Coman and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
[2006] AATA 1058
•8 December 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1058
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/691
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re NIGEL COMAN Applicant
And
MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member P M McDermott, R.F.D Date8 December 2006
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........[Sgd]........
PM McDermott
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – lump sum payment – injury while serving in Army Reserve – fractured wrist – level of impairment – injuries posing difficulties for private pilot licence – summons of CASA medical records – whether 20% impairment – decision affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408; (1992) 109 ALR 30; (1992) 66 ALJR 753; (1992) 29 ALD 1; (1992) 16 AAR 1
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622; (2001) 34 AAR 270; [2001] FCA 1879
Re Ileris and Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 301; (1999) 30 AAR 98
REASONS FOR DECISION
8 December 2006 Senior Member P M McDermott R.F.D Introduction
1. In 1997 Mr Nigel Joseph Coman, whilst in the service of the Army Reserve, fell off the roof of an Army truck and sustained a fracture of his left wrist and radius. Mr Coman has been awarded lump sum compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”) for a 10% whole person impairment for his accepted fractured left wrist condition. I have to decide whether Mr Coman is entitled to be paid compensation under the Act for a 20% whole person impairment for his accepted fractured left wrist condition.
Background
2. Mr Coman was born on 9 December 1972. In 1996 he enlisted with the Australian Army Reserve. In 1998 he was discharged with the rank of private.
3. On 22 February 1997 Mr Coman sustained injuries when he accidentally fell from the top of an Army truck while fixing a camouflage net to the truck.
4. On 24 February 1997 Mr Coman made a claim for compensation under the Act for a “fractured wrist, corked thigh” which arose on 22 February 1997 as a result of the incident of falling from the truck [T5].
5. On 24 February 1997 a determination was made under that Act whereby liability was accepted for the “fractured left wrist” that occurred on 22 February 1997 (T7).
6. On 10 March 1998 Mr Coman requested an assessment of his entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment for his accepted left wrist condition [T17].
7. On 16 December 1998 the delegate of the Commission issued a determination that Mr Coman was not entitled to lump sum compensation under the Act on the ground that he was not suffering from a minimum 10% whole person impairment [T19].
8. On 1 August 2003 Mr Coman requested a re-assessment of his entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment for his accepted left wrist condition [T20].
9. On 8 October 2003 the Department offered Mr Coman compensation for a 10% whole person impairment [T23].
10. On 28 October 2003 the delegate of the Commission issued a determination that Mr Coman was entitled to lump sum compensation under the Act on the ground that he was suffering from a minimum 10% whole person impairment under Table 9.4 of the Comcare Guide [T25].
11. On 14 October 2003 Mr Coman requested a reconsideration of his entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment [T24]. This was treated as a request for the reconsideration of the determination of 28 October 2003.
12. On 5 July 2004 the Manager, Reconsiderations of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service issued a decision to affirm the determination of 14 October 2003 [T29]. Mr Coman has now applied to this Tribunal to review this decision.
Issue For Determination
13. I have to decide whether Mr Coman is entitled to lump sum compensation under the Act for a 20% or more whole person impairment for his accepted fractured left wrist condition.
Evidence of Applicant
14. Mr Coman gave evidence before me. His statement of 28 December 2004 was also admitted into evidence [exhibit A1].
15. The main complaint of Mr Coman is that his left wrist condition causes him to have difficulty in grasping and holding.
