Conaghan and Repatriation Commission
[2011] AATA 127
•25 February 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 127
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/4237
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re MARK CONAGHAN Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member and
Dr G Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), MemberDate25 February 2011
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..................[SGD]............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Benefits and entitlements – Service pension – Operational service with Australian Army – Diagnosis of loss of left kidney and loss of left adrenal gland – No relevant Statements of Principles – Reasonable hypothesis disproved beyond reasonable doubt –- Decision under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 119, 120, 120A, 175
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) s 29Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136; (2003) 37 AAR 363
Johnston v The Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54; (1982) 150 CLR 331.
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1967) 116 CLR 537
Re Flett and Repatriation Commission (2000) AATA 469
Re Petty and Repatriation Commission (1990) 19 ALD 573
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82REASONS FOR DECISION
25 February 2011 Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member and
Dr G Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), MemberBACKGROUND
1. Mark Conaghan served with the Australian Army (“the army”) as a national serviceman from 29 January 1969 until 28 January 1971. On 10 August 2009, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”) an informal claim for a disability pension for “loss of left kidney” which he contended was related to his army service. He followed that with a formal claim, in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”), on 28 August 2009. On 24 November 2009, the respondent rejected the claim and, on 14 July 2010, the Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) affirmed that decision.
SERVICE, ISSUES AND LEGISLATION
2. Mr Conaghan completed a period of eligible war service in the form of operational service as provided for in s 7 and s 6C of the Act, respectively, in South Vietnam from 15 October 1969 until 15 October 1970.
3. A condition is war-caused if one of the components of s 9 of the Act is met. In this matter, the relevant provision, relied upon by Mr Harding for the applicant, is s 9(1)(e)(ii) of the Act pursuant to which liability arises if:
(e) the injury suffered, or disease contracted, by the veteran:
(i) …; or
(ii)was suffered or contracted before the commencement of the period, or last period, of eligible war service rendered by the veteran, but not while the veteran was rendering eligible war service;
and, in the opinion of the Commission, the injury or disease was contributed to in a material degree by, or was aggravated by, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran, being service rendered after the veteran suffered that injury or contracted that disease;
4. For issues of causation for operational service, the standard of proof is set out in s 120(1) of the Act which reads:
Where a claim under Part II for a pension in respect of the incapacity from injury or disease of a veteran, or of the death of a veteran, relates to the operational service rendered by the veteran, the Commission shall determine that the injury was a war-caused injury, that the disease was a war-caused disease or that the death of the veteran was war-caused, as the case may be, unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.
5. The application of that provision is affected by the terms of s 120(3) and by s 120A(3) of the Act. Those provisions read:
120(3)In applying subsection (1) or (2) in respect of the incapacity of a person from injury or disease, or in respect of the death of a person, related to service rendered by the person, the Commission shall be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for determining:
(a) that the injury was a war-caused injury or a defence-caused injury;
(b)that the disease was a war-caused disease or a defence-caused disease; or
(c) that the death was war-caused or defence-caused;
as the case may be, if the Commission, after consideration of the whole of the material before it, is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person...
120AReasonableness of hypothesis to be assessed by reference to Statement of Principles
…
(3)For the purposes of subsection 120(3), a hypothesis connecting an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person with the circumstances of any particular service rendered by the person is reasonable only if there is in force:
(a)a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B(2) or (11); or
(b) a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A(2);
that upholds the hypothesis.
6. Those provisions are concerned with matters of causation and require a consideration of any relevant Statements of Principles which have been published by the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA). However, before applying the provisions of the Act relating to causation, it is necessary to determine the appropriate diagnosis of the condition under consideration. The standard of proof for determining diagnostic matters under the Act is provided for in subsection 120(4) thereof and this requires that such matters be determined on the balance of probabilities.[1]
[1] See Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136; (2003) 37 AAR 363 at 373 at [35].
7. When the matter came before the Board, the diagnosis entered was loss of left kidney and loss of left adrenal gland. That diagnosis is not in dispute and we are satisfied that it is the diagnosis appropriate to Mr Conaghan’s claim.
CONTENTIONS
8. Mr Harding hypothesised that, prior to his army service, Mr Conaghan developed a pelvi-uretic obstruction of the left kidney which was either congenital in nature or attributable to an injury incurred in a football game in the early 1960s; that there was a failure by the army to diagnose this condition during Mr Conaghan’s service; and that the circumstances of Mr Conaghan’s service aggravated the condition to the point that the nephrectomy was required in 1973.
9. As to the pre-existing nature of the kidney condition, Mr Harding referred to the evidence of Dr Row.
10. Mr Harding submitted that his reference to the failure to diagnose the condition did not raise a consideration of “failure to obtain appropriate clinical management” of a condition as this was a concept relevant only to certain Statements of Principles and not relevant when no Statement of Principles had application. He submitted that the issue was simply the failure to diagnose despite complaint of loin pain having been made on service by Mr Conaghan to an army doctor who did not investigate any history of kidney trauma in Mr Conaghan’s pre‑service years which would have raised a suspicion of and further investigation into kidney damage.
