Ceric and Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd (Compensation)

[2017] AATA 1448

Ceric and Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd (Compensation) [2017] AATA 1448 (13 September 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2013/2063

Re:Amir Ceric

APPLICANT

AndProsegur Australia Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President J W Constance

Date:13 September 2017

Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision made 7 March 2013, being the decision of Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd that on 4 August 2012 Mr Ceric had no entitlement to compensation for medical expenses or for incapacity payments in respect of an injury which occurred on 24 May 2012, is set aside.

The matter is remitted to Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd for reconsideration of Mr Ceric’s entitlement to compensation under section 16 and section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in accordance with these reasons for decision.

Within 14 days of the date of this decision each party may apply to the Tribunal for directions in relation to costs. Should such an application not be made Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd shall pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the Applicant.

.......................................[sgd].................................

Deputy President J W Constance

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION – injury – back strain – liability accepted – whether ceased to suffer the effects of the injury – compensation for medical treatment – compensation for incapacity – decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration

LEGISLATION

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 16, 19

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance

13 September 2017

A.    INTRODUCTION

1. Mr Ceric has applied to the Tribunal to review a decision made by his employer, Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd (Prosegur), in these proceedings. The decision relates to a back and neck injury suffered by Mr Ceric when he was working as a security guard delivering cash to banks and automatic teller machines.

2. On 27 September 2012 Prosegur accepted liability to compensate Mr Ceric under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of an injury, being “musculo-ligamentous back strain” suffered on 24 May 2012. At the same time Prosegur determined that by 4 August 2012 Mr Ceric had ceased to suffer the effects of the injury.   Prosegur stopped paying Mr Ceric compensation in respect of the injury.[1]

   [1] Exhibit R2 p.9.

3. On 7 March 2013 Prosegur affirmed its determination that by 4 August 2012 the injury had resolved and at that time no further compensation was payable.[2]

   [2] Exhibit R1 p.112.

4. For the reasons which follow the reviewable decision will be set aside. It will be decided that from 4 August 2012 until 30 November 2016, compensation is payable to Mr Ceric in respect of medical expenses and incapacity for work in accordance with the Act.

   B.   BACKGROUND

5. Unless stated otherwise the findings of fact in these reasons have been made on the basis of the evidence of Mr Ceric.  He provided a statement dated 9 July 2012 to his employer following his injury.[3]

   [3] Exhibit R2 p.43.

6. Mr Ceric is 52 years old. He has been employed as a security guard by Prosegur or its predecessor since 2001.

7. In his statement Mr Ceric described his duties at the time of his injury as follows:

   5.I am paid hourly and my week fluctuates between 40 to 60 hours.

   …

   7.We always work in pairs in the truck and another person in a car as an escort vehicle. It depends on the morning as to whether you drive the car, or are a passenger.

   8.The two of us in the truck will get out of the truck at our jobs and the person in the car will watch us from a distance.

   9.If I am doing the transaction work I will deal with the customer while my buddy is my guard. It is vice versa depends on the day.

   10.To be in cash in transit you must have a security licence, firearms licence and accreditation. Training is provided for using a firearm every year.

   11.I also have to have a truck licence as well. I have all these licences and accreditation.

   12.When I started with [Prosegur] I did a 6 day induction course in Lane Cove. This covered OH&S and day to day running of our jobs.[4]

   I accept Mr Ceric’s evidence in this regard.

   [4] Exhibit R2 p.44.

8. Prior to 24 May 2012 Mr Ceric had suffered significant injuries on two occasions.  These occurred as follows:

   13.In 2006 I was filling the bin inside the truck and I dropped a bundle of coins. I was in a position where I was bending over. Mechanically I tried to grab the bundle before it hit the floor and I felt a click in my back. Later on I was diagnosed with 3 torn discs and a pinched nerve. I was off work and had rehabilitation. Slowly I returned back to work.

