finding of guilt in the New South Wales Local Court

8. On 25 April 2004 Mr Anarene was employed as a security guard in a hotel in North Sydney.  The Police Facts Sheet [3] in part records the following:

   The Northern Courtyard contains a garden bed that is octagonal in shape and raised approximately 50cm in height. ...

   During the ... event, signs are posted around the garden bed informing all patrons to keep out of the area. To further assist in keeping patrons off the garden bed a security guard is placed in the grassed area of the garden bed, whose role is to ensure that patrons do not stand or dance anywhere in or on the structure.

   ... [Mr Anarene] was directed by the head security guard ... to manage the Northern Court Yard and carry out the aforementioned role.

   During the afternoon [the victim] and friends have moved towards the right hand side of the garden bed and danced. About 6:30pm [the victim] stood up on the right hand side ledge of the garden bed and danced in front of his friends.

   [The victim] was at this location for a short period when he felt a shove from behind. This shove has caused [the victim] to lose his balance and fall off the wall.

   ...

   [Two witnesses] both witnesses this incident and allege the accused walked up behind [the victim], turned his back towards him and thrusted his buttocks into [the victim] in a swinging motion which impacted with [the victim’s] buttocks causing him to fall off the wall.

   [3] Exhibit R1 p.27.

9. On 10 September 2004, Mr Anarene voluntarily attended the local Police station where he was interviewed.

10. Although the Facts Sheet states that Mr Anarene was issued with a future Court attendance notice, I accept his evidence that after the interview he understood that he would not be charged in relation to the incident.

11. Mr Anarene heard nothing further concerning the incident at the hotel until he was detained by Police in October 2007 when he was advised that there was a warrant for his arrest for having failed to attend Court in relation to the incident. The NSW Police Force Criminal History Bail Report[4] indicates that Mr Anarene was required to attend Court in December 2004.

    [4] Exhibit R2.

12. On 4 October 2007, Mr Anarene was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  On 15 February 2008, he was found guilty of this offence. He was placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.  No conviction was recorded.

13. Mr Anarene has no criminal convictions.

    The documents recording Mr Anarene’s date of birth

    Driver licences

14. In 1999 Mr Anarene was living in Tasmania and wished to apply for a driver licence which he needed for the purposes of his employment.  As he was advised that he needed to produce his Nigerian driving licence which he had lost previously, he requested his brother in Nigeria obtain a copy of his licence for him.  When the copy was received by Mr Anarene six months later, it incorrectly recorded his birth date as 15 October 1967 (the correct date being 15 October 1966).  As it had taken approximately six months for the copy licence to be issued, Mr Anarene did not request his brother to obtain a correct copy.

15. When Mr Anarene applied for the issue of a Tasmanian licence, he showed the government official with whom he was dealing his passport. That passport recorded his correct date of birth.  He told the official that the date on his passport was correct.  Mr Anarene was told that his new licence would have to be issued showing the same date of birth as his Nigerian licence.  A Tasmanian licence was issued accordingly.

16. In 2003, Mr Anarene moved to New South Wales.  He surrendered his Tasmanian licence and applied for a New South Wales licence.  He advised an officer of the Roads and Traffic Authority that his date of birth on the Tasmanian licence was incorrect and produced his passport showing the correct date.  Notwithstanding this, the Authority issued him with a driver licence showing his date of birth as 15 October 1967.

    Mr Anarene’s Nigerian passport

17. In 2010 Mr Anarene applied to the Nigerian Embassy in Canberra for renewal of his passport which was due to expire that year. When he received the renewed passport he noticed that it incorrectly recorded his date of birth as 15 October 1974. This was an error made by the staff at the Embassy. Mr Anarene contacted the Embassy and was told that a replacement document could not be issued as the Embassy did not have any passport booklets available. He was told to use the document already issued and have it corrected at a later date.  It was not until July 2012 that he was advised that new booklets were available and that a new passport could be issued.

