Capan & Capan
[2023] FedCFamC2F 683
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Capan & Capan [2023] FedCFamC2F 683
File number(s): PAC 4897 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE MURDOCH Date of judgment: 1 June 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment - wife’s Application to review a Registrar’s decision to dismiss her Application for Enforcement of final property orders entered into by consent – where the husband raises issues as to service of the Application for Enforcement – where the husband’s conduct has been an impediment to enforcing the final property orders made by consent – where the husband’s legal representatives have sent inflammatory and unhelpful correspondence to the wife – Review upheld – Orders made for wife to be appointed as trustee for sale – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed sum. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s105.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s190.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 rr 1.04, 2.50 11.01(1), 11.04, 11.07.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 Schedule 2.
Cases cited: Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 63 Date of hearing: 1 June 2023 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Lawgix Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Rusiti Solicitor for the Respondent: Shelly Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Giacomo ORDERS
PAC 4897 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR CAPAN
Applicant
AND: MS CAPAN
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE MURDOCH
DATE OF ORDER:
1 JUNE 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Personal service of the Application – Enforcement filed by the Wife on 7 March 2023 upon the Husband is dispensed with.
2. Personal service of the Application for Review filed by the Wife on 26 April 2023 upon the Husband is dispensed with.
3. Leave is granted to the Wife to amend the Application – Enforcement filed on 7 March 2023 and to seek the relief sought in the Minute of Order attached to the Outline of Case (Interim Hearing) filed by the Wife on 31 May 2023.
4. The Application for Review filed by the Wife on 26 April 2023 is upheld and the Orders made by the Judicial Registrar on 5 April 2023 are discharged.
5. By way of enforcement of the final property orders made on 5 September 2022:-
(a)within 21 days the Husband is to vacate the property located at B Street, Suburb C in the state of New South Wales being the whole of the property in certificate of title folio identifier … (“the B Street, Suburb C property”);
(b)the Wife (“the trustee”) be appointed as trustee for the sale of the B Street, Suburb C property;
(c)the trustee be authorised to do all acts and sign all documents necessary to effect the sale, including but not limited to:
(i)selecting an agent to market the property and entering in an agency agreement with said agent;
(ii)setting the listing price and method of sale;
(iii)selecting a solicitor or conveyancer to prepare the contract of sale and undertake the conveyancing;
(iv)accepting an offer of purchase;
(v)signing any document on behalf of the parties required to undertake the above steps.
6. Within 7 days the Husband is to pay the Wife the sum of $1,247.74 by way of repayment of the costs paid by the Wife to the Husband pursuant to the orders of 5 April 2023.
7. That within 28 days the Husband is to pay the Wife’s costs of and incidental to the Application – Enforcement and Application for Review fixed in the sum of $4,830.00.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Capan & Capan has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE MURDOCH
This is an Application for Review filed by the wife on 26 April 2023. The wife seeks to review orders made by a Judicial Registrar on 5 April 2023 dismissing her Enforcement Application arising from final property orders made by consent on 15 September 2022 and making a costs order in the husband’s favour.
The husband by way of the Case Outline filed by his counsel raises various issues with respect to both the Enforcement Application and the Application for Review today.
The husband has not filed any material in response to the Review Application nor the Application for Enforcement save for the Case Outline.
The applicant wife relies on and I have read:
·The Application for Review filed 26 April 2023;
·The Application for Enforcement filed 7 March 2023;
·The Affidavit of the wife filed 7 March 2023; and
·The Outline of Case filed 31 May 2023.
The respondent husband relies on and I have read:
·The Outline of Case filed 31 May 2023.
The husband raises several issues with respect to the wife’s Application for Review. The most efficient manner in which to proceed with this application is to methodically work through them. The interactions and exchanges I have had with Counsel for each of the parties form part of my reasons herein.
SERVICE
The first issue requiring determination is the issue of service of the documents upon the husband.
The Application for Enforcement was forwarded to the husband’s solicitors by way of email on 7 March 2023. The same solicitors who appeared before the Judicial Registrar on 5 April 2023 appear today instructing counsel.
On 14 March 2023 the wife’s solicitor’s forwarded correspondence to the husband’s solicitors requesting confirmation of both the receipt of the Application for Enforcement and enquiring whether the husband could be served via his legal representatives in lieu of the husband having to be personally served.
By way of correspondence dated 15 March 2023, it appears that the response from the husband’s legal representatives, enclosing a copy of the relevant rules as to service, was that the husband was to be personally served.
