Bachman & Donohoe
[2021] FedCFamC1F 240
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Bachman & Donohoe [2021] FedCFamC1F 240
File number(s): SYC 8527 of 2020 Judgment of: REES J Date of judgment: 30 November 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Where the applicant didn’t receive independent legal advice in executing the financial agreement – Where the mandatory conditions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90UJ(1)(b) were not satisfied – Where it would not be unjust or inequitable on either party to render the agreement not binding – Financial agreement set aside. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90UC, 90UJ(1)(b), 90UJ(1A), 90UL
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) r 11
Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 (Cth)
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 86 Date of hearing: 22 – 23 November 2021 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McNally SC with Mr Stewart Solicitor for the Applicant: Dorter Family Lawyers And Mediators Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Wong Solicitor for the Respondent: Reid Family Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 8527 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS BACHMAN
Applicant
AND: MR DONOHOE
Respondent
order made by:
REES J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 November 2021
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the agreement executed by the parties on 22 June 2016 be set aside.
2.That the matter be referred to a Judicial Registrar for directions.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Bachmann & Donohoe has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J:
Ms Bachman (“the applicant”) and Mr Donohoe (“the respondent”) lived in a de facto relationship. When they commenced cohabitation is in dispute. The applicant’s case is that they started to live together in January 2016. The respondent contends they lived together from December 2014. Nothing turns upon this issue for the purpose of this determination although, as will emerge, the date of cohabitation is relevant for another purpose.
Relevantly, at the time the relationship commenced, the applicant owned a property at
H Street, Suburb J, NSW (“the Suburb J property”) in which she lived with her children.
After the commencement of the de facto relationship, the parties agreed that the applicant would transfer to the respondent a half share of the Suburb J property for a consideration of $2,500,000. That transfer was effected on 10 March 2016.
On 22 June 2016, the parties executed an agreement which purports to be a Binding Financial Agreement (“the Financial Agreement”) pursuant to s 90UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
On 23 August 2016, the parties entered into a second agreement which also purports to be a Binding Financial Agreement pursuant to s 90UC of the Act.
It is agreed they separated in October 2019.
Before me, the applicant contends that the Financial Agreement did not satisfy the mandatory conditions of s 90UJ(1)(b) of the Act which provides:
90UJ When financial agreements are binding
(1)Subject to subsection (1A), a Part VIIIAB financial agreement (other than an agreement covered by section 90UE) is binding on the parties to the agreement if, and only if:
(a) …
(b)before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party and about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to that party of making the agreement.
There is no issue that the applicant received advice from a solicitor, Ms D. However, the applicant contends that the advice she received from Ms D was inadequate in that Ms D did not explain to her the advantages and disadvantages of entering into the Financial Agreement or about the effect of entering into the agreement on her rights. As I will explain in these reasons, it is not necessary to consider the nature and extent of the advice which was given because I have concluded that the applicant did not receive any independent advice.
The applicant also contends for other, more technical, deficiencies.
The material relevant to the applicants claim is found primarily at paragraphs 70 to 97 of her affidavit sworn 14 April 2021.
The applicant asserts:
·That Ms D was a friend of the respondent.
·That Ms D and her partner owned a boat jointly with the respondent.
·
That Ms D was initially instructed by the respondent to draw the
Financial Agreement and “advise both of us”.
·That Ms D commenced work “on my file” from about 22 September 2015, at which time the applicant had not given any instructions to Ms D.
·That the applicant and the respondent together met with Ms D on 23 October 2015 and that this was the first time that the applicant met with Ms D in her professional capacity.
·
That the respondent prepared a document outlining the terms of the proposed
Financial Agreement and the applicant provided that document to Ms D in due course.
·That Ms D advised both the applicant and the respondent in conference together and addressed correspondence to both of them.
·That shortly before the Financial Agreement was executed, Ms D referred the respondent to another solicitor (“Ms B”) to obtain advice on the agreement.