18. On 21 September 2012, the High Commission issued Mr Anarene with a new passport showing his correct date of birth.[5] His previous passport was noted as having an incorrect date of birth recorded.[6]

    [5] Exhibit A4. 

    [6] Exhibit R1 p.175.

    THE ISSUE

19. The only issue for determination is whether, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, Mr Anarene is of good character within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

    LEGISLATION

20. Applications for the conferral of Australian citizenship are governed by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

21. Section 24 of the Act provides, in part:

    (1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

    (1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).

22. Section 21(2) of the Act establishes requirements for eligibility for the grant of citizenship. It provides, in part:

    (2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

    ...                  

    (h) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.

    It is only this subsection which is in issue in the present application.

    AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP INSTRUCTIONS

23. The Australian Citizenship Instructions have been adopted by the Minister to guide those making decisions under the Act. Chapter 10 provides “guidance on the administration of the ‘good character’ provisions under the Act and to define, for administrative purposes, the meaning of ‘good character’”.

24. The Instructions reflect government policy and are not binding on the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal should apply the policy unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary.[7]

    [7] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.

25. Paragraph 10.1.2 of the Instructions provides, in part:

    ‘Good character’ refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and is an indication of whether an applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made through the pledge should they be approved for citizenship.

26. This reflects what the Federal Court said in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs:[8]

    Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review [of] subjective public opinion ... A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character. ... Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character. (citations of authorities omitted).

    [8] (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 431-432.

27. After referring to the judgement of the Court in Irving, Paragraph 10.3.1 provides, in part:

    In this context, "moral" does not have any religious connotations. The phrase “enduring moral qualities” encompasses the following concepts:

    § characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time

    § distinguishing right from wrong

    § behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

    The good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant. Their behaviour is a manifestation of their essential characteristics.

28. In considering the Australian Citizenship Instructions I have taken into account that they refer to the decision of this Tribunal in Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[9]:

    In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what person says, in part what a person does and in part what a person is heard to say and seen to do.

    [9] [2011] AATA 304 at [120].

29. The Instructions go on to say that an applicant of good character would, amongst other things, respect and abide by the law of Australia, and be truthful and not practise deception in dealings with the Australian Government.[10]

    CONSIDERATION

    [10] Paragraph 10.3.4.

    Characteristics of a person of good character

30. In paragraph 10.3.4 of the Instructions there is a non-exhaustive list of characteristics which a person of good character would have. These are to be considered with other provisions of Chapter 10. They include:

    ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

    …                

    ·be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example: …

    oproviding false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications

    o...

    oconcealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

    …

    ·not be violent … and not cause harm to others through their conduct.

    ...

31. Paragraph 10.5 provides a “Framework for making ‘good character’ decisions”. Its provisions are not exhaustive. The factors listed “may have different weights, depending on the circumstances of the case”. The relevant factors to be taken into account in considering why an applicant might not be of good character (as set out in paragraph 10.5.2) include the following:

    ·Has the applicant committed any offences and if so, did they admit that in their citizenship application?

    · If the applicant has committed an offence, was it serious or minor?

    ·Were there victims of the offence? In particular, were the victims vulnerable people like children, the elderly or disabled, or others who trusted the applicant?

32. The Instructions provide that this framework should be considered first before considering whether there are any mitigating factors which may indicate that a person is now of good character.

33. Under the heading, Weighing up the decision, the Instructions provide:

    Essentially, the question for decision makers is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the applicant outweigh the behaviour in question. The assessment about whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities.

    In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:

    • would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did

    • what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law

    • has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards

    • does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.[11]

    [11] Paragraph 10.5.4.

    The Offence

34. The Australian Citizenship Instructions provide that crimes of violence are to be regarded as serious offences.

35. Mr Anarene was not convicted of the assault. A 12 month good behaviour bond under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 constitutes one of the more lenient options available to the court in sentencing an offender. I acknowledge that violence offences are serious. Nonetheless, considering the outcome of the proceedings, the offence for which Mr Anarene was found guilty tends towards the lower end on the scale of serious offences.

