Canningdale and Canningdale

[2008] FamCA 397

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANNINGDALE & CANNINGDALE [2008] FamCA 397

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – order affecting a child
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – SHARED PARENTING – With whom a child spends time – Supervision

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: MR CANNINGDALE

RESPONDENT: MRS CANNINGDALE

INDEPENDENT CHILD LAWYER: MS SHEPHERD

FILE NUMBER: NCF 845 of 2004

DATE DELIVERED: 7 May 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: NEWCASTLE

PLACE HEARD: NEWCASTLE

JUDGMENT OF: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR LOUGHNAN

HEARING DATE: 7 May 2008

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT IN PERSON:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: FOWLER PREDNY SOLICITORS

INDEPENDENT CHILD LAWYER: SHARON MOORE SOLICITOR

Orders

1. That the father’s application that the mother be dealt with for contravention of orders affecting a child filed 12 March 2008 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED

1. That the father left the Courtroom prior to the conclusion of the proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. That so much of the parenting orders made on 14 June 2006 as provided for time to be spent between the father and the child … born … June 2001 and for the father to communicate with child be suspended until further order.

1. That within 14 days from today’s date the parents do all things and sign all documents necessary to meet the requirements for supervised time of the Rainbow Centre at Broadmeadow and that subject to the requirements of that Centre and the availability of that Centre there be time spent between the father and the child, day only, once a week at that Centre.

1. That pending commencement of any supervised time which may be delayed as a result of any waiting period at the Rainbow Centre or as a substitute for that time, provided the parties meet all of the requirements of Ms W and subject to her availability there shall be such supervised time between the father and the child as the parties and Ms W can agree upon and if available up to one occasion a week, day only.

IT IS NOTED

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer will explore the appointment of an expert to report on the parties and the child for the purposes of the final proceedings.

1. The father advised the Court today that he would not take part in time with the child that had to be supervised and would not co-operate in any further expert’s report.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. Leave to either party and to the Independent Children's Lawyer to restore the matter to the list in relation to any application to fix the proceedings for an undefended hearing or otherwise in relation to the matter.

1. That the application for a recovery order filed 24 January 2007 and the mother’s application for interim orders filed 21 December 2007 are otherwise dismissed.

1. The proceedings in relation to the appointment of a single expert and any further directions in relation to the final hearing are adjourned to the Judicial Registrar’s Duty List at 10:00 am on 4 June 2008.

1. That a sealed copy of these orders be forwarded to the father at his address for service by the Independent Children's Lawyer within 7 days from today’s date.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Canningdale & Canningdale is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT  NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER:  NCF845 OF 2004

MR CANNINGDALE

Applicant

And

MRS CANNINGDALE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings that the mother be dealt with for contravention of Court orders.  The application was filed on 12 March 2008, was first returnable on 22 April 2008 and subsequently adjourned to today's date. The application contains one allegation. It is alleged that on 23 November at 3 pm at M School somebody removed the child, from school to stop contact without reasonable excuse.  Out of that an allegation was put to the mother along the lines that she contravened without reasonable excuse orders of 14 June 2006 in she removed the child from the school on that day". The mother did not admit the allegation.

2. The issue of service was conceded and knowledge of the orders was conceded.  It was not conceded that the orders required time to be spent with the father on that day and it was not conceded that the mother removed the child from the school on that day.

3. The father relied on an affidavit sworn 20 February 2008. The husband does not assert that there was any agreement between the mother and himself to change the orders.  The orders are nice and clear.  They were made by a Judge of this Court and involve a very extensive graduated programme.  After the second term 2007, Order 5.7.1 provides:

   Commencing on the first weekend of each term on the alternate weekend from after school Friday until 5.30pm Sunday.

4. The evidence would be that the last school term in 2007 commenced on 15 October 2007. That meant that the commencing weekend for that term was 19 October 2007, which meant that the next weekend after that was the 2^nd of November, the next weekend after that was the 16th, and the next weekend after that was the 30th November.  Therefore under the orders, 23 November 2007 was not a commencement date for the father to spend time with the child.

