Buchmann and Comcare
[2003] AATA 787
•12 August 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 787
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2001/868
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re KURT WALTER BUCHMANN Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member KL Beddoe
Dr KP Kennedy OBE, Member
Mr RG Kenny, MemberDate12 August 2003
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(Sgd) KL Beddoe
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – benefits and entitlements – repetitive strain injury – whether there is a continuing liability to pay compensation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(1), 14
REASONS FOR DECISION
12 August 2003 Senior Member KL Beddoe
Dr KP Kennedy OBE, Member
Mr RG Kenny, Member1. By a form dated 10 February 1999 the applicant applied for compensation for injury described as Repetitive Strain Injury, said to have been first noticed in November 1997 (T8).
2. By letter dated 3 June 1999 (T15), the respondent accepted liability for the condition which it described as “mononeuritis”. By a further letter dated 29 September 2000 (T31), the respondent accepted liability for referral to a Pain Management Clinic and on-going treatment until 30 November 2000. By a claim dated 7 November 2000 the applicant claimed compensation for permanent impairment (T37). The respondent deferred making a decision on this claim (T40).
3. The respondent terminated liability to pay compensation from 24 May 2001 (T70). That decision was affirmed on reconsideration (T75). On 24 September 2001 the applicant made a valid application for review in this Tribunal.
4. Section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) provides that, subject to other provisions in Part II of the Act, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the employee suffers incapacity for work.
5. “Injury” is a defined word. The definition in sub-section 4(1) of the Act is as follows:
“injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease)suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
6. “Disease” is also defined in sub-section 4(1) as follows:
“disease means:
(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;
being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation.”
7. At the hearing Ms Moody appeared for the applicant and Miss Ford appeared for the respondent. The documents lodged in the Tribunal pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were before the Tribunal as the “T” Documents and further documents were tendered and marked as exhibits.
8. Oral evidence was given by the applicant, his wife, Dr Douglas, Consultant Physician and Rheumatologist, Dr Rowe, Consultant Psychiatrist and Dr Stretch, General Practitioner.
9. We make the following findings of fact.
10. The applicant was born on 22 December 1951, resides at Mudgeeraba and at all relevant times was employed by the Australian Electoral Commission at its Tweed Heads office.
11. The Electoral Office at Tweed Heads consisted of three permanent employees of whom the applicant was one. Duties were varied but had the general character of administrative/clerical duties and storeman duties. From time to time the applicant was also required to supervise casual employees who were engaged to handle peak workloads such as at the time of a Federal Election. The applicant also did presentations at schools from time to time. While the duties varied widely, it seems that data entry of voter enrolment details was the most consistent duty.
12. The applicant said that the problems with his right arm commenced when the Electoral Commission had to organise the “Constitutional Convention” in 1997. We understand the reference to “Constitution Convention” to be a reference to election of representatives to the Convention held in February 1998. The matter was not explored before us and we have not thought it necessary to do so.
13. The applicant said, and we accept, that the Tweed Heads office was responsible for the processing on return of about 80,000 ballot papers. The office was not required to despatch the ballot papers, which was done in Brisbane according to the applicant.
14. The returned ballot papers were delivered to the Tweed Heads office, by Australia Post, in trays of about 200 envelopes. The applicant estimated that the trays weighed 25kg when full.
15. The returned envelopes were taken from the trays and put through a letter opening machine and then returned to the trays. This was done by the applicant and a casual assistant. We understand that it was the inside blue envelope which was returned to the trays and then scanned for bar codes. This work was performed by the applicant and the casual employee.
16. The applicant said, and we accept, that the work had built up over the three weeks period so that the second and third weeks were busier than the first. We also accept that the applicant developed pain in his right arm while he was performing this work, which we are satisfied, was different from work normally performed by the applicant for the Electoral Commission. Because of the pain the applicant said it was necessary to rest his arm for 10 to 15 minutes every hour during the last 1½ weeks of the three weeks.
17. In October 1998, the Electoral Commission was required to conduct an election for Federal Parliament. It is apparent, from the applicant’s evidence, that the work involved in preparation for, and conduct of, such an election is quite different from the work that had been required for the Constitutional Convention.