On 30 March 2023 the wife’s legal representatives’ forwarded correspondence to the husband’s personal email address enclosing a copy of the Application for Enforcement and putting the husband on notice that a process server had been instructed to personally serve him. That correspondence also contained the Microsoft Teams dial in details for the Enforcement Hearing before the Judicial Registrar on 5 April 2023.
The word used by counsel for the wife was ‘extraordinarily’, and I will adopt that term. Extraordinarily, correspondence is then sent from the husband’s solicitor to the wife’s solicitor on 30 March 2023 advising them that communications were not to occur directly from the wife’s solicitor to their client, the husband. I am unsure in those circumstances how the husband’s solicitor imagined that the husband was to be served with the Application for Enforcement. It appears that what the husband was saying was that it was up to the wife to seek dispensation of personal service, with such circumstances arising from the husband’s own position and conduct with respect to service.
The Application for Review was served by way of email to the husband’s solicitor on 26 April 2023 but they were not on record at the time. Counsel for the husband submits that as a result of the husband’s solicitor not having been on the record as at that date, having not filed a Notice of Address for Service as required by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (“the Rules”) when a solicitor obtains instructions to act for a party, that such service by email upon the husband’s solicitor did not constitute effective service pursuant to the Rules.
By way of further background, annexed to the wife’s affidavit is correspondence from the wife’s solicitors to the husband’s former solicitors postdating the final property orders made in this matter. On 30 September 2022, the husband’s prior solicitors advised the wife’s solicitors that they no longer held instructions to act on behalf of the husband and requested that all future correspondence be directed to him.
Then exhibited to the wife’s affidavit is an email from the wife’s solicitors to Ms D, solicitor dated 30 November 2022 raising issues as to the parties’ compliance with the final property orders. Ms D is the current solicitor on record for the husband. Various communications then passed between the current legal practitioners on record for the parties, which discuss both parenting and property issues at length. During the course of such correspondence the husband’s solicitors allege that the wife is not complying with the final property orders and threatens to commence contravention proceedings with respect to same.
I am satisfied in such circumstances that the husband:-
(a)Was aware of the Application for Enforcement filed by the wife and was not unfairly prejudiced in circumstances where he had counsel appear at the listing of the matter before the deputy registrar; and
(b)was aware of the Application for Review listed before the court today in circumstances where he has had counsel appear and filed a Case Outline in support of his position.
I note that the same solicitor and counsel have appeared for the husband on both hearing dates.
The foundations of the Rules of Service are to give adequate notice to a party of an application that may affect them, and to be heard. I am satisfied that the husband has had adequate notice of both the listing of the matter originally before the judicial registrar and the listing of the matter today. The Rules of the court are not to be used as an instrument of injustice.
In these circumstances, I dispense with the requirement for personal service of the Application for Enforcement filed by the wife on 7 March 2023 and the Application for Review filed by the wife on 26 April 2023 upon the husband.
LEAVE TO AMEND THE APPLICATION – ENFORCEMENT
With respect to the application to amend the relief sought in the Application for Enforcement, the husband correctly submits by way of his Case Outline that an application for review of a decision made by a delegated judicial officer is to be heard as an original hearing. It is thus submitted that there is no ability to amend an Application for Review.
The Application for Review is merely a vehicle by which orders made by a delegated judicial officer can be effectively re-litigated and re-heard before a Judge of this court. The proposition contained in the Case Outline of the husband that there is no ability by a party to amend the relief they seek at a review hearing is misconceived as such amendment is sought by way of amending the application that was determined and is the subject of review. Rule 2.50 of the Rules clearly allows a party to amend a document at any time in accordance with an order of the court.
Even if I am wrong, I have the ability to dispense with the Rules. I grant leave to the wife to amend the relief sought by her in her Application for Enforcement filed 7 March 2023 and to move on the orders as set out in the Case Outline of the wife filed 31 May 2023.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The substantive application listed before me today is an Application for Review filed by the wife on 26 April 2023. The wife seeks to review the orders made by a judicial registrar on 5 April 2023.
This court made final orders as to property by consent on 15 September 2022 (“the final orders”). Relevantly for the purposes of today, the orders were:-
1.That the Applicant and Respondent shall forthwith instruct [Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C] to list for sale by private treaty the property-known as and situate at [B Street, Suburb C], in the state of New South Wales, being the whole of the land contained in folio identifier … (herein referred to as "the [B Street, Suburb C] property") at a listing price as agreed between them and shall proceed to a sale of the property at a sale price agreed upon between them and following such sale the proceeds of sale should be applied as follows:-
a. In adjustment of rates including water and council rates on settlement;
b. In payment of agent's commission on sale;
c. In payment of legal and other costs on sale;
d. In payment of any mortgage encumbered against the property;
e. In payment to the Applicant, 52% of the proceeds of sale;
f. In payment of the balance to the Respondent.