16. Mr Coman in his statement mentioned his difficulties in using a lawnmower. He remarked:
“If I use my wrist of my left hand in the form of grasping and holding in pushing a lawnmower then within half an hour of such activity, the pain in the wrist reaches a point where I need to give it medical attention. That medical attention can only be in the form of pain relief which I take in the form of Nurofen. When I take the painkillers in for [sic] Nurofen I find it will take another 2 to 3 hours before the pain will sufficiently abate for me to return to that particular task again”. [Exhibit A1, folio 2]
17. In his statement Mr Coman also mentioned his difficulties in driving a car. He remarked:
“If I drive a motor vehicle over a corrugated type of road, then the vibration further adds to my woes in terms of the pain I feel in my wrist. If the weather is quite warm then the period of time which I could drive a motor vehicle before the pain in my wrist reached a scale of 10, would come on me any time between 1 hour and 2 hours. If the weather is cold then the period of time it takes for the pain reaches that point of aggravation would be in the vicinity of less than 1 hour”. [Exhibit A1, folio 3]
18. In his statement Mr Coman mentioned the difficulties that he has when gardening. He said:
“When I had attempted to dig in the yard for the purpose of fencing around my property, I was in much difficulty grasping and holding with my left hand, the shovels and tools for that job because of the onset of pain which very much limited the time that I could work before I will have to stop because of the pain. I found that I could only work at the very most half an hour before I would have to take a breather and put up with the pain in my wrist for quite a considerable amount of hours before I could return to that task”. [Exhibit A1, folio 3]
19. Mr Coman in his oral evidence stated that he has difficulty in holding steering wheels of vehicles. He also mentioned his difficulties in gardening and in holding a lawn mower or an edge trimmer. He stated that he has difficulties in using tools such as power drills and shovels. He also has difficulties in using a broom.
20. Mr Coman stated that when he was using his left wrist he had “a sharp increase” in his “level of pain”. He mentioned that he has a ‘throbbing ache”. He remarked that the pain was such that “I feel that I should stop activities”.
21. Mr Coman stated that the level of pain has the consequence that he “performed duties in stages”. He stated that to do activities such as digging it “takes longer”.
22. Mr Coman stated that in his present employment as an administrative officer with Queensland Health he experiences difficulties in such activities as moving furniture or an overhead projector. He mentioned that he can move equipment but that he does so by bearing most of the weight on his right hand.
23. Mr Coman mentioned his difficulties in driving. He said: “I do a lot of driving” and that “long distance driving causes difficulties”. He visits his mother and sister once a month. He will drive to such locations as Bundaberg, Gladstone and Kingaroy. Mr Coman, who lives in Toowoomba, stated that when he drives to Bundaberg he experienced a sharp ache “half way”.
24. Mr Coman also mentioned his experiences with difficulties in the household such that he uses his right hand to cut food and his right hand for drying his back after showering. He also experiences an increased pain in his wrist when it is cold.
25. Mr Coman outlined his experiences with members of the medical profession who have tested his left wrist condition. He mentioned his visits to various general practitioners. He has visited Dr James McConochie who is a general practitioner at the James Neal Medical Centre, Toowoomba. He stated that when examined by Dr McConochie, he experienced a sharp ache after repetitive squeezing of a soft object for half an hour.
26. Mr Coman also discussed his visits to medical specialists such as Dr Millroy, Dr Geffin and Dr Talbot who have tested his grip strength. He mentioned how Dr Geffin tested the strength of his right and left hands. Mr Coman mentioned how Dr Talbot asked him to grasp a metal object for 5-10 seconds while Dr Talbot tried to pull that object away from him. It is fair to say that Mr Coman believes that Dr Talbot could not adequately test him because of the duration of the testing.
27. Mr Coman also mentioned that he attended Ms Amanda Lacey, an occupational therapist, who repetitively tested him for more than 2 hours on the effect that vibration had on his left wrist.
28. Mr Coman mentioned that when he experienced pain he has taken Nurofen which does not offer much relief.
29. Mr Coman in his evidence had remarked that on a scale of 1-10, he would rate the pain in his left wrist after an activity such as lawn mowing beyond half an hour as being at a level of 10. He remarked in his statement that if the pain was at a level of 10 after lawn mowing then it would take 24 hours before the pain is abated. He also stated that if the pain in his wrist is so bad that it reaches 10 then the pain would “interfere immensely with my sleep” [Exhibit A1].
30. Mr Coman has a pilot’s licence. In a non economic loss questionnaire of 3 October 2003 he mentioned: “Concern exists as to meeting the medical requirements to retain my Private Pilot’s Licence, especially with regard to restrictions of movement of the left wrist joint (e.g. restricted movement of the joint as the condition deteriorates may interfere with the need to manipulate an aircraft’s control column). I will address this matter during my next medical with a Civil Aviation Safety Authority medical examiner” [T 22]. In cross-examination he stated that at his last examination he informed the CASA medical examiner of his concerns with the range of movement of his left wrist.