18. There seems to be two main aspects to this work. One is the stores function whereby the Tweed Heads office took in significant numbers of cartons of stationery items including voting papers in preparation for the election. The electorate had 68 polling booths which had to be set up and supplied.
19. The second is somewhat surprising. The applicant said that up to 8,000 people applied to be enrolled in the electorate in the fourteen days prior to closing of the electoral roll. We say surprising because we understand the electorate to have about 80,000 enrolled voters which means that 10% of those eligible to vote had not enrolled up to the time the election was announced. The applicant said these late enrolments had to be processed quickly. He estimated that he processed 1,000 enrolment forms per week. We calculate that to be approximately two minutes per enrolment which indicates to us that the applicant’s function was data entry rather than any checking or investigative function. We have allowed for the applicant’s claim that he took regular breaks while doing data entry work.
20. A lesser function is dealing with postal and pre-poll voting but we are unsure as to the applicant’s participation in this work beyond being required to stamp a large number of voting papers. The applicant described the action of stamping. It is entirely different from arm use required for data entry and entirely different again from opening envelopes or handling cartons of stationery.
21. The applicant says he was also required to count ballot papers and estimated that he counted 400,000 such papers for the October 1998 election. That counting did not include initial counting of completed voting papers but he did participate in subsequent counting of Senate ballot papers for a week at over ten hours per day. The counting included scanning ballot papers for above the line and below the line votes and checking that below the line votes were numerically correct.
22. The applicant said he sought assistance from a general practitioner, who he was unable to name, after the election and, he says, was prescribed (anti) “inflammatories” for his arm which had no beneficial effect.
23. Subsequent to the election, the applicant undertook a rehabilitation program which has included changes to his duties at the Tweed Heads office.
24. The applicant says he has, for many years, had a passion for motor cycles and prior to the Constitutional Convention was a regular rider. He ceased, he says, after the Constitutional Convention but still owns the motor-bike. In response to the Tribunal he said, in effect, that he had last ridden a motor cycle on roads in October 2002.
25. It had been his practice to ride the motor cycle to work until the injury – he did not specify a time. He then travelled to work by taxi at the respondent’s expense and said that after the respondent ceased accepting liability he travelled to work by public transport or by car, driving, he says, one-handed.
26. In cross-examination it became apparent that the applicant’s evidence, in relation to his motor-bike, was so unreliable to the point of being false. In particular, he conceded that he purchased another motor-bike which he registered in October 2001. The following exchange occurred in cross-examination by Miss Ford (transcript, p 70):
“It is the case, is it not, that you bought yourself a motor bike in October of last year?---Yes.
A Zuzuki Marauder?---Yes.
A Zuzuki Marauder 800?---Yes.
That was a new bike?---No.
How old was it?---Five years.
And it weighs over 200 kilograms, doesn’t it?---I don’t know.
Now you ride that bike to work, do you not, when you can’t use the family car?---No. I can’t ride it to work.
Why is that?---I can’t use by right arm.
Well, you see, I am putting to you the fact that you do ride it to work?---And I am saying I don’t.
What you say that you have never once ridden it to work?---Oh I have ridden it.
To work?---No.
You say that you have never once ridden it to work, is that your evidence?---Yes.”
27. At pages 73 and 74 of the transcript the following exchange occurred:
“So you say you wouldn’t ride it on average twice a month?---Oh may be once a month. But sometimes once every two months, but only just to turn the engine over.
What is the furthest that you have ridden this bike, Mr Buchmann?---Oh 20 ks.
That is the furthest distance. It is about 30 kilometres to your place of work, is it not?---25.
You see, I put to you that on 19 November this year your bike with that registration number, with 11,000 kilometres on the clock, was parked at the Twin Towers carpark within a couple of blocks of your office?---Yes, okay.
How did it get there, Mr Buchmann?---Well, somebody must have rode it there then.
Well, who?---That is not your business, that is my business. If that is what happened on that day I am not answering that particular one, it has got nothing to do with this case who rode it where. It may have been at Twin Towns.