2.In the event of any disagreement as to listing price in order to give effect to order 1 above, then the parties shall obtain from the agent with whom the property is at such time listed, a realistic appraisal of the selling price of the property on the basis of an eager but not over anxious vendor and the parties shall then list the property for sale at 105% of that price and shall accept any offer to purchase at that price or 95% thereof.
3.That pending the sale of the [B Street, Suburb C] property, the Respondent is restrained from further encumbering the current mortgage, other than with the written consent of the Applicant.
4.That pending the sale of the [B Street, Suburb C] property, the Applicant and Respondent shall contribute equally to the mortgage repayments.
5.That if either party fails, neglects or refuses to sign or execute any deed, documents or instrument necessary to give effect to these Orders, with such failure to act continuing for seven days, then pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act, a Registrar of the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta shall hereby be empowered, directed and authorised to execute all such documents in the name of the party in default and to do all things and all acts necessary to give validity and operation to the said orders.
On 7 March 2023 the wife filed an Application for Enforcement seeking orders that: –
1.The husband a sign all and any documents provided by [Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C], including but not limited to the agency agreement, to list for sale by private treaty the property known as and situate at [B Street, Suburb C] NSW.
2.That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to this application.
The matter was listed before a judicial registrar on 5 April 2023. Both parties were legally represented on this date by counsel – the same counsel that appears before me today. The husband had not filed any material in response to the wife’s application.
The judicial registrar made orders that:-
·The respondent be granted leave to make an oral application for dismissal of the application – enforcement and costs.
·The Application – Enforcement be dismissed.
·The wife pay the costs of the husband fixed in the sum of $1,247.74 by no later than 4PM on 19 April 2023.
The wife filed an Application for Review of such orders on 26 April 2023.
By way of the Case Outline filed by the wife on 31 May 2023 the wife seeks leave to amend the relief sought by her by way of enforcement and seeks orders:-
1. That orders dated 5 April 2023 be set aside.
2. That within 7 days of the date of these orders the Husband pay to the Wife the sum of $1,247.74 that she has paid to the Husband pursuant to Order 3 of Orders dated 5 April 2023.
3. That the Wife be granted leave to amend her Enforcement Application filed 7 March 2023.
4. That Pursuant to Rule 11.07(e) order 1 of orders dated 5 September 2022 be enforced by way of the following order:
a. Within 21 days the Husband is to vacate the property located at [B Street, Suburb C] in the State of NSW and identified in folio identifier … ("the [B Street, Suburb C] property")
b. That the Wife is appointed the trustee for the parties for the sale of the [B Street, Suburb C] property and is authorised, as trustee, to do all things and sign all documents that are necessary to effect the sale.
5. That the Husband is to pay the Wife's costs of and incidental to:
a. The Application for Enforcement filed 7 March 2023 and
b. This Application for Review.
In support of such relief the wife relies upon the:-
·Application for Review filed 26 April 2023;
·Application – Enforcement filed 7 March 2023;
·Affidavit of the wife filed 7 March 2023; and
·Outline of Case filed 31 May 2023
The husband has not filed any material in response to the wife’s Application for Enforcement nor the wife’s Application for Review. He has however, subsequent to the filing of the wife’s Enforcement Application and Review Application filed an Initiating Application on 11 May 2023 seeking parenting orders. Such application lists Ms D solicitor of LAWGIX as the husband’s legal representatives.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the husband at the hearing filed an Outline of Case document (interim hearing) on 31 May 2023 and I have read that document.
THE LAW
The hearing of an Application for Review of a registrar’s decision is an “original hearing”; that is, the Court will hear the whole matter afresh rather than determining whether the original decision was in error.
Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the husband, section 105 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) is the Court’s source of power as to enforcement. The exercise of this power of enforcement is discretionary.
Chapter 11 of the Rules codifies the processes to be implemented in the enforcement of Orders.
Rule 11.01(1) records the obligations which may be enforced. They are:-
(a)an obligation to pay money;
(b)an obligation to sign a document under section 106A of the Act;
(c)an order entitling a person to the possession of real property; and
(d)an order entitling a person to the transfer or delivery of personal property.
Pursuant to Rule 11.04 a party to the proceedings may enforce an obligation arising from an Order of the Court.
Rule 11.07 sets out the general enforcement powers of the Court. This rule records that the Court may make an Order:-
·in aid of the enforcement of an obligation; or
·to prevent the dissipation or wasting of property; or
·for costs; or
·dismissing an application.
Section 105 of the Family Law Act 1957 (Cth) is the head of power grounding the relief sought by the wife today. Rules of this court do not limit the heads of powers set out in the Act. They codify them.