·That Ms D did not provide the applicant with advice about the advantages and disadvantages of entering into the Financial Agreement or about the effect of entering into the agreement on her rights.
The Evidence
The applicant relied upon an affidavit sworn by her on 14 April 2021.
The respondent relied upon an affidavit sworn by him on 22 January 2021.
Ms D’s file had been produced on subpoena. Ms D had declined to swear an affidavit when asked to do so by the applicant’s solicitor.
The respondent issued a subpoena to give evidence to Ms D who was called and examined in the respondent’s case and cross-examined by senior counsel for the applicant.
In cross-examination, the respondent agreed that he had met Mr F, who is
Ms D’s partner in 2005 or 2006 and that Mr F had become a good friend. The respondent met Ms D in about 2008 and he attended social occasions with both of them from time to time.
The respondent agreed that Mr and Ms D own one third of a boat in which the applicant and the respondent also own one third.
After the respondent and the applicant started their relationship, they socialised with
Mr and Ms D together.
The professional relationship between the parties and Ms D commenced with the transfer of the half interest in the Suburb J property.
In order to fund the respondent’s purchase, the mortgage over the Suburb J property was refinanced. A new mortgage in the sum of $2,100,000 was negotiated in the joint names of the applicant and the respondent.
It is agreed that Ms D acted for both parties in relation to both the refinancing of the mortgage and the transfer of the interest in the Suburb J property.
It is not clear when Ms D first received instructions or from whom. She produced a diary entry of a social engagement with both parties on 11 September 2015. In cross-examination she said that this was an opportunity to see the Suburb J property, I infer, because she was aware of the plan to transfer a half interest to the respondent.
Having regard to the totality of Ms D’s evidence about the manner in which the affairs of these parties was discussed with her, it is likely that instructions were given informally and at a social event rather than in a formal conference in her offices.
There is no file note of an initial conference. It is likely that Ms D received instructions on 11 September 2015.
On 22 September 2015, a solicitor in Ms D’s firm sent an email to Ms D detailing the stamp duty exemption available to de facto couples transferring property between themselves. I infer that Ms D had received instructions before that date but the evidence does not reveal when the file was opened or from whom instructions had been received.
A file note from Ms D’s file dated 23 September 2015 records a conference in relation to the proposed transfer of 50 per cent of the Suburb J property to the respondent. The respondent agreed that he gave Ms D those instructions. In relation to that meeting Ms D’s evidence in cross-examination was:
Now, at this stage, I think you accept that you were acting for both [the applicant] and [the respondent] in relation to the transfer of the property and the mortgage?---The transfer and the mortgage, yes.
Yes. And indeed, you were seeking to advise [the respondent] in relation to the stamp duty implications, were you not?---And [the applicant].
Well, you understand, I expect, that it is the transferee---?---Yes.
---who pays stamp duty?---Yes.
So in that sense, you were advising [the respondent] in relation to the implications of stamp duty, weren’t you?---That’s correct.
Because [the respondent] asked you whether you could in some way minimise the stamp duty that he might have to pay?---I don’t recall [the respondent] asking that.
I recall [the respondent] asking whether he was liable for stamp duty.In cross-examination, Ms D said that the purpose of the 23 September 2015 conference was to discuss the transfer and the mortgage but she conceded that there was also discussion about each of the party’s wills. A separate file note prepared by Ms D on
23 September 2015 records the respondent’s instructions in relation to his will.
Therefore, the respondent also, separately from the applicant, and in the same period when the parties were jointly consulting Ms D about the transfer of the Suburb J property, instructed Ms D in relation to the preparation of his will which, Ms D said in cross-examination, was duly prepared at a time after 22 June 2016.
The applicant’s evidence that she did not give any instructions to Ms D until about
23 October 2015 was not challenged. Ms D was adamant that she had never had a conference with the respondent alone.
A file note from Ms D’s file includes a note dated 24 October 2015 but whether the note is a record of a conference which took place the day prior or is a list of things that Ms D needed to do in relation to the matter is not evident. Ms D’s recollection was that it was the latter.