Medical Witnesses
31. I heard evidence from Ms Amanda Lacey, an occupational therapist, who had prepared a report on 16 February 2006. Ms Lacey had been commissioned by Mr Coman’s solicitors to undertake a battery of assessments over an extended period that will ascertain any demonstrated level of grasping and holding.
32. In her report she concluded that Mr Coman’s subjective reporting of left hand weakness following exposure to vibration was supported by the objective evidence from the assessment. She also concluded that his report of difficulty in performing functional tasks following exposure to vibration was supported by observed changes in his manual handing techniques that were not observed without the vibration exposure.
33. Ms Lacey used a Jamar Dynamometer to test the grip strength of Mr Coman. Her testing disclosed Mr Coman was observed to have a reduction of left hand grip strength (32 kg to 25.33kg) following vibration exposure.
34. Ms Lacey stated that while this difficulty is unlikely to significantly affect Mr Coman’s current work as an administrative officer, if he wished to change his employment to a job that would involve regular exposure to vibration (such as a truck driver, a taxi driver or a labourer), his left hand pain and weakness may pose a significant difficulty.
35. Dr Saul Geffin, a rehabilitation specialist, gave evidence. Dr Geffin had been commissioned by Mr Coman’s solicitors to report upon Mr Coman’s condition. Dr Geffin tested the grip strength of Mr Coman by using a Jamar Dynamometer. Dr Geffin in his evidence before me explained that a Jamar Dynamometer was a grip strength measuring device and that a person being treated has to squeeze metal bars. The person being tested is unable to read the dial on the Jamar Dynamometer. Dr Geffin tested the grip strength of Mr Coman at 90 degrees of elbow flexion. Mr Coman was able to achieve an average 41kg force with the right dominate hand. He achieved an average 35 kg force with the left hand.
36. In his evidence Dr Geffin discussed the test results achieved and also mentioned that factors such as fatigue can cause a variation in grip strength. He commented that in his opinion the testing of Mr Lacey in undertaking multiple objective tests was comprehensive. Dr Geffin mentioned that if a person has varying degrees of grip strength that would be reflected in a more comprehensive test.
37. Dr Geffin stated that in his view, using an objective grip strength method was the preferable method of testing grip strength. Dr Geffin stated that the testing that was undertaken by Dr Talbot was not scientific, not assessable and not replicable.
38. Dr Geffin has assessed Mr Coman as having a 20% whole person impairment according to Table 9.4.
39. Mr Coman’s solicitors commissioned a report from Dr John Pentis, Orthopaedic Surgeon. In his report of 20 February 2004 Dr Pentis mentioned that Mr Coman still finds that his left wrist is painful and that it aches. Dr Pentis also commented; “the cold weather stirs it up, repetitive use gives him problems and his strength is about 10-20% down on normal” [T27, fol. 76]. Dr Pentis concludes that that Mr Coman has a 20% whole person impairment [T27, fol. 77].
40. On 30 March 2005 the solicitors for the Commission wrote to Dr Peter Millroy, Orthopaedic Surgeon, and requested him to provide a medico-legal report about the condition of Mr Coman. Dr Millroy wrote two reports both dated 26 May 2005 which were admitted into evidence [exhibit R1]. Before Dr Millroy wrote his reports he had the benefit of a report dated 24 May 2005 from Dr Michael Crouch of Queensland Diagnostic Imaging.
41. Dr Millroy in his evidence stated that he tested the grip strength of Mr Coman by asking him to grasp “mine” (ie Dr Millroy’s) fingers. Dr Millroy said that this was the “only way of being certain that a fair effort is being applied”. He stated that he can “feel if they are gripping” and that he can see if the muscle in the forearm is contracting.
42. Dr Millroy was asked to comment upon the reports of Dr Geffin. Dr Millroy acknowledged that repeated testing by Dr Geffin was an attempt to make the testing more scientific but he stated that in such tests there was “no way of assessing effort”.