5. In oral evidence the father said that he understood or recalled there being an agreement made either prior to the October holidays or during the October holidays, between himself and the mother, to change the date. He recalled that it was an arrangement to suit the convenience of the mother.  He has no written record about that agreement, even though the parties were in regular SMS contact throughout the period.  The mother gave evidence that she does not recall any such agreement. 

6. These are serious proceedings. The penalties include gaol and a fine. For that reason the Evidence Act requires that a finding of fact be made at something more than the bare balance of probabilities.

7. The onus of proving the case falls to the father and in these circumstances he has not made the case.

8. Turning to the parenting issue, these are proceedings in relation to a child who was born in June 2001 and is 6 years and 11 months of age.

9. The mother is 34.  I do not know how old the father is. They started to live together in about 1997, were married in November 2003 and separated on 12 January 2004.  I think there were AVO proceedings in the Kurri Kurri Local Court in about March 2005.

10. A potted version of the history of proceedings, just looking at the appearance sheets from the file has an application first filed on 20 September 2004 by the mother seeking parenting orders which included two hours a week supervised for the father. By consent orders were made on 12 December 2004 for the child to live with the mother and have contact with the father each Saturday 9.30 to 2.30 and at other times.  On 29 June 2005 the mother sought interim variation; largely in relation to the costs of giving effect to contact and there was reference to some concerns in relation to violence. There was no specificity about the concerns and there was evidence about the relevant history. On 24 August 2005, a Judicial Registrar made orders for the appointment of an Independent Child Lawyer and for supervised time with the father. On 21 September 2005 a Judicial Registrar continued the orders for supervision but provided for an airlock arrangement for the drop off and collection so the parties did not come together at handover.  On 19 October 2005, the matter was adjourned to December. In December 2005, there was a contravention application, I think by the father, stood over generally and an order was made for the father to have time unsupervised, but handover at the Rainbow Centre for time between 9.30 am and 3.30 pm on alternate Saturdays. 

11. On 14 June 2006, Waddy J made orders which started with 8.30am to 4.30pm on a Saturday and graduated over time to alternate weekends from after school Friday to the start of school on Monday. The program was graduated every three months or so for a while. The first overnight was to commence on 8 September 2006. Then on 17 August 2006 a Judicial Registrar made some orders to restrain a payment to the husband of compensation moneys paid in respect of a compensable injury incurred in November 2001.  Those orders were continued the next day. Then on 12 September, a Judicial Registrar froze $30,000 of the fund. On 14 September a Judicial Registrar released another $10,000. I assume that left $20,000 frozen. 

12. On 23 October 2006 a Judicial Registrar dismissed two applications for interim settlement of property. On 7 February 2007 a Judicial Registrar made some notations and it was recorded that the father intended to apply to have the conditions of an AVO varied to allow the parenting arrangements under the  orders to continue. 

13. On 5 March 2007, final settlement of property was achieved in terms of orders made by a Judicial Registrar, by consent.  On 21 December 2007, the mother had an application before the Court to suspend time between the father and the child and have supervised arrangements. The father sought to restore an application for recovery, which had been filed nearly a year beforehand. Those applications were adjourned to 29 January 2008 and an Independent Child Lawyer appointment was restored. 

14. The matter was not ready at the end of January. I think what had happened was that the father had not returned the questionnaire material from the Independent Child Lawyer, so the Independent Child Lawyer was not ready. I noted on the yellow sheet that the father stormed out of the Court room before the end of the proceedings on that day.  On 10 March 2008 my colleague had an application for contravention before him. It was dismissed and the matter was adjourned in relation to the remaining issues to 11 March 2008. On 11 March 2008 there was no appearance for the father.  The order current parenting orders involving time between the child and the father, was suspended and the matter was adjourned to these sittings. 

15. Somehow the matter came back before my colleague on 22 April 2008 and it was adjourned, marked Not Reached, to today.

16. The parties have both appeared.  The mother is represented, the father is unrepresented. The father's application for contravention was dealt with by me this morning and dismissed. I stood the matter in the list and identified some documents and put the matter over to this afternoon.  The father indicated that he would not be back and stormed out of the Court room before lunch.  In fact he did come back and there has been a hearing in relation to the interim arrangements for the child.