THE WIFE’S CASE
In circumstances where the husband has not filed any evidence in this application, it is uncontested that:-
·A sealed copy of the final orders were forwarded by way of email to the husband’s legal representatives at the time on 16 September 2022.
·In accordance with the final orders, the parties entered into an agency agreement with Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C (“the agency”).
·Despite receiving advices from the agency that the parties should be able to obtain a sale price of $1,200,000 for the property during the course of the marketing program the highest offer received by the parties to purchase the property was $1,125,000. This offer was not accepted by the husband.
·The wife and children have vacated the property and are currently living in a rented property.
·The husband remains in occupation of the property. The husband has ceased allowing open homes for the property and is allowing prospective purchasers to view the property by appointment only.
·The agency agreement with the agency has now expired.
·Prior to the expiration of the agency agreement, the parties had discussions via text exchange as to the possibility of appointing a different agent.
·The husband has, via his current solicitors, stated in no uncertain terms that he does not consent to the wife attending upon the jointly owned property. One of the examples of how this has been communicated by Ms D, solicitor for the husband, includes the following:-
…It also appears that your client has blatantly disregarded our client’s requests by continuing to work from the matrimonial home daily. As previously communicated, our client does not approve of your client continuing to work from the matrimonial home (his “home”). This is completely unacceptable…
It seems that your client does not wish to resolve the children orders but rather wishes to continue to attempt to provoke our client so as to “get a reaction” from him. Is this because her intentions are to make a claim of domestic violence with a view to taking the children from our client entirely?.... Your client should also immediately leave the matrimonial home and leave all sets of keys to the matrimonial home on the kitchen bench. Your client should not return with a view to gain access whether it be for work purposes or otherwise without written consent from our client.
Put simply, your client cannot have her cake and eat it too. She vacated the property and now wishes to return therefore “work” or to try to provoke a reaction from our client. If she cannot live with our client, then she surely cannot be in the same home for work or any other purposes. There is no logical reason why your client must continue to work from the matrimonial home. If your client cannot work from her new residence then she should make alternative suitable arrangements. Unfortunately, only the children will suffer by your client’s outrageous and irrational behaviour.
Further correspondence from the husband’s solicitors again label the wife’s conduct in the matter as “irrational”.
The tone and tenor of such correspondence from Ms D is most unfortunate and unhelpful in assisting the parties to reach a resolution of the matters between them according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible as mandated by rule 1.04 of the Rules. Subsection (4) states that a party’s lawyer must, in conducting proceedings before this court, not only take into account this duty but assist their client to comply with it. I can only assume that such correspondence was forwarded on instruction.
By return correspondence solicitors for the wife advised the husband’s solicitors that the wife had only attended the property on two occasions subsequent to separation.
On 12 January 2023 the wife’s solicitors forwarded to the husband’s solicitors correspondence advising that the property had not been sold and that the parties had made a mutual decision not to continue with the agent. The wife via such correspondence nominated a different agent to sell the property and requested the husband’s solicitors obtain urgent instructions as to whether the husband agreed to the appointment of the new proposed agent.
A further letter was forwarded by the wife’s solicitor to the husband’s solicitors on 24 January 2023 requesting an urgent response to the prior correspondence and noting that the wife’s capacity to rehouse herself and the children of the relationship is dependent on the financial settlement proceeds. That correspondence notes that the wife could not afford to meet the ongoing expenses associated with the payment of the mortgage over the property exclusively occupied by the husband. Such correspondence clearly put the husband on notice that in the event the husband did not respond by 27 January 2023 the wife would make an application to the court that she be solely responsible for the process of the sale and for the husband to give vacant possession of the property within 14 days. The husband was further put on notice as to costs if such a course of action was necessary.
The correspondence forwarded by the husband’s solicitor to the wife’s solicitor in reply does not respond to the issue of whether the husband consents to the new proposed listing agent but rather suggests that the parties attend mediation to resolve and finalise both parenting matters and discuss how to move forward with the sale of the property.
By way of correspondence of 2 February 2023 the wife’s solicitors advised the husband’s solicitors that the wife did not agree to attend mediation with respect to property issues noting that there are existing final orders with respect to same. It again requested that the husband provide instructions with a view to progressing the sale of the property so as to ensure that the “dispute [is] resolved in an efficient and cost-effective manner.”
On 21 February 2023 the wife advised the husband via their respective legal practitioners that she wished to proceed with the appointment of the agent pursuant to order one of the final property orders and enclosed a copy of the agency agreement for the husband to sign.
