Calipari and Comcare - [2001] AATA 348

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 348

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No A2000/217

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      FRANK CALIPARI
  Applicant
           And    COMCARE
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

Date27 April 2001
PlaceCanberra

Decision      Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor: (a) decides that the injury resulting from the incident on 15 December 1999 was not caused by the applicant's serious and wilful misconduct; (b) remits the matter to the respondent for calculation of compensation payable to the applicant as a result of this injury; and, (c) pursuant to section 67 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, orders that the respondent pay the applicant's costs. In the absence of agreement between the parties, costs are to be taxed by a District Registrar or Deputy District Registrar and liberty to apply is reserved to both parties.
  (Signed)
  J.A. KIOSOLGOUS
  (Senior Member)
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – serious and wilful misconduct – comments by applicant leading to assault by fellow employee – serious and wilful conduct considered – whether serious injury reasonably foreseeable – "serious" considered
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss.14, 67
Re Virasinghe and Comcare (1996) 45 ALD 145
Hills v Brambles Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-785
Re Adams and Australian Postal Corporation (AAT 9152, 11 October 1993)
Johnson v Marshall Sons & Co Ltd [1906] AC 409
Re Elvin and Comcare (1998) 51 ALD 706
Re Grime and Telstra Corporation Ltd (1994) 20 AAR 43
Fleming v Hutchinson (1991) 66 ALJR 211

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 April 2001 Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