You see, I am putting to you, Mr Buchmann, that you rode it there that morning to work and parked it where it couldn’t be seen by your colleagues?---Is that why, no, it is incorrect.
You see, you were often picked up by someone at work, as you said, didn’t you?---Well, the person that I work with used to drop me off and pick me up from home.
And then one day you said to them, around the time when you bought your new bike, that you didn’t need to be picked up any more because you had had a better offer?---Exactly.
And that better offer was catching the buses, is that what you say?---I went on the buses, yes.”
and at page 77 of the transcript:
“MISS FORD: So you purchased a bike for six and a half thousand dollars that just sits in your garage apart from once a month riding it. Is that your evidence?---Yes. Yes, because – if you understand people that like motor cycles you will understand why I bought it and it sits in the garage.
Most people that like motor cycles also ride them, Mr Buchmann?---Well, I did a lot more before the injury, yes.
And I’m putting to you that you’ve been regularly riding it to your place of work?---No, I haven’t.
And back again?---No.
Including 19 November this year?---No. No.
You were at work, weren’t you, on 19 November this year?---I don’t know. I have to look at my flex sheets.
Well, have a look at your sick leave records that I handed to you?---I assume I was. I didn’t – to me it doesn’t matter whether I was or wasn’t these days. If you say I was, I was, yes.”
28. Eventually, at page 91 of the transcript, the applicant agreed that he did ride the Suzuki Marauder motor-bike to work on 19 November 2002.
29. The applicant’s evasive answering of questions and also his refusal to answer questions about his use of the motor-bike suggests that the applicant was reluctant to expose the truth in relation to his motor-bike use.
30. While the applicant’s evidence is that of very limited use of the motor-bike, we are satisfied that he has understated the actual use and that it is reasonable to infer that the motor-bike is ridden by the applicant on a more regular basis than he was prepared to admit. Some use is, we infer, for distances of up to 30 km, sometimes more, and includes trips to work when alternatives for travel to work are not available.
31. The applicant also says that he had given up rock and roll dancing because of his arm conditions.
32. In relation to his marriage the applicant said it had nearly failed twice because he was suffering depression. He said he was under treatment by a psychiatrist but could not remember when the treatment commenced. In cross-examination he denied a prior history of stress-related illness until confronted with clinical notes showing a prior history of stress and anxiety (Exhibit 1). In cross-examination the applicant agreed that he did not relate this stress and anxiety to his employment by the Electoral Commission. He denied that the arm condition was caused by stress and anxiety.
33. The applicant says that he has been replaced at work by another person so that he now performs duties of his own choosing and could, if he wished, sit in the storeroom and watch television. He said he does not use his right hand, except as necessary, but admitted that he smokes using his right hand.
34. The applicant agreed in cross-examination that he had first taken sick leave in relation to his arm condition in January 2000.
35. After the respondent had closed its case the Tribunal gave the applicant leave to give further oral evidence. As it transpired, this evidence sought to rebut part of the applicant’s own evidence about an incident in 1981 which we have decided is of little assistance to us, and his evidence about modifications of his motor-bike. He had said in cross-examination that the only modification made was to the cogs. In the recalled evidence he said that the seat had been modified so that he leaned back rather than lean forward as Exhibit 4 indicates. In the event, we think little turns on this other than to raise questions as to whether the applicant is a reliable witness. It satisfied us that in giving a history of previous medical and psychiatric problems the applicant did not disclose the history prior to 1997 if he perceived it would not assist his claim. In particular, Exhibit 1 reveals a history of stress/anxiety problems in 1997 before the events of October 1997 – a history apparently not given to the reporting doctors.
36. Taking into account all of the applicant’s evidence and our observation of the applicant while giving evidence, we have formed the impression that he is an unreliable witness, preferring to tailor his evidence in a way that he perceives will advantage his case.
37. The applicant’s wife also gave evidence at the hearing. She said that the applicant ceased helping around the house in late 1997 or early 1998 because of pain in his right arm. She said that the applicant is now, and has been, bad tempered because of his arm. She also said that the applicant is now a restless sleeper. She attributed the applicant’s changes to his arm injury and depression. She was not asked any questions as to the applicant’s use of his motor-bike although she was asked about the purchase of a motor cycle in 2002 which we have assumed to be the Suzuki Marauder purchased in October 2001.