43. Dr Millroy in his evidence observed that there was no wasting of the forearm muscles. He stated that where there is a wasting of the muscles that would indicate that a person is unable to regularly use the limb. He did not attach any significance to the difference in the grip strength.
44. Dr Millroy in one of his reports of 26 May 2005 had concluded that Mr Coman’s impairment using Table 9.1 was 5% and by using Table 9.4 was 10%.
45. Dr Millroy, on cross-examination, was referred to the report of Dr Geffin which referred to Dr Geffin’s use of the Jamar Dynamometer. Dr Millroy was asked whether he used the Jamar Dynamometer. Dr Millroy in his reply to that question said: ”I do. I use it less and less. I do not think that it is reliable”. Dr Millroy stated that if he used the Jamar Dynamometer he would use it “at least three times”.
46. Dr Millroy conceded that a person’s grip strength could be affected by fatigue.
47. Dr Millroy commented upon the different results from Jamar Dynamometer testing after the exposure to vibration. In commenting upon those results Dr Millroy remarked: “It is unusual” and that it “may be possible”.
48. In cross-examination Dr Millroy reiterated his adherence to his impairment rating of 10%.
49. In cross-examination Dr Millroy was questioned about the sentences on his report in which he remarked: “He is still able to drive his car and boat. These activities increase his symptoms more so than driving a plane occasionally”. In cross examination he was particularly asked what the “symptoms” are that he has referred to. Dr Millroy stated that the symptoms are pain in the wrist. It is clear that the quoted passage appears in that part of the report which records what Dr Millroy has been told by Mr Coman.
50. Dr John Talbot, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, was commissioned by the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service, to undertake a medical assessment on Mr Coman. Dr Talbot both in his report of 18 June 2004 and in his oral evidence at hearing has mentioned that he tested the ability of Mr Coman to grasp and hold, by asking him to grasp and hold a heavy metal auriscope handle. This handle is approximately the diameter of a broomstick. Dr Talbot stated that he made attempts to wrestle this handle from the grasp of Mr Coman who held the handle as tightly as he could. Dr Talbot remarked that Mr Coman “undertook this activity easily and powerfully and without manifest difficulty”. Dr Talbot also reported that Mr Coman “admitted that it was not painful at the time, although he stated that his wrist might later be painful as a result of that activity”.
51. In his evidence Dr Talbot reiterated the opinion that was stated in his report that Mr Coman had “no manifest difficulty” in grasping the auriscope and that during that activity it was “not painful at the time”.
52. Dr Talbot reported that Mr Coman “has no particular restrictions of activities at home, although he undertakes his domestic and home maintenance activities more slowly and cautiously”.
53. Dr Talbot in his report of 18 June 2004 had concluded that Mr Coman has a 15% whole person impairment. Dr Talbot stated that Mr Coman’s impairment using Table 9.1 was 5% and by using Table 9.4 was 10% [T28, folio 85]. In his supplementary report dated 28 March 2006, Dr Talbot remarked that an error has been identified in that part of his earlier report that dealt with the Permanent Impairment Schedule. In his supplementary report Dr Talbot states that according to Table 9.4 Mr Coman has a 0% impairment rather than a 15% impairment. Dr Talbot stated that he come to this conclusion because “Mr Coman could use the limb for self-care and displayed no difficulty in performing tests of digital dexterity, grasping and holding” [exhibit R2, page 2].
CASA Medical Records
54. At the end of the hearing I adjourned the proceedings and directed the issue and service of a summons on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to produce the medical files of Mr Coman including all medical assessment and any questionnaires completed by Mr Coman. I also advised the parties of my taking this action.
55. On the return date of the summons I made an order granting leave to the parties under s 40(1D) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to inspect the documents from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and to make any further submissions to me.
56. At a later telephone directions hearing I admitted those documents into evidence [exhibit T] and also gave the parties the opportunity to make any further submissions to me. No further submissions were made to me and therefore I determined this application on the basis of the material which was before me.