The respondent agreed that he prepared and typed the initial draft instructions for the
Financial Agreement and emailed that document to the applicant who then forwarded the document to Ms D.
On 23 October 2015, there was a conference between the applicant and the respondent and
Ms D. A file note made following the conference, dated 24 October 2015, records:
1.Ownership – insurance
2.Loan structure – joint mortgagors
3.Agreement
On the page which follows, the file note makes reference to the disposition of the respondent’s share in the Suburb J property to his estate and, at the bottom of the page notes, “Five years – peg it at $2.5 [million]”. Ms D, in cross-examination, conceded that this must have been a reference to the proposed Financial Agreement.
The last page of the file note makes it even clearer that the proposed Financial Agreement was discussed at the meeting on 23 October 2015. The file note is reproduced below:
The file notes cannot be construed other than as referring to the proposed Financial Agreement, as well as the transfer and the mortgage.
The respondent agreed that Ms D provided legal advice to both of the parties in relation to the proposed Financial Agreement and that Ms D took instructions from both of them about the terms of the proposed agreement.
Ms D was cross-examined about what was discussed:
You see, I want to suggest to you that you were discussing in quite some detail on
23 October 2015 with both [the respondent] and [the applicant] binding – a binding financial agreement?---I don’t believe that was what the focus was about.I didn’t ask you what the focus was about. I put to you that on 23 October 2015, you were discussing in detail with [the respondent] and [the applicant] a binding – or proposed binding financial agreement?---With hindsight, yes. At the time, I believe we were discussing the financial ramifications of what they were intending to do, and how it played out.
I see. So when you use the expression “with hindsight”, you’re saying at the time you didn’t fully appreciate that, in fact, you were advising them both in relation to the binding financial agreement?---I did not think what – what I was doing at that time was advising in relation to the BFA.
I see. But in hindsight, you now accept that it was?---Having been instructed by my learned friend, yes.
I see. Thank you. Now – and, of course, because you didn’t appreciate that’s what you were doing at that time, you did not advise your clients that there might be a conflict of interest in you acting for them at that stage in relation to the binding financial agreement, did you?---No, because I wasn’t acting as a binding financial agreement.
Later in cross-examination:
… Do you remember giving evidence a short time ago that you believed you were independently instructed by [the applicant] because of the email of 30 March 2016?
---Yes.Now, of course, at that stage, [Ms B] had not been retained, had she?---Not to my knowledge.
And you had not made any suggestion to [the respondent] that he needed to obtain an independent solicitor, had you?---I don’t recall making that---
No?---But [the respondent] was very aware he needed a separate solicitor.
Well, I want to suggest to you that [the respondent] wanted – or asked if you could just do it because it would be cheaper. Do you remember that?---He asked – I don’t know if it was [the respondent] who did it ..... but yes, they wanted to draw it up, and the suggestion was I would draw it up.
Yes. And so you were to remain in it and assist them right up until the end when
[the respondent] would get some independent advise; was that what was arranged?--- Yes, [the respondent] would have the agreement and then would ensure that the agreement was independently viewed for him.On 26 October 2015, an email was sent by Ms D to the applicant and the respondent and the applicant’s private banker stating, inter alia:
Further to my meeting with [the applicant] and [the respondent] on Friday,
[the respondent] and [the applicant] have decided that the new mortgage should be issued in both their names. They have instructed me to advise you of the same.It is essential to the structure that it is entrenched in the mortgage that all actions on the mortgage and any related offset accounts require two signatures at all times.
Thus it is clear that, by 26 October 2015, Ms D was acting for both parties in relation to the mortgage and the transfer of the Suburb J property and also discussing the proposed Financial Agreement with them.
On 29 October 2015, the applicant sent an email to Ms D stating:
[The respondent] and I would like to proceed with the $5mil value for the next 5 years. Then we will review it then. So, in the event that [the respondent] passes, I will pay his estate $2.5mil and vice versa. If we separate we will go with market value.