   14.In 2008 when I travelled to work at Heathcote I aquaplaned and had a car accident and I was injured. My passenger was alright. I had 6 broken ribs, a squashed right lung and light concussion. I was airlifted to Wollongong Hospital and was in intensive care. Slowly I came back to work. I was cleared on full duties but I always maintained a problem with my ribs, especially now that I have to wear a bullet proof vest. [5]

   [5] Exhibit R2 pp. 44-45.

9. I am satisfied that the circumstances of Mr Ceric being injured on 24 May 2012 were as follows:

   15.On 24 May 2012 I had to service an ATM in a convenience store in Carlton. I was the transactioner this day. I had a guard standing next to the ATM which was next to the main entry of the shop. The truck was parked opposite the entry door. I told the driver that while he prepared the ATM boxes I would go outside and look after the front of the machine.

   16.There is a main trap within the truck which is used for dangerous areas. Carlton is classified as a dangerous area. Once you are outside of the truck you have to arm the vehicle and then when you press the button it opens the door on the back left side of the truck. There are two steps. When you walk in that door there is no room to turnaround and you have to swipe your fingerprints to get through the next door. You must go up the steps to open the next door.

   17.Once you get in the second door you are in the truck. Then the second person can enter the truck as well. We enter the truck to empty the money from our bins.

   18.I was working with Pedro De Silva on this day. I was doing a double run this day.

   19.I had started that day at 6am in the morning. I got to Carlton at about 4.30pm in the afternoon.  This was my last job for the day.

   20.Our truck was parked on an angle due to the road. I had finished emptying the bins within the truck and was leaving the truck. When I opened the first door the door opened towards myself. I went onto the step and had to shut the door behind me. The doors are very heavy and you have to be very careful. Also because we were on an angle I had to be very careful. I closed the first door and pressed the button to open the outside door. I was then ready to leave the truck.

   21.It was pouring rain that day and still raining. I went to step down off the truck and I slipped and I ended up with my feet going over the bottom step and landed on the footpath. I leaned backwards so I would not hit my head on the ground. When my feet hit the ground I felt pain in my lower back and my neck. I was holding myself on the handle of the door. I had skipped one full step and the movement jarred my back.

   22.The driver was in the truck and the escort was standing next to the ATM. The escort person was Damien Murphy. He was standing about a metre and half in front of me. He asked me if I was ok. I said that I had just slipped over the stair and had a pain my back.

   23.Damien then asked me again if I was ok and whether I wanted him to call an ambulance. I thought it would cause a lot of problems to call an ambulance as I had prohibited items on me. I said we should just finish the job and go home.

   24.I had some panadol which I got from Pedro.

   25.I was wearing my full work uniform with the shoes supplied by the company.

   26.We went back to the depot. The bouncing in the truck made my back worse. I did complain a fair bit about the pain. [6]

   [6] Exhibit R2 pp.45-46.

10. Mr Ceric consulted his General Practitioner, Dr Gaing, the following day.  She arranged for his back to be x-rayed that day.   He again consulted Dr Gaing on 30 May 2012.  At that time he was suffering pain in his lower back and his thighs and in his neck and right arm.  He also felt “pins and needles” in his legs.[7]

    [7] Exhibit R2 p.48.

11. On 25 May 2012 Dr Gaing certified Mr Ceric to be unfit for work until 8 June 2012.[8]  She issued further certificates to which I shall refer later in these reasons.  Mr Ceric has not worked since the day of the accident.

    12.

    [8] Exhibit R2 p.80.

    C.   LEGISLATION

12. Subsection 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) provides:

    (1)  Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

13. Subsection 16(1) provides:

    (1)  Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.

    Note:  Compensation is not payable under this subsection in relation to certain defence‑related claims (see Division 2A of Part XI).

14. Subsection 19(2) provides in part:

    (2)  Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay to the employee in respect of the injury, for each week that is a maximum rate compensation week during which the employee is incapacitated, an amount of compensation worked out using the formula …. [set out in the subsection].