36. I note also that Mr Anarene disclosed details of the offence to the Department in making his application for citizenship, and in his earlier application in 2012. This weighs in favour of his character as a person likely to be honest in his dealings with the Australian government.

    Dealings with the Commonwealth and State Governments

37. The Australian Citizenship Instructions indicate clearly that an Applicant of good character would “be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations”. An example of such is given as providing false personal information during a citizenship application.

    Dealings with Tasmanian and New South Wales Government Agencies in 1999 and 2004

38. I am not satisfied that Mr Anarene’s dealings with state government agencies in respect of his driver licence reflect an individual who is otherwise than of good character in 1999 and again in 2004. Mr Anarene explained to the relevant agencies the discrepancy between the date of birth on his Nigerian passport and that on his Nigerian driver licence. Although the date of birth on the driver licence was incorrect, Mr Anarene was open with the authorities as to the inconsistency. He did not seek to, nor did he in fact, mislead them in any respect.

    Dealings with respect to the 2012 Citizenship Application

39. The Minister argues that Mr Anarene provided and relied upon false documents in order to obtain a benefit, being the granting of his 2012 citizenship application.

40. In his application for citizenship, received by the Department on 17 February 2012, Mr Anarene recorded his date of birth as 15 October 1974. This was consistent with the incorrect date displayed on his passport at that time. In support of his application, Mr Anarene attached a copy of his Nigerian passport with date of birth 1974, and a copy of a NSW driver licence with date of birth 15 October 1967.

41. When he attended an interview, Mr Anarene states that he provided the delegate with all of his documents. He says that he explained to the delegate the mistake on his passport, and that he was taking steps through the Nigerian Embassy to correct it. Mr Anarene states that the delegate indicated to him that his application would proceed faster if he changed the date of birth on his licence to read the same as his passport. Pursuant to this, the delegate of the Minister sent Mr Anarene a letter on 8 March 2012. The delegate requested that Mr Anarene provide original copies of his “current passport” and “Driver Licence with name & dob corrected”.

42. Mr Anarene states that, in reliance on the comments of the delegate, he requested that the Roads and Traffic Authority change the date of birth on his licence to the 1974 date. Once issued, a copy of this licence was provided to the delegate.

43. The delegate of the Minister subsequently wrote to Mr Anarene on 28 August 2012 indicating that he was considering rejecting Mr Anarene’s application on the grounds that he may not be satisfied of Mr Anarene’s identity. Mr Anarene was provided with 35 days in which to respond.

44. On 2 October 2012, Mr Anarene wrote to the delegate. He said in part that when he:

    ... asked for a new passport, the Nigerian embassy stated they have no new passports and were waiting for directives from Abuja. In fact it was in July 2012, the embassy commenced issuance of passports once again.

    Following the commencement I had the date of birth corrected and be [sic] issued with the current passport with the correct date of birth 15^th October 1966 as per attached. One thing I do regret is my lack of knowledge that it could be observed without issuing a new passport, I only knew about this on 19^th September 2012.

    The difficulties this present is such that when I am asked to fill and submit any document I am required to write as stated in the passport that led to the new NSW driver’s license bearing 1974. ...

1. Mr Anarene attached to that letter a copy of the passport which displayed the date 1974 and now included a note from the Nigerian authorities that his correct date of birth was 1966. He also attached a recently issued passport which displayed his correct date of birth.

2. I am satisfied that Mr Anarene was at all times open with the delegate of the Minister with respect to his date of birth. I accept Mr Anarene’s evidence that he explained the discrepancy in the date contained on his Nigerian Passport at an interview in the days following lodgement of his application.