This is an application by Mr Frank Calipari (the applicant) for review of a decision of a review officer of the respondent dated 1 June 2000 (T39) which affirmed upon review a decision of a delegate of the respondent dated 19 January 2000 (T26) denying liability for a claimed lower back injury.
The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T39), together with seventeen exhibits, nine lodged by the applicant (Exhibits A1-A9) and eight lodged by the respondent (Exhibits R1-R8). In addition, the Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant. The respondent called as witnesses Ms N. Relph, Supervisor, Mr B. Jamieson, Supervisor, Mr R. Altman and Mr R. Henderson, work colleagues of the applicant. The applicant was represented by Mr J. Sabherwal and the respondent was represented by Mr D. O'Donovan, both of counsel.
The respondent concedes that the applicant does in fact suffer from the claimed lower back injury. The sole issue before the Tribunal is whether or not the applicant's back injury resulted from his serious and wilful misconduct, so as to disentitle him to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).
history of the application
The applicant was involved in an incident on 15 December 1999 during the course of his employment with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in which his lower back was injured.
On 20 December 1999 the applicant submitted a claim to the respondent in relation to "lumbar back strain" (T18). This claim was rejected on 19 January 2000 (T26). The decision to reject the applicant's claim was affirmed upon review dated 1 June 2000 (T39).
applicant's evidence
The applicant was born on 21 March 1969, and was employed as an APS 1 on a three-month temporary contract by the ABS between late September 1999 and 23 December 1999. He was involved in data processing work as part of a census data inputting trial. He had previously worked as a commercial tiler, but had been retrained through administrative courses.
The applicant told the Tribunal that at the ABS he sat at a desk located in a row of desks. Mr Roland Altman and Mr Robert Henderson worked on desks in his immediate vicinity (see Exhibits A6, A7 and A8). He stated that he was an honorary member of the ABS social club and would talk to other employees during their breaks, and during a number of lunches they had as a group. He further stated that he got to know Mr Roland Altman as well as anyone else as a result of these occasions.
On 19 October 1999 the applicant was involved in an incident with a Mr Troy Carter, a fellow employee. He stated that he had yelled out across the office to Mr Carter asking him why he was reading a book during work time. He stated that Mr Carter made a hand gesture and a "slitting throat motion". He further stated that he waited five minutes before clocking off at the end of the day, as he knew that "something fishy" might happen, due to Mr Carter's slit throat motion. He considered that Mr Carter must have been upset because Mr Carter followed him out to the carpark and threatened his life.
The applicant stated that he was aware that Mr Altman and Mr Harvey (another employee) had had a "run in" and that it had involved harassment. He stated that he was not aware of Mr Altman having a history of violence, and had only heard rumours that he harassed people. He stated that he had formed the view that Mr Carter and Mr Altman were bullies, and was aware that they practiced martial arts.
The applicant stated that following the 19 October 1999 incident, he was called to a meeting with Mr Carter by one of his supervisors, at which time they were told to keep away from each other. He further stated that he was never given special counselling, and could not recall being counselled as to the Australian Public Service (APS) values and code of conduct. He considered that he may have been given a copy of the code of conduct and told that yelling out comments could be in breach, but had no specific recollection.
In relation to the incident on 15 December 1999 the applicant stated that at 9.50 am he was taking his morning break, eating a can of baked beans at his desk, with Mr Henderson and Mr Altman being in the vicinity. He told the Tribunal that he had earlier seen Mr Carter and Mr Altman together, and wanted to question Mr Altman about what Mr Carter might be up to with regards to a harassment complaint against him.
The applicant gave a version of the ensuing conversation to the Tribunal which was along the following lines:
"Applicant:You're spending too much time with Troy. I'll have to spread a rumour about the time you're spending with Troy.
Would you like me to tell Troy something you haven't got the balls to tell him?
I have an incident report to give to the police
Altman: He already knows
Applicant:Was Troy making statements of harassment about me because of the statements I have about him? [repeated several times]
Altman: Stop it
…"
Mr Altman then leapt across two desks and a partition separating his and the applicant's workstations, grabbed the applicant by the neck, forcing him to the ground, and, according to the applicant, was about to hit him with a clenched fist before being detained by another employee. Mr Altman then yelled "he said I am having sex with Troy". He stated that he was smiling initially when Mr Altman jumped on the desk because he thought it must be a joke.
In cross-examination the applicant told the Tribunal that he kept asking questions to try to get Mr Altman to reveal what Mr Carter was up to, and whether or not Mr Carter was upstairs with Mr O'Brien making a complaint against the applicant. He asked questions such as "are you going to go witness for Troy?". He stated that he was genuinely seeking information from Mr Altman, that voices were not raised and whilst not a friendly conversation, it was simply asking questions whilst sitting across from one another. It just seemed to the applicant that Mr Altman did not want to answer questions, and he noted that Mr Altman may have said to "shut up" a couple of times. He did not taunt Mr Altman or accuse him of having sex with Mr Carter. He denied deliberately trying to insult or incite Mr Carter, and stated that he only wanted to fight outside after having been assaulted. He denied using the word "rooting" and considered that Mr Carter must have read that into what he was actually saying.
The applicant stated that he had had similar blunt conversations with Mr Altman on previous occasions, and gave an example to the Tribunal in which a discussion took place about court proceedings arising from a car accident that the applicant was involved in. The applicant stated that Mr Altman said to him on that occasion, "you'll go to gaol and be taken up the arse".
The applicant stated that he never swore at work, and was only ever told to stop talking, as he tended to talk a lot. He denied calling out comments to fellow employees, and stated that on no other occasions did he make comments to try to incite people.
ms natalie relph
Ms Relph was the applicant's immediate supervisor at ABS and also supervised a further 9 of 22 employees working in the section. In her written statement (Exhibit R4) she stated (inter alia):
"…
5. Frank used to verbally 'bait' his co-workers…
…
8.At one point Frank was formally counselled about his behaviour. This was in a mediation session with Troy conducted by Dean Malcolm. This mediation arose from an allegation that Frank made about Troy harassing him.
9. I attended this mediation. It was made very clear to both of them the sort of behaviour that was acceptable in the workplace. It was made clear to Frank that his baiting of other employees was a form of harassment and that this sledging was unacceptable. They were told about the APS Code of Conduct. To my knowledge, this was the only time that Frank was formally counselled.
10. However, he was told many times to stop making offensive comments. …
11.Frank tended to use the full range of swear words. On at least three occasions I told Frank that his language could be offensive to his workmates and that enough was enough.
…"