THE EVIDENCE

1. The father filed no more evidence than his affidavit of February 2008 filed in aid of the contravention application. It is a fairly incoherent document, it must be said.  The gist of it is that there has been a major breakdown, he says, by the mother stopping time between himself and the child. One of the things he highlights is the fact of a without prejudice letter 19 December 2007 whereby, the mother offered to forget the debt in relation to the property settlement orders if the father went away and did not pursue his application to see the child.  Whatever one might say about that, it is certainly an indication that the mother has no interest in fostering a relationship between the child and the father.

2. I was asked to read two reports, the one that was before his Honour in 2006 and a more recent one of 4 April 2008. The mother's evidence relates to a number of problems that have persisted for some considerable time.  She says, although she does not give the details: "That since the orders were made the father spent time with the child but not in accordance with the orders.  Sometimes the father has [the child] from after school Friday until Sunday evening, sometimes on a Saturday, sometimes Friday evening and part of Saturday.  Often" she says: "He's rung her up and said 'come and get [the child] now'."  He contacts her on a regular basis by text, "either at my workplace or on [the child’s] mobile phone and often sends abusive messages". 

3. On 6 November at 7.03 am the following message was received on the child's mobile phone: "Your orders fuck them if it makes you happy.  I want to see here at all so you and [E] can spend all the time in the world with [the child] so fucking leave me alone" and then later that day: "What part of this do you not understand.   You have your wish your orders fuck them if it makes you happy.  I want to see here at all so you and [E] can spend all the time in the world with [the child] so fucking leave me alone" and the mother says that the father's texting is a bit awry, she thinks what he meant by that was, he did not want to see the child at all so that the mother and E (I assume that E might be the mother's partner) can get on with their lives. 

4. And then there is some odd evidence.  This morning I found that the father could not establish that in the sequence of events under the orders, he was to have time with the child on 23 November. The mother’s evidence is not precisely inconsistent with that finding, but it is suggestive. However, the father did not raise it, and the evidence was not before me. The mother says that she contacted the father on his mobile phone on or about 8 November and said: "Are you getting [the child] from school on Friday or not?". 8 November was a Saturday, the next Friday was the 16th, so that is consistent with the findings made earlier. Then on 26 November, that is the weekend that the mother says was not the father's time with the child, she says: "On 26 November, having spent time with the father, [the child] was not her usual bouncy self". The evidence is confusing but not entirely contradictory. 

5. Then the mother says that after that weekend the child said to her: "I don't like it at Dad's I don't want you to make me go there again.  When Dad's going to have a shower he comes into my room and tells me, and he just has a towel on.  When he gets out of the shower he walks around the house with no clothes on, he gets me to come out of my room.  I don't like it when Dad doesn't have any clothes on. [The child] has also told me Daddy smokes funny smoking cigarettes in the house and then he acts really weird".  She says: "The child bursts into tears if she mentions the father.  I hate it when Dad yells at you".

6. Then there is the mother’s evidence from February 2007.  The father turned up at her home at 1.30 pm on 23 December: "Get [the child] out here now, you've got five minutes to get her out here or the cops will come and get her.  The cops are listening to everything we say, so be careful".  The child says: "I don't want to go with Daddy".  The mother says she tried to encourage her. The mother’s evidence is that the father wasn't to see the child on Christmas Day.  She says: "[The child] had a present, so we decided we would deliver it to him.” The mother says she drove with her flatmate, to the father's home. The child knocked on the door and said: 'Daddy it's me I have a present for you'. The mother says that the father did not open the door but called out with words to the effect: 'You and your daughter can piss off'.  The child left the present on the ground, she was upset. She said: 'Why did Daddy say that?  Why didn't he want my present?" and so on.  Later on the child received a message: 'I don't want you, I want your mother'," and the mother says she covered up, saying that the father wanted to say sorry. Thereafter the child avoided phone calls from the father. 

7. The mother's mother said that: "The father came to the home yelling and carrying on, demanding that [the child] go with him, [the child] wouldn't go, she ran out of the house, locked herself in the car, wouldn't get out until he left".  Her flatmate said: "[The father] came here looking for [the child], he wouldn't go away, he just kept shouting at me, he told me that I'd be on life support by the end of the night, I was really scared, I rang the police; they're taking out an AVO for me". 