3. I make no finding as to whether the delegate encouraged Mr Anarene to change the date on his driver licence to reflect the incorrect date of birth. I accept the submission of the Minister that it is highly unlikely that a delegate would induce an individual to provide false information. Nonetheless, it is probable that the delegate indicated to Mr Anarene that his application would proceed faster if his documents were consistent.

4. Mr Anarene was clearly operating under the impression that his application would proceed faster when he asked for his licence to be amended. The delegate asked Mr Anarene, in the letter dated 8 March 2012, to provide a licence with “dob corrected”. Pursuant to this, Mr Anarene believed that it was appropriate for the date on his licence to match that on his passport. I am satisfied that all of this was done with the delegate’s eyes wide open. Mr Anarene made the delegate aware of the discrepancy between his date of birth, the date displayed on his passport, and the date contained on his driver licence, which displayed a year of birth of 1967. After discussion with the delegate, the delegate requested Mr Anarene provide a licence with the date of birth “corrected”. At no time did Mr Anarene attempt to conceal the discrepancies.

5. This is further enforced by Mr Anarene’s provision of his new passport with the correct date of birth, and a copy of the previous passport with a notation as to his correct date of birth, shortly after his having received them in 2012. The newly issued passport was issued on 21 September 2012, and provided to the Department on 2 October 2012. In providing those documents, Mr Anarene took steps to ensure that the delegate was not under any misapprehension of the situation as at the date of his final decision.

6. What caused me concern, however, was Mr Anarene’s provision of the 1974 date as his date of birth on his original application for citizenship. Mr Anarene declared in his form that “the information I have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct in every detail”.[12] This was despite Mr Anarene providing an incorrect date of birth.

   [12] Exhibit R1, p.44.

7. Mr Anarene’s conduct in this regard must be considered in the context of years of maladministration with respect to his Nigerian passport and driver licence, as well as consistent refusals by state authorities to listen to his protests regarding his correct date of birth. I accept Mr Anarene’s position that after years of difficulties, he believed that he should provide the date on his passport as his date of birth. Mr Anarene explained the position with respect to the date on his passport to the delegate at the first interview and in the letter of October 2012. Despite the date of birth on his application form being incorrect, Mr Anarene took steps to explain this. I am satisfied therefore that it was not an attempt to mislead or deceive the Commonwealth.

8. It was argued by the Minister that in order for Mr Anarene’s conduct to weigh against his character, such conduct does not require an intention to deceive. What is important is that Mr Anarene sought to rely on documents that were not accurate.

9. I note that in assessing an individual’s character, the Tribunal is concerned with the enduring moral qualities of that individual. The state of mind of that person in making statements to the Department is therefore directly relevant. An inadvertent error in an application form should not necessarily weigh against a person’s character. In Mr Anarene’s case, it is clear that he did not seek to hide information from the Department nor convince it of a false positon. Mr Anarene provided all of the relevant documents to the delegate and sought to explain the discrepancies. Such is not the conduct of a person of bad character.

   Mitigating Factors

10. Paragraph 10.5.2 provides, in part:

    Once the behaviour of the applicant has been assessed, the decision maker should turn their minds to whether there are any mitigating factors to be taken into account.

    oWhat is the length of time between the date of the offence (if known) and application for Australian citizenship, or between conviction and application? ...

    oHas the applicant accepted responsibility and shown remorse for their conduct?

    oHow has the applicant behaved since being released from prison or upon completion of any obligations to a court such as a good behaviour bond?…

    oHas the applicant rehabilitated themselves?…

    oWhat was the applicant’s age at the time the offence was committed?…

    oWere there any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence?

    ..

    Character Evidence

11. Mr Anarene provided the Tribunal with a number of character references attached to his affidavits of 10 November 2014 and 30 January 2015. Those references describe Mr Anarene as “hard working, dedicated, honest”, “kind at heart and always willing to help in any situation”, and an active member of the Igbo community as well as the community of a Bondi church.