In oral evidence in support of her statement, Ms Relph told the Tribunal that she became aware that the applicant and several other employees were sending inappropriate computer messages to each other, and told them to stop doing so. She recalled reprimanding the applicant on one occasion in relation to this. She stated that the applicant directed inappropriate comments to Mr Altman and Mr Carter, and that she reprimanded him on a couple of occasions in relation to this behaviour, later stating that she reprimanded him on 2-5 occasions in this regard. She stated that she had no written records in relation to the reprimands because she hoped that the applicant would take her advice without the need to make it formal, despite the behaviour being out of character with the section in general.
Ms Relph stated that she was involved in the mediation with Mr Carter and the applicant conducted by Mr Malcolm, because Mr Carter wanted an independent person present.
Ms Relph was quite emphatic in stating that the applicant used a full range of swear language at work, and she was "pretty sure" that he was the only employee using that language in her presence. She further stated that the more comfortable the applicant became with the job, the more frequent his inappropriate behaviour became.
Whilst she was not present at the incident on 15 December 1999, she stated that she was aware that Ms Mason, another supervisor, had spoken to the applicant that morning about his behaviour.
mr brian bruce jamieson
Mr Jamieson worked as a supervisor at the ABS during the relevant period. In his written statement (Exhibit R6) he stated (inter alia):
"…
3.I do not condone Roland's action in any way. But I was amazed that someone had not previously reacted badly to Frank's taunts. He took things too far in 'sledging' his co-workers. He would then put up his hands and say 'it was not my fault: they misunderstood me'. Usually the target of the sledging understood perfectly well what was being said.
4.On numerous occasions on the morning of 15 December 1999, as well as during the preceding weeks, Frank had been told to keep his mouth shut. But despite clear instructions from his supervisors, he continued to sledge his colleagues."

In oral evidence in support of his statement, Mr Jamieson stated that the three strokes he has had in the past eighteen months have impaired his recall. He stated that he saw and heard things the applicant did during the course of the applicant's employment that other employees took offence to. He recalled one occasion in which Mr Carter was complaining that the applicant had made derogatory comments about Mr Carter's wife.
Mr Jamieson stated that he attended the counselling session with Mr Carter and Mr Altman, and to the best of his recollection, the applicant was shown a copy of the APS code of conduct. To the best of his recollection, either the section leader or he himself had told the applicant to "shut up" on the morning of 15 December 1999, but he was not sure who might had done that. He considered that there was generally light banter and jokes in the workplace, and in reference to a particular emailed joke (Exhibit A9) he stated that he was not involved in generally circulating such material, but that it may have been picked up off the printer and photocopied.
mr roland altman
Mr Altman told the Tribunal that he first met the applicant during their temporary contracts with ABS. He stated that on 15 December 1999 Mr Carter was on the supervisor's phone to his wife, immediately adjacent to the applicant's and Mr Altman's desks. The applicant proceeded to make derogatory remarks about Mr Carter's wife within earshot of Mr Carter. Mr Altman said that Mr Carter then left the area, and he guessed that Mr Carter had gone to see Mr Jamieson to complain about the applicant. Some 10 minutes later, Mr Jamieson asked to see the applicant, who was then away for about 20 minutes. Mr Altman stated that the applicant was agitated and upset after returning. Mr Altman was "100% sure" that Mr Jamieson had called the applicant away after the applicant made comments about Mr Carter's wife.
Mr Altman stated that after returning, the applicant started to say that Mr Carter and Mr Altman were against him, and asked Mr Altman over and over for about a minute whether he was going to "go witness against me?". Mr Altman stated that the applicant then had a "brain explosion" and started saying:
"you're fucking Troy up the arse … he's fucking you up the arse … you're putting your dick up Troy's arse …"

for about three minutes. Mr Altman stated that he took all the comments, and said "shut your face Frank". According to Mr Altman the applicant then continued:

"you're sucking Troy's cock … he's sucking your cock … you're blowing all over his face …"

at which point Mr Altman went over the partition. Mr Altman declined to elaborate on the details of the alleged assault. He stated however, that he did not "snap" that morning.