In terms of an agreement. We need to draw up something that confirms the assets we have remain in the event of death/separation.
I will also need to firm up my Wil.
Is this enough to go off for now?
(As per the original)
Those instructions can only relate to the proposed Financial Agreement.
The following passage of the cross-examination of Ms D amply illustrates the conflict of interest which she did not recognise:
And you saw your role, did you not, as acting for – for both of them, taking instructions from both of them and recording the instructions in the document?---No.
No? Well, what was your role?---I had two roles. The one was as a starting point to construct a document that they both wanted, and then I had a second role to make sure that [the applicant] understood the impact of her signing that document.
You see, I want to suggest to you that certainly at the outset, you regarded yourself as acting for both [the respondent] and [the applicant] in relation to the binding financial agreement, didn’t you?---In relation to the transfer and the mortgage, yes. No, not in relation to the binding financial agreement.
But there was no – in the early stages before [Ms B] came on the scene, there was no other lawyer acting for [the respondent], was there?---I was drawing an agreement for [the applicant] and [the respondent] was seeing that agreement.
Can you listen to the question. There was no other lawyer acting for [the respondent] at that time, was there?---No, there wasn’t.
You met with both [the applicant] and [the respondent] and – and spoke to them about the agreement, didn’t you?---Yes.
You spoke to both of them about what should go in the agreement, didn’t you?---Yes.
Yes. And you were at that time at least giving advice as to – to both [the respondent] and [the applicant] as to what they should put in the agreement, at that time?---I was putting into the agreement what they wanted.
No. Well, but I want to suggest to you that if you saw something they were putting in that was, in your eyes, improper or not adequate, you would tell them at that time, wouldn’t you?---That’s true.
So in that sense, you were advising both of them as to what should go into the agreement?---Yes.
Now – and that continued for some time, didn’t it?---Until [Ms B] became involved, yes.
(Emphasis added)
Ms D’s attention was drawn to Rule 11 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW). It was clear from her answers in cross-examination that she had not considered the possibility that there was a conflict of interest in advising both parties on the proposed Financial Agreement and, relevantly, the applicant had not given informed consent to her acting for both parties.
On 11 January 2016, the applicant’s private banker forwarded to Ms D “a copy of the mortgage in respect to the new joint facility for [the applicant] and [the respondent]” and asked for a copy of the transfer to be forwarded to the bank.
On 8 February 2016, Ms D forwarded the transfer to her agents to arrange to have it stamped, including a document dated 8 February 2016, prepared by Ms D and signed by the applicant, claiming exemption from stamp duty on the basis that the parties had been living in a de facto relationship since 1 September 2013.
Before me, the applicant claimed that the de facto relationship commenced in January 2016 and the respondent claimed that it commenced in “around December 2014”. On either case, the de facto relationship had not commenced on 1 September 2013.
By claiming the exemption, the respondent evaded payment of duty of about $122,000.
On 30 March 2016, the applicant sent an email to Ms D attaching a document entitled “… financial agreement discussion document” which set out the proposed terms of a
Financial Agreement between the parties. That document had been prepared by the respondent and forwarded by him to the applicant.
On 14 April 2016, an email was sent from Ms D’s office to both the applicant and the respondent. The email commenced:
Dear [applicant] and [respondent],
I work with [Ms D], Principal who has asked me to contact both of you in relation to preparing your Binding Financial Agreement (“BFA”). Please find attached a draft copy of your BFA in Word. document format.
(As per the original)
The email then sought information from both the applicant and the respondent. The email continued:
… please kindly return to us the draft BFA, with the additional information requested above. We will then make amendments to the draft BFA, and send through to you an amended version after. The steps moving forward from here are:
1.[Respondent], you will need to instruct another legal practitioner to review the BFA, and provide you with independent legal advice in relation the effect of this Agreement on the rights of the parties, and the advantages and disadvantages to you in making this Agreement. We will refer you to a Family Law specialist who we regularly work with…
2.[Applicant], please contact our office to arrange a meeting with [Ms D] whom will provide you with independent legal advice in relation to the BFA as well.