15. The relevant provisions of the Act which refer to Comcare apply to Prosegur as a licensee under the Act.

    D.   REVIEW OF DECISION TO CEASE PAYMENTS FOR INCAPACITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES IN RELATION TO THE BACK AND NECK INJURY

16. Section 14 of the Act provides for a determination as to whether Prosegur is liable to pay compensation for a claimed injury. Section 16 sets out the circumstances in which compensation is payable for medical expenses obtained in relation to an accepted injury. This section requires Prosegur to consider each expense claimed and to make a decision whether or not compensation is in fact payable. Similarly section 19 requires Prosegur to decide upon the compensation payable for each claimed period of incapacity.

17. The Act does not require Prosegur to revisit the original decision to accept liability to compensate Mr Ceric made under section 14 when deciding that compensation is no longer payable under section 16 and/or section 19.

    THE ISSUES

18. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and it must take into account all of the evidence before it.  The issues I must decide follow.

    (a)Has Mr Ceric any entitlement to compensation for medical expenses incurred in relation to the compensable injury on, or at any time since, 4 August 2012?

    (b)Has Mr Ceric any entitlement to incapacity payments at any time on or since 4 August 2012, in relation to the compensable injury?

    EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

    Evidence of Mr Ceric

19. At the hearing Mr Ceric said that :

    ·he has constant pain in his neck;

    ·he has persistent pain in his back which is not as bad as his neck;

    ·he takes medication to relieve the pain;

    ·the pain in his neck is much the same as it was following the accident;

    ·the pain in his back is less than it was after the accident.[9]

    I accept this evidence.

    [9] Transcript 10/07/17 pp.39-40.

    Evidence of Dr Gaing, General Practitioner

20. Dr Gaing was Mr Ceric's general practitioner from August 2007 until January 2014 when he moved away from the area of her practice.  She provided a report dated 30 August 2012 and gave evidence.

21. When Mr Ceric consulted Dr Gaing on 25 May 2012 she noted that he was in “quite severe pain”.  She prescribed Endone (morphine) for pain relief and Fenac, an anti-inflammatory. Mr Ceric had been prescribed Fenac previously, but not Endone.[10] 

    [10] Transcript 10/07/17 p.61.

22. On 30 August 2012 Dr Gaing reported in part:

    Mr Amir Ceric has work related accident causing severe pain in neck and back since 24/5/2012. His condition is not get [sic] better and he is in severe pain with stiffness of neck and lumbar spine.[11]

    [11] Exhibit R2 p.105.

23. Dr Gaing issued certificates that Mr Ceric was unfit for work as a result of the accident for the period 24 May 2012 until 31 March 2013.[12]

    Radiology

    [12] Exhibit R2.

    X-ray whole spine 30 May 2012

24. Dr Adler reported:

    In the cervical region vertebral alignment is broadly normal. There is some narrowing at the C4/5 and C5/6 disc spaces. Foraminal narrowing of mild degree is present at C5/6 on the right.

    …… No significant abnormality of the lumbar spoken [sic].[13]

    [13] Exhibit R2 p.81.

    CT scans of cervical and lumbar spine 17 July 2012

25. Dr Modi reported:

    There is no significant central canal stenosis at all levels. There is minor osteophytic encroachment of the right C5/6 neural foramen causing mild narrowing.

    Small left foraminal disc protrusion at L4/5 causing moderate narrowing of the left L4 neural foramen.[14]

    [14] Exhibit R2 p.90.

    MRI of cervical and lumbar spine 8 August 2012

26. Dr Petersen reported, in part:

    MRI CERVICAL SPINE

    …

    C5/6 is the level with the most likelihood of nerve root impingement where there is moderate to marked right and moderate left exit foraminal narrowing due to uncovertebral joint degenerative change…

    MRI LUMBAR SPINE

    …

    L4/5 left far lateral protrusion with annular which touches the exiting left L4 nerve root.

    L5/S1 small to moderate posterocentral disc protrusion with annular tear which may almost touches the descending nerve root.[15]

    [15] Exhibit R2 pp.100-101.

    Evidence of Dr Sheehan, Occupational Health, Safety & Rehabilitation Consultant

27. Doctor Sheehan examined Mr Ceric on 23 December 2014 at the request of his Solicitors.  He provided reports dated 6 January 2015[16] and 20 March 2017[17] and gave evidence.