In cross-examination Mr Altman stated that the incident occurred at 10.30am after a smoking break. He stated that he was "too nice a guy" to get up and go tell Mr Jamieson that the applicant was making the alleged comments on 15 December 1999 and that he sat there and took it. He stated that the applicant called him on 17 December 1999 and apologised, saying that he would take all of the blame for the incident.
mr robert henderson
Mr Henderson worked at the same position as the applicant, occupying a workstation adjacent to the applicant and Mr Altman. He was aware of the altercation between the applicant and Mr Carter, but considered that the applicant and Mr Altman appeared to get along well until that point in time. He was also aware that Mr Carter may have put in a complaint against the applicant, as he sat right next to the applicant.
In relation to the incident on 15 December 1999 he told the Tribunal that it happened about one hour after work had started for the day. He stated that the supervisor was absent from the room that morning, and he did not see any supervisor speak to the applicant that morning. Mr Carter and Mr Altman were absent from the room at some time in the morning, and then returned to their positions. The applicant told Mr Henderson that he was concerned that Mr Altman would "go as witness for Troy". Mr Henderson told the Tribunal that the applicant asked Mr Altman "did you go witness for Troy" over and over for about 30 seconds, without reply. He stated that the applicant then got angry and lost his temper. Mr Henderson stated that the applicant was furious that a workmate may have betrayed him and said to Mr Altman "you must be rooting him" over and over to the point that Mr Altman told the applicant to shut up.
Mr Henderson stated that the applicant did not shut up and continued in that vain for 30 seconds to one minute, "long enough to the point of tedium". Mr Henderson further stated that he felt guilty for not intervening, but that the applicant appeared very angry. He stated that Mr Altman then leapt over the workstation and tackled the applicant, holding him to the ground and challenging him to repeat what he was saying. Mr Altman was then pulled off the applicant, and exclaimed "he said that Troy and I were having sex".
Mr Henderson stated that the applicant attended his house in early 2000 wanting him to sign a statement, which he refused to do. He agreed, in cross-examination, that there was common joking banter at work which could be explicit in its language. He thought that Mr Altman may well have said that the applicant would "get it up the arse in Goulburn gaol" in relation to the applicant's motor vehicle court case. He could not recall any supervisor telling them to stop using that type of language at any stage. He considered that Mr Altman's reaction was over the top, but did not consider the comments of the applicant to be the usual office banter.
applicant's submissions
Mr Sabherwal submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that no evidence had been produced to satisfy the Tribunal that the exchange between the applicant and Mr Altman was carried out with the applicant having knowledge of the possibility of an assault, and that, as Mr Henderson had observed, it was a reaction "well over the top". He also submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence, apart from the October incident, that the applicant had been reprimanded about his language by his supervisors. He further submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant was "asking for it", and that whilst the applicant's comments may have been distasteful and ungentlemanly, that does not amount to serious and wilful misconduct.
respondent's submissions
Mr O'Donovan submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the applicant insulting Mr Altman was clearly designed to provoke anger in Mr Altman. He further submitted that the applicant knew Mr Altman was regarded as a bully, well built and known for martial arts, and knew that his smart mouth had already got him into trouble in October 1999. Armed with that knowledge, in Mr O'Donovan's submission, the applicant engaged in risk behaviour in relation to which he knew there was a substantial risk of harm. Mr O'Donovan submitted that the applicant wanted a fight and got one, in the form of a very real and probable outcome from the sledging he engaged in.
discussion and findings
Senior Member Eyre has considered the issue of serious and wilful misconduct at length in Re Virasinghe and Comcare (1996) 45 ALD 145 and with respect, this Tribunal adopts the analysis of the authorities contained therein as being a correct and consistent approach. Of particular relevance to this current matter, is the reference to the passage from Hills v Brambles Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-785 wherein Green J stated (inter alia) at p74,797:
"…
… For conduct to amount to serious and wilful misconduct it must be such as to give rise to an immediate risk of serious injury, it must be deliberate and not merely a thoughtless act done on the spur of the moment and it must be accompanied by an appreciation of the risk which is involved in it: …
…"