57. There were a number of reasons why I considered that it was important to serve a summons on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I have already mentioned that Mr Coman had made the following comments in a non economic loss questionnaire of 3 October 2003: “Concern exists as to meeting the medical requirements to retain my Private Pilot’s Licence, especially with regard to restrictions of movement of the left wrist joint (e.g. restricted movement of the joint as the condition deteriorates may interfere with the need to manipulate an aircraft’s control column). I will address this matter during my next medical with a Civil Aviation Safety Authority medical examiner”. Mr Coman in being cross-examined had stated that he had informed the last CASA medical examiner of his concerns with the range of movement of his left wrist.
58. In fairness to Mr Coman I thought that it was important that I examine the report of the CASA medical examiner.
59. In Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 at 425 Brennan J (as he then was) remarked: “If the material is inadequate …. The A.A.T. may request or itself compel the production of further material”. Guided by these remarks I directed the issue and service of the summons on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The inquisitorial role of this Tribunal was affirmed by the decision of the Federal Court in Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879 at [47]. Recently, the President of this Tribunal has observed that the task of this Tribunal is to examine the decision under review “thoroughly and with care – often in a way that the original decision maker could not undertake”: see Justice Garry Downes AM, “Why Does Australia Have a General Review Tribunal”, Address to the New Zealand Chapter of the Council of Australasian Tribunals, 7 October 2005, at folio 8.
60. The latest medical examination of Mr Coman was conducted on 22 January 2004. The medical examiner on that occasion cleared Mr Coman as being fit to exercise the privileges of a licence.
61. The medical questionnaire and examination form was signed by both the examiner and Mr Coman.
62. Section 4 of that form is a “Health Questionnaire”. Question 1 is whether the applicant has since his last medical examination or in the past two years “been admitted to a hospital or suffered from any medical condition which may affect his/her ability to exercise the privileges of his/her licence?” The applicant gave a negative response to that question. Question 3 is whether the applicant has since his last medical examination or in the past two years “suffered any pain severe enough to be disabling?” The applicant gave a negative response to that question.
63. Section 5A of the medical questionnaire and examination form is a “Medical Examination”. Question 13 reads “Is there any significant abnormality or limitation of movement in the musculo-skeletal system?” The medical examiner gave a negative response to that question.
64. Section 6 of the medical questionnaire and examination form is the assessment of the medical examiner. Question 1 asks the question: “Do you consider there are any areas of concern in the applicant’s assessment which require specialist referral or counselling?” The medical examiner gave a negative response to that question.
65. The medical questionnaire and examination form do not contain any notation that Mr Coman stated that he had any restrictions of movement of the left wrist joint.
Findings of Tribunal
66. I point out that “the fundamental obligation of the Tribunal is to base its decision on evidence which has such degree of probative value as is appropriate having regard to the nature of the decision”: see Ileris and Comcare (1999) 30 AAR 98 at 121.
67. In deciding this application I have considered the medical evidence that is before me.
68. I consider that Dr Millroy has given a careful assessment of the condition of Mr Coman. Dr Millroy who is a senior specialist with considerable expertise in upper limb surgery. Dr Millroy acknowledged that the fracture of the wrist was very severe.
69. Dr Millroy in his report and also in cross-examination acknowledged that there is a probability of slow long term deterioration in the wrist with increasing pain and restricted movements in many years to come.
70. Dr Millroy considered that there was some difficulty with digit dexterity related to the diminished sensation on the tactile part of the left index finger due to the median nerve compression associated with his injury.
71. There was a divergence of medical evidence concerning the extent of the impairment of Mr Coman.
72. I do not accept the conclusion of Dr Talbot who in his supplementary report of 28 March 2006 has now changed the earlier written opinion that he expressed in his report of 18 June 2004. Dr Talbot now states that according to Table 9.4 Mr Coman has a 0% impairment rating.
73. I mention that in his supplementary report of 28 March 2006 Dr Talbot states that in his report of 18 June 2004 he stated that “Mr Coman has a 15% impairment, using Table 9.4”. In fact his report of 18 June 2004 gives a rating of 10% for Table 9.4.