(As per the original)
The respondent conceded that, as at 14 April 2016, Ms D’s firm was still acting for both parties.
In relation to that email, it was put to Ms D that it was addressed to both parties “because at that time you were acting for both of them”. She replied “That is correct, yes”.
Senior counsel clarified, “in relation to the drafting of the BFA” and Ms D replied, “Yes”.
The respondent was referred to Ms B. In cross-examination, Ms D said that, since 2010 she had acted in relation to ten Binding Financial Agreements and that, in relation to each of those matters, Ms B acted for the other party. Ms D used Ms B’s template, with
Ms B’s approval, to prepare the draft.
On 17 June 2016, an email was sent by Ms D to the applicant and the respondent asking for further information from them. The respondent conceded that as at 17 June 2016, Ms D continued to act for both parties.
Ms D’s file suggests that the respondent instructed Ms B between 17 June 2016 and
21 June 2016 although Ms D continued to send emails to both of them with a copy to
Ms B.
On 17 June 2016, Ms D sent the following email to the applicant and the respondent (without reference to Ms B):
[Applicant]
I need the following dates for the agreement:-
Date of your marriage;
Date of your divorce;
What date was the property settlement made an order of court;
What is the name of your SMSF?
[Respondent], what date was your divorce made an order of court?
[Applicant], please confirm the boys full names and dates of birth.
(As per the original)
On 21 June 2016, Ms D emailed the applicant and the respondent “Cc [Ms B]” attaching the “Final Financial Agreement 21.06.16” and referring to the need for the respondent to meet with Ms B and sign the document.
There was some urgency in executing the Financial Agreement because the applicant and the respondent, or one of them, was about to travel overseas.
On 22 June 2016, at 1.00 pm, Ms D sent an email to the applicant, the respondent and
Ms B attaching “Final Financial Agreement 22.6.2016.pdf”.
At 1.47 pm a further email was sent by Ms D to the applicant and the respondent, but not to Ms B:
Subject: [Applicant] & [Respondent] – Binding financial agreement
Attachment: Amended as per [Ms B] and [Ms D] discussion.docx
The applicant, the respondent, Ms B and Ms D met together on 22 June 2016 and the document was signed. Ms D certified that she had given independent advice to the applicant and Ms B certified that she had given independent advice to the respondent.
The document which was executed on 22 June 2016 included a number of handwritten amendments which were initialled.
On 23 June 2016, an email was sent from Ms D’s office to the applicant, the respondent and Ms B stating:
Please find attached a copy of the executed Binding Financial Agreement (“BFA”) for your records.
We are now incorporating the handwritten amendments to the BFA. [Respondent] and [Applicant], the amended version of the BFA will need to be signed by both of you upon your return.
On 20 July 2016, Ms D sent an email to the applicant and the respondent and Ms B addressed to “Dear [Respondent] and [Applicant]”, enclosing an amended agreement.
The amendments went beyond those handwritten additions to the document which had been signed on 22 June 2016.
Neither solicitor appears to have considered the provisions of s 90UL of the Act in relation to the requirement to revoke a financial agreement before entering into a new agreement.
Both counsel before me agreed that, if there is a Binding Financial Agreement between the parties, it can only be the Financial Agreement executed on 22 June 2016. The later agreement has no effect.
Ms D continued to deal with both parties directly and personally despite the fact that
Ms B was negotiating on behalf of the respondent.
On 16 August 2016, an email was sent from Ms D’s office to Ms B stating:
We have made a few minor edits to the BFA. Please find attached the final BFA document version. Please review the BFA and let us know if you’d like any changes to be made. If there are no further edits to be made, please let me know and I will forward it through to [the respondent] and [the applicant].