That passage was adopted by Deputy President Blow in Re Adams and Australian Postal Corporation (AAT 9152, 11 October 1993), with the Deputy President finding that that applicant's eavesdropping on a conversation did not amount to serious and wilful misconduct.
There are three constituent elements to the Hills approach, namely, that the conduct gives rise to an immediate risk of serious injury, is deliberate, and done with an appreciation of the risk involved. Further to that, the misconduct must, of itself, be serious (Johnson v Marshall Sons & Co Ltd [1906] AC 409 at p414 per Lord James).
With these principles in mind, the Tribunal turns to consider the evidence before it in this matter.
The Tribunal was wholly unimpressed with the bulk of the evidence placed before it. The applicant was not an impressive witness, and overall, he lacked credibility. In the Tribunal's assessment, he was clearly downplaying the extent to which he engaged in "sledging" fellow employees, and was not fully frank with the Tribunal as to the extent to which he engaged in "sledging" Mr Altman on the morning of 15 December 1999. There is sufficient contrary evidence from the other witnesses in this matter to rebut the applicant's characterisation of his behaviour and involvement in the events during the period he worked at the ABS. The fact that the applicant has also been approaching potential witnesses between the time of the 15 December 1999 incident and the date of the hearing did nothing to endear him to this Tribunal.
This is not to say however, that the Tribunal accepts the evidence put forward by the respondent in its entirety. Mr Jamieson has clearly had his recall affected by several strokes, and accordingly, the Tribunal attaches little weight to his evidence. The Tribunal accepts his evidence that the applicant was counselled in some form following the October 1999 incident with Mr Carter, and also notes from Mr Jamieson's evidence that there was a degree of generalised, frank office banter. The presence of the joke email (Exhibit A9) would tend to suggest that such banter was of a robust nature.
The Tribunal did not find Ms Relph to be an impressive witness, and she lacked the degree of objectivity one would expect to see in a supervisor. Clearly the applicant would have been a very difficult person to work with and he was not very likeable. Her evidence (and written statement Exhibit R4) came across to the Tribunal however, as being designed to demonise the applicant, whilst glossing over the participation of other players in the events that led to the unfortunate incident on 15 December 1999. The Tribunal accepts, since it is corroborated by Mr Jamieson, that the applicant received a counselling session following the October incident with Mr Carter, and the Tribunal finds that the applicant was told at this session that the type of language he was using was inappropriate and the comments he was making to fellow employees were inappropriate.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant was given several rebukes by various supervisors, in the form of being told to "shut up" or to stop using certain language. It finds that such rebukes were only in the form of one-off warnings to stop what he was doing at that moment. If the warnings had been any more significant, one would have expected corroboration of these warnings from Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson gave evidence that rough and crude language was readily used in the group of employees, and he could not recall any supervisor telling them to stop using that type of language.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not receive what would have been appropriate formal warnings, in which he would have had his role and responsibilities in the workplace clearly explained to him. It was clearly not sufficient in these circumstances for the applicant's supervisors to simply, casually and mildly tell the applicant off, and he should have received better supervision than he did.
Mr Altman also failed to impress the Tribunal, and the Tribunal gives little weight to his account of events. It accepts that he had engaged on previous occasions in ribald conversations with the applicant and is satisfied that he may well have made a remark to the applicant along the lines of "you'll get it up the arse in Goulburn gaol" in the course of one of these conversations.
The Tribunal is prepared to place more reliance upon the evidence of Mr Henderson, who was still somewhat circumspect, perhaps due to the circumstances involved in the eventual necessity of his giving evidence. It considers that he gave a more probable account of the incident on 15 December 1999 than the other witnesses in this matter. It finds that the applicant did in fact repeatedly suggest that Mr Altman was "rooting" Mr Carter, and that the tone and nature of the applicant's behaviour went beyond that which was the usual ribald office banter. Significantly in the Tribunal's opinion, Mr Henderson, as the only independent observer of the 15 December 1999 incident, considered Mr Altman's reaction to be "over the top".
Clearly, the applicant engaged in misconduct on the morning of 15 December 1999 when he began to repeatedly make offensive and distasteful remarks to Mr Altman. The Tribunal finds that the comments were not within the scope of the usual office banter, and were designed to antagonise and provoke Mr Altman into some sort of reaction. The applicant's sledging of Mr Altman was not simply spur of the moment, but arose in the course of the ongoing dispute with Mr Carter. The applicant was angered by the developments in that dispute on the morning of 15 December 1999 and was very upset at the prospect of a complaint being made against him by Mr Carter, and that Mr Altman would "go witness for Troy". On its assessment of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied, and so finds, that the applicant set out to deliberately provoke a reaction from Mr Altman. Whilst he had not received formal warnings, given that he had been counselled following a prior incident, and the nature of what he was in fact saying, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant knew that suggesting such things to a fellow employee is not conduct condoned in the workplace, and would constitute misconduct.
Two questions remain unresolved however. First, was the conduct such so as to give rise to an immediate risk of serious injury? Secondly, did the applicant have an appreciation of the risk involved in the conduct?
In some instances, it is easy to point to conduct which gives rise to an immediate risk of serious injury. The plaintiff in Hills driving with a blood alcohol level of .21 is such a case. Of course in cases concerning alcohol, one would look in Tribunal proceedings to sub-section 4(13) of the Act in any event. In Re Virasinghe on the other hand, sitting on a backless chair had "no immediate or probable risk of serious injury" (at paragraph 51 therein).
"Serious" has been considered by the Tribunal in Re Elvin and Comcare (1998) 51 ALD 706, wherein Re Grime and Telstra Corporation Ltd (1994) 20 AAR 43 and Fleming v Hutchinson (1991) 66 ALJR 211 were applied. In Re Grime the Tribunal stated (inter alia) at p51:
"…
The Tribunal considers that, to be serious, the impairment must be very considerable, that is to say, more than marked or significant. …
…"