12. Most of the referees indicate that they are aware of Mr Anarene’s criminal offence and nonetheless support his application for Australian citizenship. One referee, Mr Ezekial-Hart, expressed by way of Affidavit that he had been made aware of the conflicting dates of birth provided to the Department. Mr Ezekial-Hart emphasised that Mr Anarene poses no risk to Australian society, and is not the type of character who would act in such a way as to “cast doubt to his good image”.[13]

    [13] Exhibit A2.

    Other Mitigating Factors

13. Mr Anarene first arrived in Australia in August 1999. In the 16 years since his arrival, he has only committed a single criminal offence. The offence occurred in 2004, meaning that Mr Anarene has not partaken in any further offending for a period of 12 years.

14. In the years since his offence in 2004, Mr Anarene has become a father. He has been employed throughout this period, most recently as an engineering consultant. In the last three years, Mr Anarene has been employed to provide consulting services to companies and strata management groups with respect to energy management systems. He is actively involved in helping companies to decrease energy use.

15. Mr Anarene graduated with a Master of Engineering Management from the University of Technology Sydney in 2004. He is currently studying a Master of Business Administration at the university part-time, but has put this on hold due to cost restraints. Mr Anarene intends to complete the degree.

    CONSIDERATION

16. The decision of whether Mr Anarene is of good character is not made by applying the various factors referred to in the Instructions as a checklist. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole.[14] Paragraph 10.5.4 of the Instructions provides, in part:

    Essentially, the question for decision makers is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the applicant outweigh the behaviour in question. The assessment about whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities.… A decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time.

    [14] See paragraph 10.1.1 of the Australian Citizenship Instructions. 

17. Mr Anarene’s offending should not weigh heavily against his character. The offence occurred whilst Mr Anarene was responsible for managing a large crowd. He was in a difficult position. I do not seek to go beyond the findings of the court, but note that the court did not regard the offence as warranting a conviction. Such suggests that the offence lies at the low end on the scale of serious offences.

18. I have accepted Mr Anarene’s explanation for his conduct in relying upon documents that contained false personal information. For the reasons outlined earlier, Mr Anarene did not seek to mislead or deceive the delegate of the Minister in advancing his application for citizenship. Mr Anarene sought to explain the situation to the delegate and took action with the delegate’s eyes wide open. Such was not conduct reflective of an individual of bad character.

19. It was submitted by the Minister that Mr Anarene nevertheless does not appreciate the significance of relying upon false information. I am not persuaded that this is the case.  Mr Anarene sought on a number of occasions to correct the dates on his identification documents. Despite these attempts, and due to the actions of various government agencies, he had been unable to obtain documents with his correct date of birth. Mr Anarene was continually foiled by the system and yet persisted in seeking to rectify the situation. Such suggests that he is not an individual ignorant of the importance of holding and relying upon accurate information.

20. In assessing Mr Anarene’s character, I regard the substantial period of time that Mr Anarene has spent in Australia without committing any offences as significant. His conduct in not offending in the 11 years since his only offence highlights that he is an individual not likely to disobey the laws of Australia. In the time since the offence, Mr Anarene has become a father, undertaken further study and has contributed to Australian businesses in his work as an engineering consultant. The references provided also indicate that he has made an important contribution to his local communities. He is a different individual to that who worked as a security guard in a North Sydney hotel 11 years ago.

21. I am satisfied that Mr Anarene is a person with the enduring moral qualities of a person of good character. The decision of the delegate must therefore be set aside.

    CONCLUSION

22. The decision under review, being the decision of the delegate of the Minister made 5 June 2014, will be set aside.

23. The matter will be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that as at 17 July 2015, being the date of the hearing, Mr Anarene was of good character in accordance with subsection 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 67 (sixty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance

...........................[sgd].............................................

Associate

Dated 4 September 2015

Date(s) of hearing	17 July 2015
Date final submissions received	17 July 2015
Counsel for the Applicant	P Segel
Solicitors for the Applicant	Brock Partners Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent	L Dennis; Sparke Helmore