By way of correspondence of 24 February 2023 the husband advised the wife via his solicitor:-
·The husband’s position that the orders do not require him “to act in the manner requested by your client.”
·It was the husband’s view that the wife continued to be in breach of order four by continuing to fail making equal payments towards the mortgage and that they held instructions to prepare and file a contravention application. It appears that no such application has been filed.
·Until such time as the wife rectified her alleged breach of the orders the husband would not agree to signing any alternative agency agreement.
·It was the husband’s view that both property and parenting “should be resolved on a final basis.” This of course is a misconception in circumstances where final property issues have been resolved between the parties by consent.
By way of correspondence of 24 February 2023 the wife’s solicitor advised the solicitor for the husband that the wife was not in arrears of the mortgage payments. The husband was then put on notice in the course of this correspondence that should he continue to be in breach of the final property orders and refuse to sign the agency agreement the wife intended to file an Enforcement Application with costs. The wife asserted that that she is under no obligation to mediate the property issues, as there are final orders in place that she intends to comply with. This is the second time the husband was put on notice as to the wife’s intention to file an Application for Enforcement before this court.
Further correspondence was exchanged between the solicitors, which unfortunately did not advance the matter any further. The last correspondence from the husband’s solicitor to the wife’s solicitor of the 24 February 2023 stated the husband’s apparent current position, being that the husband had previously complied with the orders when the parties initially appointed Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C as a selling agent and the orders do not require him to do so again.
The husband again invited the wife to enter into negotiations by way of mediation to progress the sale of the property and the parenting matters at the same time. The husband advised that he would not consent to Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C being appointed again to sell the property and that “just because you have presented an agency agreement does not oblige our client to sign with Real Estate Agent E, Suburb C.”
The submissions of each of the parties’ have been set out in their respective Case Outlines and I have read them.
I do not accept the submissions of the husband. This court will enforce its own orders, especially those made on a consensual basis. Such enforcement will occur with the overriding mandate of the court as set out in section 190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and rule 1.04 of the Rules. I accept that the orders sought by the wife are machinery or mechanical orders to give effect to the final orders for property. They do not seek to change or vary the substantive rights of the parties pursuant to such orders.
These parties agreed to these orders on a final basis – it would not be the case that the husband agreed to the orders with the intention of them not being implemented.
The husband has the benefit of occupation of the former matrimonial home and has in no uncertain terms stated his views as to the wife even attending upon the property in which she has a legal interest. The wife is paying rent for accommodation for herself and the children. The husband submits that the orders are unenforceable yet has brought no application himself to vary or enforce the orders. The husband implicitly wants to take every opportunity to block the final orders – that he consented to – being implemented.
If the husband’s application were granted, it appears that the husband will simply continue to live in the property whilst the wife and children remain out of the property and the wife continues to pay half of the mortgage. This conduct is absent good conscience. It has an element of bad faith.
The court has the power to make orders to enforce its orders and I will do so. The husband has no alternate proposal as a manner in which the property orders can be implemented and enforced.
In light of the evidence before me this court can have no confidence that the husband will comply with the orders for sale of the property in a timely manner. I will thus make orders as sought by the wife including that she be appointed trustee for sale of the property. There is no prejudice to the husband in the orders sought by the wife – he would have to vacate the property upon its sale in any event. As a trustee, the wife has a fiduciary duty to the husband and if she breaches such duty the husband has recourse.
In those circumstances, the order as to costs made by the judicial registrar will be discharged as the husband has been wholly unsuccessful in defending the wife’s application today.
COSTS
Both parties have briefed counsel to appear today. The respective cost notices’ of either party do not state the source of funds but these are property proceedings and there is a property to be sold. In any event, modest or even poor financial circumstances are not determinative of the costs issue (Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141).
It is significant in this matter that the parties have a mandatory obligation pursuant to r 1.04 of the Rules to conduct proceedings in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose of the court, being the just resolution of disputes according to law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. The husband has not acted in a manner consistent with such mandate.
The wife has been wholly successful. The wife’s Application was required to be brought because of the husband’s conduct and I am thus satisfied that a making of a costs order is appropriate and I will make a costs order against the husband fixed in the sum of $4,830. That sum is pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law)Rules 2021 and is comprised of:
·Line 11 being an Application for Enforcement of an Order, 11(a) together with item 11(b) being the daily hearing fee specified in item 13 being the total sum of $2,318.55.
·The daily hearing fee sum of $1,255.75 being the combined sum of both the appearance in court today and before the judicial registrar.
·In circumstances where both parties have briefed counsel I am satisfied that an advocacy loading is appropriate in the sum of $1,255.75
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Murdoch. Associate:
Dated: 1 June 2023
0