That email was sent a week before the agreement was executed when it is apparent that
Ms D’s office was still in direct communication with the respondent.The document was executed on 23 August 2016. Ms D’s file note reads:
Conference held at Suburb G between [the applicant], [the respondent] and
[Ms B]. Went through the BFA as had been provided to all parties in advance. Four minor amendments made (inserted definition of Loan account; inserted comment that Loan account and Offset Account amounts would vary over time; amended Annexures A & B showing assets and liabilities as agreed between [the respondent] and [the applicant]). Signed the BFA in the presence of all four parties, witnessed by [Ms B] and [Ms D]. [Ms B] provided independent legal advice to [the respondent] previously, and [Ms D] provided independent legal advice to [the applicant] previously.Discussion
The effect of a Binding Financial Agreement is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the division of the property of the parties or either of them.
The Explanatory Memorandum to s 90UJ states:
Section 90UJ – When financial agreements are binding
173.Section 90UJ provides that a Part VIIIAB financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement if:
– it is signed by all the parties
–certain procedural requirements are complied with, to ensure that the parties entered into the agreement with independent legal advice, and that evidence of that advice was contained in a certificate annexed to the agreement
–that the agreement has not been terminated and has not been set aside by a court, and
–after it is signed, the original agreement is given to one of the spouse parties and a copy is given to each other party.
The terms of the section are unequivocal. The requirement is that each party be given independent advice.
A solicitor who acts for both parties cannot give independent advice to one of them, even if the other party has been referred to another solicitor.
In the present case, Ms D acted for both of the parties from 23 October 2015 until the respondent instructed Ms B on or about 17 June 2016, some five days before the Financial Agreement was executed on 22 June 2016. Whether Ms D, in fact, continued to act for the respondent after that date need not be determined here.
The applicant did not receive independent advice from Ms D.
Although no submissions were addressed by either party to the provisions of s 90UJ(1A), I will give my reasons for declining to find that the Financial Agreement is binding by virtue of those provisions.
Section 90UJ(1A) provides:
When financial agreements are binding
(1A)A Part VIIIAB financial agreement (other than an agreement covered by section 90UE) is binding on the parties to the agreement if:
(a) the agreement is signed by all parties; and
(b)one or more of paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (ca) are not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and
(c)a court is satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not binding on the spouse parties to the agreement (disregarding any changes in circumstances from the time the agreement was made); and
(d)the court makes an order under subsection (1B) declaring that the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement; and
(e)the agreement has not been terminated and has not been set aside by a court.
The respondent did not give evidence of any injustice that he would be likely to suffer if the Financial Agreement were not binding.
The applicant asserts that she would suffer an injustice if the Financial Agreement were held to be binding. It is clear from the email of the applicant to Ms D of 29 October 2015, that the final form of the Financial Agreement signed on 22 June 2016 did not represent the applicant’s instructions given in that email. Further, the applicant asserts that the value of the Suburb J property at the date of the Financial Agreement or at the date of the transfer was understated and that she was not advised by Ms D to obtain a valuation.
I do not consider that the mere fact that the parties’ respective entitlements to the division of their joint and several property will now be determined by a Court pursuant to the provisions of the Act creates an unjustness or any inequity in circumstances where a fundamental requirement of the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court has not been satisfied.
The Financial Agreement executed by the applicant and the respondent on 22 June 2016 is not a Binding Financial Agreement.
Fraud on the Revenue
As has been explained earlier in these reasons, the payment of stamp duty was waived because the applicant represented to the Office of State Revenue that the parties had been living in a
de facto relationship since 1 September 2013.Thus the respondent was not required to pay a very significant sum upon the transfer of the share of the Suburb J property to him.
In submissions, I raised with counsel the possibility of a referral to the relevant authority in relation to that matter and both sought time to consider their submissions. An order was made that each party file and serve any written submissions in relation to that issue within 14 days.
I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees. Associate:
Dated: 30 November 2021
3
0
0