8. From the mother’s affidavit of 16 January 2008 there are several occasions when, the mother says: "When the father says he's not going to collect [the child], then he turns up at the school anyway.  Each time this occurs, the father abused me saying words to the effect: 'Where's my fucking daughter, she's supposed to be here.  You'd better make sure she's ready when I get there'," and so on. The mother says that the father dropped the child off at 3 pm on 5 March 2007.  The child was upset and crying.  So there is a history of a number of things that have happened since the orders were made.

9. The original Family Report recorded: "No current AVO's in place".  The mother's opinion was that the father was trying to be controlling, trying to control her life.  Talked about the occasions that he had assaulted her.  She told the Report Writer that he had been arrested and jailed for six months for assault on her for breaching an AVO.  She told the psychologist that he had always had problems, but it was not until he witnessed an accident at work that he saw a counsellor and a psychiatrist.  She said that they had reconciled on a number of occasions and indeed I think she married him soon after he was released from prison.  There was a level of ambivalence the report writer noted the mother conceding that she was afraid of the father and may well have loved him.

10. The father was at that time taking antidepressant medication.  He said he had improved a lot over the previous 12 to 18 months having contact with his daughter.  He got himself better for his daughter.  He has other stresses in his life, his financial situation, no job, a Newstart allowance and so on.  He said that the mother had brought the child to visit him when he was in jail.  He told the report writer about the incident that gave rise to his incarceration:  "He and [the mother] had a verbal argument, she slammed the door then the door hit him on the feet, bounced back and hit her on the face.  He said he was charged with assault and sentenced within a two week period".  That does not sound quite right I must say.  I would not have thought that those facts would lead to six months jail. He told the report writer he had been diagnosed with both depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

11. The report writer notes that the parents have experienced quite a conflict-filled relationship. There has been family violence in their relationship.  (I think that means the father's assault on the mother) and unfortunately the child has witnessed conflict between her parents.  The father is still on medication for depression, he does seem to be dealing reasonably well with his mental health condition and his life circumstances this time.  He believed that his mental health has improved considerably.  The father needed to go on a course and then the report writer recommended a regime that lead to significant overnight time.  Then there is the subsequent report of April. There are very nice observations made in that report. It was made in the context of the father not seeing the child for five months. The child told the report writer: "I don't want to see my Dad".  The child engaged very nicely with the mother. As soon as the mother left the room and the father entered, the child gave the father a kiss and a hug at his request.  They comfortably engaged in a range of activities which include a doll's house, puppet show, cars, play dough.  The child actively sought the father's involvement in all the activities she was engaged in, they interacted well. The only negative comment relates to a number of occasions when the father asked the child direct questions about her current living arrangements and or spending time with the father. The child either responded by saying: "I don't know", provide monosyllabic responses or redirect the father to a different activity.  The father did not appear to pick up on these cues and continued with the particular line of commentary regardless of the non-responses of the child.  Big hug at the end, no distress from the child as the father left the room.  Overall the observation indicated the child maintains a positive relationship with the father.  The child said to the report writer:  that she didn't want to see the father in the future, “he gets so angry some times when he sees my Mum, he gets angry at Mum, he yells on the phone at my Mum, even when my Mum sees my Dad he yells, her Mum's sad about that".  However, the child said that her father “is never angry at me".  She said: "You know my Daddy smokes in a funny pipe and he asked me to go away, he doesn't have much things there to eat, only cheese or chips".  She gets bored when she's with him.  "I just sit in my room".  The report writer says that the child’s views shouldn't be given significant weight because of her age.

THE FATHER'S EMOTIONAL STATE

1. The father told the report writer that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a serious depression for a number of years.  This resulted in two suicide attempts and the father being described with anti-depressants.  The father reported that he ceased the use of anti-depressants approximately eight months ago. He had previously seen a psychologist, however due to financial limitations he was not currently doing so.  The father agreed to seek assistance from his General Practitioner for a referral to his Psychologist.  The writer had two telephone conversations with the father prior to the assessment interview. 