38. Mrs Buchmann was not cross-examined.
The Medical Evidence
39. Dr Stretch, the applicant’s General Practitioner, made a brief report dated 19 April 1999 addressed to the respondent. He said that the applicant had first attended on 10 February 1999 complaining of pain in his right arm for the past year with the pain worse over the past three months. He noted that the applicant had been taking an anti-inflammatory drug prescribed by an unnamed general practitioner, the applicant attributed his pain to opening envelopes and counting electoral papers and that the applicant requested a medical certificate stating repetitive strain injury.
40. On examination, Dr Stretch found there seemed to be the possibility of nerve irritation and the applicant was referred to a consultant neurologist, Dr Richard Adams for nerve condition studies. He also noted that the applicant did not return for review as planned on 10 March 1999.
41. Document T24 is also a report to the respondent by Dr Stretch dated 19 May 2000. He says there, inter alia, that the nerve conduction studies conducted by Dr Adams on 24 April 1999 were reported as normal.
42. Dr Stretch then referred the applicant to Dr Stabler, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr Stabler apparently thought that the pain was possibly referred from the neck. Consequential x-rays showed degenerative changes to the neck with resultant spinal stenosis.
43. The applicant was then referred to Dr Cull, Consultant Neurosurgeon, who performed a myelogram which confirmed degenerative changes to the neck at C5-6 and C6-7 with a diffuse bulge at both levels, worse at C6-7, with encroachment possibly resulting in nerve root compression. Dr Cull’s report (T19) expresses the opinion that the symptoms were not severe and not particularly typical of nerve root compression.
44. Dr Stretch also referred the applicant to Dr Sharma, a Consultant Rheumatologist, who opined as follows in his report of 8 May 2000 (T23):
“I feel some of his symptoms are consistent with a lateral epicondylitis and I injected Depomedrol into the origin of the common extensor tendon of the hands. I have discussed the side effects with him in detail and will see him in about a month’s time. However I feel that the prognosis and improvement will be somewhat limited by the presentation and the factors surrounding him.”
45. In a further report to the respondent dated 14 May 2001 (T65), Dr Stretch notes reports of various specialists and then opines that the applicant is suffering from a work-related overuse injury of his right arm which he described as Myofascial Shoulder and Arm Pain Syndrome diagnosed by Dr McKillop (T52) and the applicant has suffered reactive depression as a result. In response to a question by Dr Kennedy, Dr Stretch was unable to explain, to our satisfaction, why the claimed repetitive injury over a period of two to three weeks had not settled years later. He said that if the tender muscle was not treated then the pain would persist. However, although somewhat vague, Dr Stretch acknowledged that the applicant had been prescribed treatment for the pain initially but more recently had been prescribed anti-depressants. In particular, Dr Stretch recorded that three weeks treatment of the pain with Feldene “were no help” (transcript 56).
46. In that context Dr Stretch referred the applicant to a Consulting Psychiatrist (Dr Katz) on 28 June 2000. Apparently Dr Katz has told the respondent that he was not prepared to comment in respect of the applicant (T72).
47. In oral evidence Dr Stretch also said he was mainly treating the depression, but the applicant still had pain in his right arm which he attributed to the overuse, acknowledging that it was a muscular soft tissue injury. He preferred the diagnosis by Dr McKillop of myofascial pain syndrome.
48. Dr Stretch also received a report from Dr Tan, Consultant Neurosurgeon, who found, on examination, localised tenderness at the right lateral epicondyle region. Dr Tan reported that an MRI scan and x-ray showed a congenital fusion in the cervical spine at C2/3 and narrowing at C3/4 and C4/5 but was of the opinion that the right arm symptoms were not related to the cervical spine.