11. As to aggravation, Mr Harding referred to the terms of s 9(1)(e)(ii) of the Act and to the decision of the High Court in Johnston v The Commonwealth.[2] He submitted that Mr Conaghan’s duties as a driver in Vietnam were implicated in the aggravation of the kidney condition.
[2] [1982] HCA 54; (1982) 150 CLR 331.
12. For the respondent, Mr Kelly submitted that there was no evidence that Mr Conaghan had been treated for any kidney-related problem on service and that his various attendances with medical practitioners were for specific problems such as a stomach complaint for which he did not return for subsequent examination, sore throat and eye problems. He submitted that the stomach complaint was made prior to the commencement of eligible war service and that Mr Conaghan did not report any symptoms associated with a kidney problem during his eligible war service. He submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to support the contention that Mr Conaghan’s service contributed to his kidney problem which pre‑existed service and progressed in a natural way despite his service.
EVIDENCE
Mr Conaghan
13. Mr Conaghan’s evidence was that he received an injury to the lower left side of his back while playing football in the mid 1960s. He experienced pain in the area of his left kidney and recalled that his urine contained blood. He attended his local general practitioner, Dr Scoddalaro, who identified broken blood vessels on the left side and directed that Mr Conaghan rest for a week. Mr Conaghan has been unable to obtain records from Dr Scoddalaro as they were lost in a fire. He next felt pain in his left lower back in March 1969 during his basic army training. He attended for medical treatment and advised the medical officer that he felt pain in the left loin area and pain after eating and drinking. The medical officer told him that he had “gas in the bowel” and dyspepsia and prescribed medication appropriate for this in the form of a Mylanta derivative. He contended that, in March 1969, his reporting to the medical officer was not in respect of a stomach complaint but of a renal condition. Mr Conaghan said that he was not advised to return for a further consultation and that he accepted the medical opinion as correct because, unlike himself, the doctor was an officer. He continued to suffer loin pain thereafter for the next six weeks in training. He then attended a hotel with fellow soldiers and felt “inflammation near his left kidney” when he consumed alcohol. Relying on the medical officer’s opinion, he took this to be a continuation of his bowel gas condition and he subsequently reduced his intake of alcohol, coffee and tea as ingestion of these resulted in occasional loin pain.
14. After his basic training was completed, Mr Conaghan’s experiences of pain continued but were not so bad as to prevent him from continuing with his corps training in Victoria. He described his health as deteriorating in Vietnam and his continuing avoidance of alcohol because it caused pain in the left loin area. Mr Conaghan agreed that he did not specifically mention loin pain when he saw medical officers after March 1969, for example, when he complained of a sore throat, blisters, an infected wart and eye problems. He described the strict discipline of army life and said that he did not want to be identified as a malingerer by making complaint. He continued to believe the diagnosis of gas in the bowel made by the medical officer in March 1969. He agreed that he made no specific complaint of his loin pain when completing a medical questionnaire at the time of his discharge from the army.
15. After his discharge from the army, Mr Conaghan consulted with a specialist as a public patient at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (PAH). He underwent a general examination and a barium meal was conducted but no diagnosis of a kidney problem was made. He returned to the PAH in 1973 where he was seen by an intern who arranged for a renal x-ray to be conducted. This revealed a kidney problem and he was then seen by Dr Holmes who conducted a nephrectomy in 1973.
16. In his statement of May 2010, Mr Conaghan said that, in Vietnam, he did not realise he had a damaged kidney and carried out guard and driving duties. In the latter, he drove a wide range of vehicle types over various types of terrain, during which he was subjected to extreme climatic conditions, handling of petroleum products without protective clothing, dehydration, salty food, contaminants, chlorinated water, unhygienic conditions, herbicides, the constant threat of injury as well as camp life, analgesics and alcohol. He also referred to constant pain in the left loin.
Medical Evidence
17. In this matter, medical evidence comprised Mr Conaghan’s service documents; a report, dated 23 September 1975, from Dr Graham Holmes, the urologist who completed Mr Conaghan’s nephrectomy procedure in 1973; a report, dated 28 October 2009, from compensation medical advisor Dr Jane Smeeton; reports from Mr Conaghan’s local medical officer, Dr P Chopra, including one dated 6 October 2009; and a report, dated 17 May 2010, from Dr Graham Row, nephrologist. Dr Row also gave oral evidence.
18. In a report, dated 23 September 1975, Dr Holmes advised that he conducted the left nephrectomy in November 1973 and that Mr Conaghan had recovered completely. The report provides no guidance in relation to the nature or history of Mr Conaghan’s kidney condition.