2. Throughout these conversations, the father was openly hostile towards the report writer and the father appeared unable to appropriately manage his emotions. Ultimately the telephone calls concluded with the father hanging up on the writer. On the day of the assessment interview the father presented as making a considerable effort to control his anger and frustration.  He remained almost entirely focused on the mother's manipulation of the child and his perception that there is a systematic bias in the Family Court in the mother's favour.

3. All parties report the child has been witness to physical and verbal violence between the parents pre-separation and significant verbal conflict post-separation. The father denied that he has assaulted the mother, blamed the mother for the assaults: "She put me in jail", or professed that he could not remember them. He also claims there has not been any verbal violence between the parties for at least two years. The mother says the opposite: "It happens in front of the child".  The mother says the father is using drugs, the father denies it.

4. It was noted that whilst ever the child was spending no time with the father the child is not spending time with the extended paternal family.  The report writer caveats the report with the statement: "This isn't a full assessment and one should refer back to the 2006 report for a full assessment, if only because there is no interview of the significant other people in the child' life. It is of concern that both the parent's emotional state directly inhibits their ability to focus on the needs of [the child] to have a positive relationship with both parents.  A positive relationship for [the child] with both parents can only be achieved if there is no opportunity for parental conflict including changeover and telephone conversation.  If the mother is able to protect the child from her own emotional states and if the father is able to effectively able to manage his emotions when he has the child.  If these conditions do not occur it seems likely that the ongoing difficulties in the arrangements for the child to spend time with the father. 

5. It is recommended that if the Court finds there have not been any significant changes in the child's circumstances since the orders were made on 14 June 2006, that those orders continue contingent upon the mother; (a) continuing to promote a relationship for the child with the father and complying with any Court Order for the child to spend time with the father and; (b) the father attending upon a psychologist for ongoing therapeutic treatment and the father complying with any direction from either his psychologist or treating medical practitioner.

6. The report writer recommended changeovers occur directly to and from the school.

Submissions

1. The Independent Child Lawyer says that while further assessment are made there should be fully supervised time, either at the Rainbows Centre. Because there would be delays in getting that happen, or in any event, because it might be available through a former consultant here, Ms W, who offers I think, a one on one supervision service.

2. The father wants the orders restored and all of the time back, the six months he lost, both block time and weekends back.

3. It is such a sad case and it highlights the cruelty of some psychological conditions.  Here we have parents who on the face of it love their daughter very much.  The father has suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and those conditions pre-date the breakdown of this relationship. It is likely that those conditions have not been helped by the breakdown of this relationship. They have not been helped by the interruption in the child's time with the father. It may even be, and it is likely, that it is good for the father to have time with the child. This little girl has maintained a positive relationship with the father despite all she has seen and heard. She thinks that her father hurts her mother, says awful things to the mother. Sometimes she’s bored when with him and he does things that she does not like. Through all that she's maintained a positive relationship with him.

4. The real issue is whether his condition enables his interaction with this child to be a positive thing for her.  There has been reference to suicidal ideation, there has been, there is certainly evidence of chaotic behaviour by the father. Even in so confined a circumstance as a Courtroom. The father cannot sit quietly if he is asked to. He cannot stay in the court room if the frustration builds up. He has poor impulse control in the terms that is used by the psychologist. There is some evidence in the subpoenaed material that his relationships post-separation are not all that smooth and sound.  He has had a relationship with a Ms H who I think he told the police is a person working as a prostitute, I think that is the gist of it, I may be wrong, and he said that he was trying to do something about helping her leave that lifestyle. There are a number of reports involving him reporting a threat by Ms H and she has made a complaint against him. In each case the father and Ms H walked away when the police were ultimately called and they did not pursue it. He told the police that the person of interest, that is Ms H, had said she was going to kill him and his family which he told the police includes his daughter, the child, who is 6 years of age.  The person of interest has also threatened him on numerous other occasions.  The father stated that the person of interest is a prostitute and has many connections which he believes could carry out the threats made by the person of interest.  The father told the police he has received numerous text messages from the person of interest stating that she wanted her property back and so on and there is another incident where he said she stole something, the police discovered it, and in doing so discovered some drugs on Ms H. In relation to each complaint there was no witness and no one willing to prosecute the matter. However those facts do not speak of a stable, comfortable relationship.