    [16] Exhibit R2 p.129.

    [17] Exhibit R2 p.150.

28. On 6 January 2015 Dr Sheehan reported, in part:

    In my opinion what happened to the subject at that time caused him to injure his neck for the first time based upon the Past History which he provided and that correspondence and documentation which have been forwarded.

    In fact Mr Ceric is believed to have sustained a significant musculoligamentous strain involving his cervical spine but more importantly a severe aggravation of pre-existing and until his accident asymptomatic degenerative changes in his neck.

    In order to appreciate the severity of the latter injuries, reference should be made to the results of his CT and MRI scans of 2012.

    In addition the trauma to which he was subjected when he had his accident is believed to have caused him to suffer a significant musculoligamentous strain and an aggravation of his pre-existing and previously symptomatic degenerative changes at the L4/5 level of his back.

    …

    It is my view that this man’s injuries have rendered him totally and permanently unfit for his former normal duty job as armoured vehicle officer/driver because of the physical demands of that occupation.

    The main reason for that view is the severity of his cervical spine injuries.[18]

    [18] Exhibit R2 p.134-135.

29. Having reviewed Mr Ceric, on 20 February 2017 Dr Sheehan reported, in part:

    Those injuries which Mr Ceric sustained whilst working on 24 May 2012 are considered to have rendered him totally and permanently unfit for his former normal duty occupation as an armoured vehicle officer/driver.

    ……

    … It is my view that what happened to the subject on 24 May 2012 had essentially rendered him, at his age, unemployable.[19]

    [19] Exhibit R2 p.154.

    Evidence of Professor Ehrlich, Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Specialist

30. Professor Ehrlich assessed Mr Ceric on 3 August 2012 at the request of Prosegur.  He provided reports dated 3 August 2012,[20] 17 August 2012[21] and 18 November 2013.[22]

    [20] Exhibit R2 p.94.

    [21] Exhibit R2 p.102.

    [22] Exhibit R2 p. 126.

31. On 3 August 2012 Professor Ehrlich reported, in part:

    This gentleman has some disc degenerative and spondylotic type changes in both the cervical and lumbar spines.

    The specific event which he describes as occurring in May 2012 most likely caused a degree of musculo-ligamentous strain. There is no evidence that he sustained any major structural disturbance of his spine and there is no major disc protrusion or nerve root involvement.

    The severity of his pain is rather greater than one would expect from such an incident and it would have been reasonable to anticipate a fair degree of recovery in the three months period that has passed now.[23]

    [23] Exhibit R2 p.97.

32. Professor Ehrlich was of the view that if Mr Ceric’s account of events was accepted, the back pain he experienced at the time should be attributed to the straining incident of May 2012. However, “[t]here was a degree of doubt about the extent of his restriction of movement and the rather widespread tenderness over his back. …… A graduated return to work program would be the most likely method of returning him to the workforce. [24]

    [24] Exhibit R2 p.98-99.

33. Having considered Dr Searle’s report of 27 August 2013, Professor Ehrlich was of the opinion that:

    …… Unless there is clear clinical and/or radiological evidence of injury with permanent consequence having been sustained, his complaint should not be attributed to the workplace event which he described.[25]

    [25] ExhibitR2 p.128.

34. When he gave evidence Dr Ehrlich said that, in his opinion, there were “very substantial non-organic factors operating in this case.”[26]  Professor Ehrlich is a member of the college of Psychiatrists and has worked in psychiatric hospitals for at least 12 years.

    [26] Transcript 11/07/17 p.108.

    Evidence of Dr Steadman, Orthopaedic Surgeon

35. Dr Steadman examined Mr Ceric on 30 November 2016 at the request of Prosegur.  He provided a report of 9 December 2016 [27] and gave evidence.

    [27] Exhibit R2 p.139.

36. Dr Steadman reported, in part:

    Amir Ceric has a sore back. He reportedly had an injury at work but the mechanism of injury and the radiology would suggest that there was no significant work related event. The changes on the scans between 2006 and 2012, taken with his chronic history of back problems, indicate the changes with the physiological bulges of the cervical spine and lumbosacral disc desiccation are all nothing more than normal anatomical findings of age.