49. Exhibit A is a report by Dr Geffen, Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine Specialist dated 22 January 2002 addressed to the applicant’s solicitors. Dr Geffen made a supplementary report dated 28 February 2002. Dr Geffen reported that the applicant was complaining of right wrist, forearm, elbow, arm and shoulder, and neck pain and described to Dr Geffen significant restrictions in the use of his right arm. The applicant is also reported as saying that he feels significantly depressed requiring medication.
50. Dr Geffen noted that the applicant preferred to use his left arm, his right hand was nicotine stained, he had a slight reduction in extension of his right wrist limited by pain, and full range of movement of his right elbow. He was tender over the extensor muscles in the right forearm and over the lateral epicondyle of the right arm, with the medial epicondyle also slightly tender. The right shoulder had a reasonable range of movement with some loss of extension in an abducted position.
51. Dr Geffen was of the opinion that the applicant suffers:
(a) right arm pain secondary to nerve root irritation in his cervical spine;
(b) chronic pain syndrome affecting right upper limb; and(c) a depressive state initiated by chronic pain and associated disputes.
52. In the supplementary report, Dr Geffen recommended the applicant undertake a pain management program.
53. Dr Sharma, Consultant Rheumatologist, made reports dated 8 May 2000 (T23) and 30 April 2001 (T59). Dr Sharma has seen the applicant on a number of occasions for review on referral from Dr Stretch. After setting out a history mainly of the medical issues and following examination, Dr Sharma was of the opinion that the applicant was suffering from chronic pain syndrome with no organic basis for the applicant’s presentation (April 2001). Dr Sharma thought the chronic pain syndrome had its genesis in the excessive repetitive work of November 1998 and, he says, October 1998.
54. The respondent obtained a report from Dr Homolka, Occupational Physician, dated 12 October 2000 (T34). On examination Dr Homolka noted the applicant’s right shoulder was carried significantly higher than the left and the fingers of the right hand were heavily nicotine-stained. She found mild depression, a slight postural scoliosis but no tenderness on palpation. Range of movement was full and pain free and neurological examination was unremarkable.
55. Dr Homolka diagnosed chronic myalgia of the right upper limb secondary to occupational overuse, complicated by a mild reactive depressive illness, and directly related to and caused by the repetitive nature of the applicant’s duties particularly in November 1997, October 1998 and during the 1999 referendum. Dr Homolka said the applicant was fit to work 30 hours per week and should continue to increase his hours at work in accordance with his return to work program. Full recovery was not to be expected but may be achievable with appropriate management.
56. Exhibit 3 is a copy of a report by Dr Freeman, Orthopaedic Surgeon to Dr Stretch and dated 8 May 2002. It is apparently unrelated to the issue before the Tribunal except that it refers to the applicant’s desire to correct flexion deformity of the small finger, caused by scarring, on his right hand. The correction sought is to be able to fully extend the finger. Dr Freeman apparently referred the applicant on for a further opinion. The applicant does not seem to have been unduly affected by not being able to fully extend the small finger.
57. The respondent obtained a medico-legal report from Dr Douglas, Consultant Physician and Rheumatologist dated 30 March 2001 (T49). Dr Douglas took a detailed history. He also noted cigarette staining of the right hand.
58. Dr Douglas referred to scarring of the small finger on the left hand. Dr Douglas was unable to find any organic cause for the applicant’s pain in his right upper arm. He said that the effects of the repetitive use of the right arm in 1997 and 1998 “should have long since ceased” (T49).
59. Dr Douglas said he was unable to find a physical explanation for the continued discomfort and disability - a view similar to Dr Stabler’s report of 1 July 1999 to Dr Stretch (T16).
60. Dr Douglas made a further report dated 16 May 2001 (T67). That report reviewed the report by Dr Sharma dated 30 March 2001 (T59). Dr Douglas basically agreed with Dr Sharma but reserved the question of whether the reported pain was work-related for opinion by the psychiatrist and chronic pain specialist. He did say that in his opinion the reported pain was not “now related to his employment”.
61. Insofar as Dr Douglas gave evidence about Suzuki motor-bikes, we have found, on consideration, that the evidence does not assist us.
62. While there would, we presume, have been advantage in a report by the applicant’s treating psychiatrist, Dr Katz, such a report is not before the Tribunal. The respondent sought a report but it appears to have been refused (T72).