74. In his original report Dr Talbot states that Mr Coman has “no sensory abnormalities in the left hand”. Dr Talbot does not advert to the diminished sensation on the tactile part of the left index that Dr Millroy has commented upon.
75. That supplementary report of Dr Talbot appears to have been made without the benefit of Dr Talbot having examined the latest X-Rays which were then available. In giving his supplementary report there is no reference to the film of 24 May 2005 which discloses some minimal evidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
76. I, however, accept that the report of Dr Talbot does provide evidence of the ability of Mr Coman to grasp objects.
77. I consider that the assessment of Dr Millroy in concluding that Mr Coman’s impairment rating using Table 9.4 “just reaches 10% whole person impairment at present” was reached after a comprehensive examination of Mr Coman and is a fair and balanced assessment. I point out that in his report Dr Millroy has mentioned his comparison of the girth of the left forearm with that of the right forearm.
78. I have not relied upon the assessment of Dr John Pentis that Mr Coman has a 20% whole person impairment [T27, folio 78]. The report of Dr Pentis is based upon the complaints of Mr Coman who stated that his left wrist is still painful and that it aches. Dr Pentis also commented that the strength of the left wrist is about 10-20% down on normal without mentioning the basis of that assessment [T27, folio 76]. Dr Pentis also mentioned that there was a “difficulty with grasp” without elaborating how he arrived at that conclusion [T27, folio 78].
79. I have also not relied upon the assessment of Dr Geffin that Mr Coman has a 20% whole person impairment according to Table 9.4. That assessment is based upon the complaints of Mr Coman. Dr Geffin in his report of 27 January 2005 states “I think it would be reasonable to believe his story of increased activity causing increasing pain”.
80. In evaluating the reports of Dr Pentis and Dr Geffin I have had regard to the information that Mr Coman disclosed in the CASA medical questionnaire and examination form about whether he experienced disabling pain.
81. I have also examined the information that Mr Coman disclosed in the medical questionnaire and examination form. That form contains the following declaration by the applicant: “I hereby declare that I have carefully considered the statements made above [in the Medical Questionnaire] and that to the best of my knowledge they are complete and correct”.
82. The medical questionnaire and examination form also contains the notation that it “is an offence under the Civil Aviation Act to withhold any relevant information or make any false or misleading statement for the purpose of obtaining a medical certificate”.
83. A central aspect of the evidence of Mr Coman was that his left wrist condition causes him to have difficulty in grasping and holding. However, in each medical questionnaire and examination form that is on the CASA file, including the most recent form of 22 January 2004, Mr Coman gave a negative response to the question whether he “…suffered from any medical condition which may affect his/her ability to exercise the privileges of his/her licence?”
84. Mr Coman also contends that he suffers severe pain in his left wrist. He stated that “the pain in the wrist reaches a point where I have to give it medical attention”. However, in the medical questionnaire and examination form Mr Coman gave a negative response to the question of whether the applicant has since his last medical examination or in the past two years “suffered any pain severe enough to be disabling?”
85. Having regard to the information that was provided in the medical questionnaire and examination form I cannot be satisfied that Mr Coman has difficulty in grasping and holding or that he now suffers from disabling pain. I do not consider that he is entitled to lump sum compensation under the Act for a 20% or more whole person impairment.
86. I also mention that whilst I consider that Mr Coman does not have a right to a further lump sum compensation payment under the Act, he does have rights under the determination of 28 October 2003 which was affirmed on 5 July 2004. This may be significant if Mr Coman was to follow the recommendations that were made by Dr Geffin in his report of 27 January 2005.
Decision
87. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 87 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member P. M. McDermott, R.F.D
Signed: Michelle Brazier
. Legal Research OfficerDate/s of Hearing 26 & 27 July 2006
Final return date of summons docs 12 October 2006
Date of final submissions 30 October 2006Summons documents admitted as
exhibit at Telephone Directions Hearing 14 November 2006
Date of Decision 8 December 2006
Counsel for the Applicant Ms K Phillipson
Solicitor for the Applicant Gilshenan and Luton
Counsel for the Respondent Mr B Dubè
Solicitor for the Respondent Sparke Helmore
0
4
0