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's conduct, namely, verbally insulting Mr Altman, gave rise to an immediate risk of serious injury and so finds. It certainly gave rise to the risk of a physical reaction, or at least threat of such, but in the context of this case, and given the history of banter between Mr Altman and the applicant, the words spoken by the applicant (which, the Tribunal finds, most probably resemble the version offered by Mr Henderson) are not such that a risk of serious (being "very considerable") injury was apparent.
Whilst the applicant may therefore have had an appreciation of the risk of some reaction which could result in injury, it is not reasonable to conclude that he appreciated a risk of serious injury, as that term is to be understood. As Mr Henderson stated in his evidence, Mr Altman's reaction was "over the top". Indeed it was quite literally "over the top", as he could have simply walked around the desks to confront the applicant, rather than vaulting the desks and partition, an action which resulted in the applicant ending up on the floor.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was aware that Mr Altman had something of a history as a bully, and was involved in martial arts. He also knew him as a friend of Mr Carter, and Mr Carter had previously reacted in an extreme fashion to comments the applicant had made. This state of knowledge is sufficient to sustain the proposition that the applicant might reasonably have appreciated the risk of some physical injury as a result of engaging Mr Altman in the way in which he did. It is not sufficient to sustain the proposition that he could have foreseen the extreme reaction he got. It is only extreme reactions in circumstances like this present matter which would result in serious injury.
Whilst the Tribunal found the applicant to be generally lacking in credit, it does accept his evidence that he first thought that Mr Altman had jumped onto the desk as a joke. He had not foreseen that that would happen, and it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk. It was an action beyond that which was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the applicant's misconduct, and the Tribunal so finds.
decision
For the above reasons, and pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor:
(a)decides that the injury resulting from the incident on 15 December 1999 was not caused by the applicant's serious and wilful misconduct;
(b)remits the matter to the respondent for calculation of compensation payable to the applicant as a result of this injury; and,
(c)pursuant to section 67 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, orders that the respondent pay the applicant's costs. In the absence of agreement between the parties, costs are to be taxed by a District Registrar or Deputy District Registrar and liberty to apply is reserved to both parties.
I certify that the 53 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Personal Assistant
Date/s of Hearing  22 & 23 March 2001
Date of Decision  27 April 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr J. Sabherwal
Solicitor for the Applicant         Gary Robb & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent    Mr D. O'Donovan
Solicitor for the Respondent    AGS