5. There is a problem with where the father lives. I do not know what the situation was in the original orders, but he is a Caretaker and he lives at work.  I would be surprised if his Honour made orders in 2006 whereby the father could have overnight time without there being known accommodation for that time.  That would surprise me. In circumstances like this the parties are entitled to know where a child is overnight. The father was even coy about it today, he gave evidence that he his work address is … Road.  I do not know how long … Road is, but it must have half the vineyards in the Hunter Valley in it. So it is something short of an identifiable street address.

6. Next there is the business about his Psychologist.  He told the report writer in April that he would be getting a referral back to his Psychologist.  The evidence would be, I think, from the Independent Child Lawyer, that the father has been saying various things in relation to questions she has asked trying to get a treating report from the psychologist and he says today that he has not seen his psychologist for nine months ‘ “because he is well”.  That is not what he told the report writer in April; he said he would be going to see the Psychologist. It is trite to say that somebody who suffers serious depression and who has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder is not the best person to give conclusive evidence about their own mental health.  It is possible that despite his very labile presentation, his short temper and lack of impulse control that he functions at an acceptable level.  He is not in jail, he apparently holds down a job. If he acted as he did in Court on a couple of times that I have seen him and he apparently acted in front of the mother, in other situations, he would end up in serious trouble. So it may be that it is just something that bubbles up in the very tense circumstances of these proceedings and that he otherwise functions at an acceptable level and would be able to control himself if he had time with the child. 

7. He was not quite able to do that in April. The report writer observed this interrogation of the child about some things that seemed to the Psychologist to be inappropriate and did not pick up the cues from his daughter. I cannot get to the bottom of that.  On the face of it we have the foundation of an ongoing, loving relationship between a father and a child which survived so serious a thing as five months complete separation. That is a great tribute to the mother. It is certainly a tribute to the child and it may well be a tribute to the father.

8. Nevertheless I cannot at this stage just put back the orders in place as if all was well.  There have been a number of problems, some of them may have been contributed to by the father, perhaps by the mother but they have gone wrong.  There have been real changes, the change of school and then back again, separation from the father, lots of conflict witnessed by the child, the horror of these awful messages sent through the child's telephone.  I hasten to say there is no evidence that the child read the messages but what sort of a person would do that? There have been significant changes since his Honour put this regime in place and the best we can do, I think, is to start again, put back in place some time, circumscribed though it may be, and then get some expert evidence.  I agree entirely with Ms Shepherd. I think the report from the treating Psychologist, is simply something that would be part of the inquiry to be made by the court expert.

9. I have my doubts whether ideally, this is a case that would be dealt with by a clinical psychologist. There is such a pathology, certainly in the father and there are some concerns about whether the mother has over reacted or not. The suggestion from her solicitor’s letter that: "I'll buy you off and you never see the girl again". That seems to be an act of considerable desperation and completely inimical to the obligations of the mother under the legislation. There is a job of work to be done here, whether it is a job for a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist I will leave that in the hands of the Independent Child Lawyer.  It might even be a case where the parties are put to travelling to Sydney for those interviews. Rather confusingly the father expressed a willingness to go to Sydney for the case but an absolute abhorrence and unwillingness to undertake supervision or any further report writing.  Putting a positive spin on that, he said things in the past: That he won't see his daughter again, that he won't take part in the proceedings, and he changed his mind. Let us hope that is the case here.

10. So going forward we plan for more evidence, in the medium term supervised time, as much day only time as the Rainbows Centre can manage, I think that the best of that will be one day a week, day only. In the interregnum before that can be arranged, if the father is interested and at his cost, there could be some time supervised by Ms W, if she is available.  The father said he was not going to take part in meeting the Rainbow Centre's requirements. I think we put those arrangements in place. He can take them up. If he does not want to take them up, then providing he stays interested in the proceedings, we will proceed to expert reports and see where we get to.  If the father demonstrates, for the time being, an unwillingness to go through those processes then it might be that there is an application made to discontinue the proceedings. I suppose in the first instance we will see if he can cooperate by attending on any expert.

I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judicial Registrar Loughnan.

Associate: 

Date:  10 June 2008