63. The respondent did, however, obtain a medico-legal report from Dr Rowe, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 30 March 2001 (T50).
64. Dr Rowe examined the applicant and took a history. Dr Rowe found no depression but opined that the anti-depressant medication could be masking underlying depression. He thought it essential that the applicant stay in touch with Dr Katz. Dr Rowe noted that the applicant cannot ride his motor-bike any more.
65. Dr Rowe found no formal psychiatric disorder, but clearly that finding is qualified as above. In his supplementary report Dr Rowe said that the applicant suffers chronic pain related to his employment but not a psychiatric condition albeit that it could be the depression, which is masked by medication, that is causing some amplification of the organically based pain. In his oral evidence Dr Rowe said that if there is a minor organic basis, pain can be amplified by tension, anxiety and particularly depression. It may also be a conversion reaction which in earlier times was referred to as an hysterical condition.
66. Dr Rowe’s oral evidence revealed that the applicant had not discussed his past psychiatric history, saying he had none. Dr Rowe made it clear to us that he may have formed a different conclusion if he had been given a full history.
Consideration
67. By a determination notified on 3 June 1999, the respondent accepted liability for injury which arose out of the applicant’s employment by the Electoral Commission (T14). The subject condition was claimed as repetitive strain injury. Various descriptions were given to the condition in medical certificates with the respondent eventually describing it as “mononeuritis of unspecified site (Right)” and accepting that condition as work-related. That determination is not before the Tribunal for review.
68. A determination dated 28 May 2001 ceased liability in respect of the claimed condition (T70) and that decision was affirmed on review (T75) and it is the decision on review which is the reviewable decision before the Tribunal.
69. Before us, Ms Moody contended for a diagnosed condition of myofascial pain syndrome which is work-related. That diagnosis had its genesis in the report of Dr McKillop (T52) who clearly relied on a history of high repetitive use of the right arm. Dr Douglas explained that a condition so described is a soft tissue problem.
70. Dr Sharma, in particular, preferred a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome which he thought had been contributed to by excessive repetitive work. Dr Rowe said that chronic pain syndrome points to a constellation of symptoms and is not a specific psychiatric diagnosis.
71. The difficulty with this case is the unreliability of the applicant as a witness. In particular, he did not tell any of the reporting doctors about his prior medical history even though, we are satisfied, he was asked relevant questions by the doctors preparing medico-legal reports, if not others.
72. The applicant’s evidence about riding his motor-bike was so evasive and misleading as to be, in our view, untruthful. In particular, in response to a question from the Tribunal, the applicant said he had last ridden the recently purchased motor-bike about two months prior to the hearing but subsequently acknowledged in cross-examination that he had ridden the bike (to work) 23 days prior to the hearing.
73. The applicant agreed that he uses his right arm when smoking cigarettes. In our view that is wholly inconsistent with the claims made about pain in the right arm.
74. The evidence about incapacity for work depends upon us being satisfied that the applicant is a witness of truth. While we accept that it is likely the applicant suffers pain in his right arm and that the pain had its genesis in work-related circumstances, we do not accept that there is a relevant incapacity for work. The applicant’s evidence was so unreliable in some aspects, especially in relation to his use of the motor-bike, that we doubt we have heard a correct explanation of the applicant’s circumstances.
75. We are satisfied, on the basis of the medical evidence, that it was more likely than not that in May 2001 there was no relevant incapacity for work so that the terms of section 14 of the Act were no longer satisfied. If there was an incapacity for work at that time, we are satisfied it was caused by factors outside employment.
76. For these reasons the decision under review will be affirmed.
I certify that the 76 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member KL Beddoe, Dr KP Kennedy OBE, Member and Mr RG Kenny, Member
Signed: Sarah Oliver
AssociateDates of Hearing 11 and 12 December 2002
Date of Decision 12 August 2003
Counsel for the Applicant Ms Moody
Solicitor for the Applicant D’Arcys
Counsel for the Respondent Miss Ford
Solicitor for the Respondent Phillips Fox
0
0
0