    ……

    Accepting that he may have had an aggravation in 2012, the mechanism when considered in the context of the radiology and the prior back complaints indicates that the complex nature of his pain is not due to a physical disorder. [28]

    [28] Exhibit R2 pp.145-146.

37. Dr Steadman reported further that assessment of Mr Ceric’s cervical spine “revealed that he had distraction movement that appeared to be greater than when formal testing occurred. [29]

    [29] Exhibit R2 p.143.

    Evidence of the Late Dr Searle, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

38. Dr Searle assessed Mr Ceric in December 2012 and July 2013 at the request of Mr Ceric’s solicitors.  Dr Searle provided reports dated 13 December 2012[30] and 27 August 2013[31].

    [30] Exhibit R2 p.108.

    [31] Exhibit R2 p.122.

39. On 13 December 2012 Dr Searle reported, in part:

    The injury at work on 24/5/12 aggravated some pre-existing cervical and lumbar spondylosis and disc lesions, and the ongoing symptoms from these injuries are persistent and permanent and cause a severe degree of disability. There is evidence of psychological and emotional overlay which may be accentuating the patient’s disability. However, there is also objective evidence to support his complaints.

    …

    Treatment will continue to be conservative, as at present, and current treatment costs will continue. Concurrent treatment from a psychologist or psychiatrist may help with this management of the problems.[32]

    [32] Exhibit R2 p.112.

1. On 27 August 2013 Dr Searle noted that Mr Ceric suffered neck pain “most of the time” and that his low back pain was “constant and…severe.”[33] He expressed the following opinion:

   My opinion is basically unaltered from that expressed in my report dated 13/12/12. His work injury has aggravated his pre-existing cervical and lumbar spondylosis and disc lesions and with such injury some degree of psychological effect is inevitable. However as noted previously, there is objective evidence to support his complaints.[34]

   [33] Exhibit R2 p.123.

   [34] Exhibit R2 p.124.

   DISCUSSION

2. Whilst neither party bears an onus of proof, there is an evidentiary burden on Prosegur which must be discharged if the decision under review is to be affirmed. For this to occur I have to be satisfied that:

   Mr Ceric has not suffered from the effects of the compensable injury such as to reasonably require medical treatment; and/or

   that he has not been incapacitated for work as a result of the injury,

   at any time since 4 August 2012.

3. If I cannot be so satisfied the reviewable decision must be set aside and another decision substituted.

4. As is so often the case in matters such as this, the medical profession is divided in its views as to the likely progress of existing degenerative spinal disease once the spine is exposed to trauma. In Mr Ceric’s case it is not in dispute that, at least, he suffered a sprain injury to his spine.

5. It has been suggested that, having seen the closed circuit TV footage of the immediate aftermath of the incident, I should infer that his initial injury was not as serious as Mr Ceric claims.  I am not prepared to make such an inference.  The quality of the film is poor and does not show the actual incident when Mr Ceric slipped on the steps of the van. I do not have evidence to support the proposition that the actions of Mr Ceric following the incident were inconsistent with the injury he suffered.  In addition I take into account the evidence of Professor Ehrlich that it is not unusual for a person not to show obvious signs of distress following an injury.[35]

   [35] Transcript 11/07/17 p.123.

6. The evidence of Dr Sheehan and the late Dr Searle supports the view that Mr Ceric continues to suffer the effects of the injury.

7. Dr Sheehan formed his opinion on the basis that Mr Ceric had not experienced problems in his neck prior to 24 May 2012 and that the degenerative changes were asymptomatic prior to that time.[36]  By “asymptomatic” he meant “no symptoms whatsoever”.[37]  However Dr Gaing confirmed that on 6 May 2011 Mr Ceric consulted her complaining of “one month pain around right side of neck …… more of right nuchal pain”.[38]  Nuchal pain is pain in the back of the neck.

   [36] Transcript 10/07/17 p-83.

   [37] Transcript 10/07/17 p.87.

   [38] Transcript 10/07/17 p.64, exhibit R2 p.83.

8. Professor Ehrlich emphasised that there was no structural change in Mr Ceric’s spine shown on any of the investigations.  In his opinion any changes were degenerative and were such as were to be expected over time.  He agreed that a strain of a degenerative spine will cause the symptoms of degeneration to worsen.[39]  He was of the opinion that the pain from the strain may continue for “a few months” after the incident.[40]

   [39] Transcript 11/07/17 p.116.

   [40] Transcript 11/07/17 p.128.

9. Professor Ehrlich accepted that it was likely that Mr Ceric’s incapacity for work extended beyond the date on which he last assessed him, being 3 August 2012.  He was of the opinion that, at that time, Mr Ceric would benefit from a graduated return to work programme.

10. Having considered all of the evidence I prefer the opinion of Dr Steadman to that of the other medical practitioners.  He gave his evidence clearly and justified the opinions he expressed.  I am satisfied that the criticisms of his reports made by Dr Sheehan were ill-founded.

11. Dr Steadman used a digital inclinometer to measure Mr Ceric’s range of movement which gave him objective data on which he based his opinion.  These measurements included rotation of the cervical spine being limited to 10 degrees, a measurement which Dr Sheehan claimed had not been made by Dr Steadman.

12. I accept Dr Steadman’s evidence that, as an orthopaedic surgeon, he is better qualified than a radiologist to diagnose an orthopaedic condition.  He has had the benefit of correlating radiological features and clinical features to determine examination findings.  I do not accept the view expressed by Dr Sheehan that I should prefer the view of a radiologist to that of Dr Steadman.

13. Dr Steadman was asked about the radiological findings of Dr Petersen set out in his report of 8 August 2012.[41]  I have referred to these findings earlier in these reasons. Dr Steadman said that although these features were pointed out in his examination of Mr Ceric in November 2016, none of the clinical features existed at that time.[42]  Mr Ceric told Dr Steadman that his hand and arm symptoms had improved and then resolved.  This indicated that the suggestion in the radiological reports that the L5 nerve root may be touched was no longer supported by the clinical evidence.  Similarly with the suggestion that the right C6 nerve had been affected.  Previously Mr Ceric had experienced numbness in his index finger but this was no longer the case.

    [41] Exhibit R2 p.100.

    [42] Transcript 11/07/17 p.143.

14. Based on the evidence of Dr Steadman I am satisfied that by the time he assessed Mr Ceric on 30 November 2016 Mr Ceric had ceased to suffer the effects of the injury which occurred on 24 May 2012.  However Dr Steadman said that he was unable to say when this had happened.[43]

    [43] Transcript 11/07/17 p.145.

15. I therefore conclude that Prosegur is liable to pay compensation to Mr Ceric in accordance with sections 16 and 19 of the Act for the period 4 August 2012 until and including 29 November 2016.

16. The decision under review will be set aside.

17. The matter will be remitted to Prosegur for reconsideration of Mr Ceric’s entitlement to compensation under section 16 and section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in accordance with these reasons for decision.

18. I have not considered whether Mr Ceric has developed a psychological condition following the accident. Any such condition is not part of the claim under consideration.

    E.    CONCLUSION

19. The reviewable decision made 7 March 2013, being the decision of Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd that on 4 August 2012 Mr Ceric had no entitlement to compensation for medical expenses or for incapacity payments in respect of an injury which occurred on 24 May 2012, will be set aside.

20. The matter will be remitted to Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd for reconsideration of Mr Ceric’s entitlement to compensation under section 16 and section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in accordance with these reasons for decision.

21. Within 14 days of the date of this decision each party may apply to the Tribunal for directions in relation to costs. Should such an application not be made Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd shall pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the Applicant.

I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance

......................................[sgd]..................................

Associate

Dated: 13 September 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	10 & 11 July 2017
Counsel for the Applicant:	L Robison
Solicitors for the Applicant:	John Stonham & Co Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	P Hanks QC & F Gordon
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Moray & Agnew Lawyers