19. Dr Chopra, in completing a diagnostic report on 6 October 2009, referred to the nephrectomy in 1973 and wrote that the procedure was due to “unknown cause for shrunken non functional kidney”.
20. Dr Row saw Mr Conaghan in April 2010 and completed a report on 17 May 2010. He noted that the PAH records were not available and concluded that, as a result, the renal diagnosis in Mr Conaghan was speculative. Nevertheless, on the history provided to him, his opinion was that Mr Conaghan suffered a congenital pelvi-uretric junction obstruction in his left kidney which was possibly related to the football injury sustained by him in his teen-age years. Dr Row noted that Mr Conaghan reported suffering from anorexia and weight loss in Vietnam and a minimization of fluid intake to reduce the risk of provoking pain. Dr Row considered that Mr Conaghan gave a consistent history of left loin pain which was provoked by high urine flow after drinking fluids, particularly alcohol, tea or coffee. He noted that Mr Conaghan experienced no change in volume or appearance of his urine during his service.
21. Dr Row referred to Mr Conaghan’s army medical examination on 17 March 1969 and considered that the pain symptom described by Mr Conaghan at the time was misinterpreted and that, if the kidney problem had been correctly diagnosed at the time, it was possible that surgical repair at an early stage may have preserved the left kidney. In his evidence, he confirmed that opinion and also described a form of x-ray which could have been used to diagnose the kidney obstruction. However, he also said that the failure to diagnose the problem was common and agreed that he probably would have missed the diagnosis as well. Dr Row’s opinion was that the failure to diagnose the condition prior to 1973 meant that it continually deteriorated thereafter.
22. Dr Smeeton completed a report on 28 October 2009. Therein, she reviewed Mr Conaghan’s medical history including his service records. She was unable to identify any documentation which revealed that Mr Conaghan had a condition that might have led to the undertaking of the nephrectomy. She concluded that the diagnosis to answer Mr Conaghan’s claim was unable to be established.
23. In evidence were Mr Conaghan’s service medical records. These included the record completed at his pre-enlistment medical examination on 7 November 1968. Therein, a range of medical conditions is listed and the question asked whether Mr Conaghan had ever had any of the listed items. Apart from a reference to “nose or throat trouble”, Mr Conaghan responded “No” to all of these including the entry of “kidney or bladder disease”. At that time his weight is recorded as 138 pounds. Also included in the material before us was the result of a microurine test conducted on 6 February 1969 with the result recorded as “NAD” which we understand to mean “No abnormality detected”. There is also the record taken on 17 March 1969 where the symptoms described in the report are:
Pain underneath lower ribs on left side occurs after food or drinking. O/E stomach dilated . Dyspepsia. Mist trial. Review in 1 week.
24. Another consultation is noted on 17 May 1969 in relation to a complaint of a sore throat for a week and a cough for the previous three days. On 30 August 1969, Mr Conaghan completed an injury report because of blisters on his feet after completing a route march. A record of “blisters both heels” was made on 30 August 1969. An entry on 9 October 1969 refers to Mr Conaghan’s overseas medical examination and the only comment included in relation to that entry is “Fit”.
25. Records taken during eligible war service in Vietnam comprise treatment for a right eye problem on 3 January 1970, an infected wart on 27 May 1970 and a sore throat on 11 May 1970.
26. A medical examination record, dated 24 November 1970, was also completed prior to Mr Conaghan’s discharge from the army. Again, a range of medical conditions is listed and the question asked whether Mr Conaghan had ever had any of the listed items. Mr Conaghan responded “No” to all of these including the entry of “kidney or bladder disease”. At that time, his weight is recorded as 152 pounds.
PRINCIPLES OF CAUSATION
Steps 1 and 2
27. The Federal Court, in Repatriation Commission v Deledio, set out a four-step procedure for determining issues of causation in relation to operational service.[3] The first of these steps requires that there be a hypothesis connecting a claimed condition with service. We are satisfied that this requirement is met. This is that Mr Conaghan, at the commencement of his operational service, had an undiagnosed congenital pelvi-uretric junction obstruction in his left kidney and that he underwent a worsening of his kidney condition during that service.
[3] (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 92.
28. The second of the four Deledio steps requires identification of the relevant Statement of Principles as published by the RMA. It is common ground that the RMA has not published a Statement of Principles relevant to the diagnosis in this matter.
Step 3: Is the hypothesis reasonable?
29. The third Deledio step does not involve fact-finding but requires a consideration of the advanced hypothesis to determine whether it is reasonable. In the absence of a Statement of Principles, the matter of whether or not any hypothesis raised is reasonable must be considered on the basis of the medical evidence. For the hypothesis asserted by Mr Harding to be reasonable, the material must point to the terms of s 9(1)(e)(ii) of the Act, that is, that Mr Conaghan’s kidney condition was contributed to in a material degree by, or was aggravated by, any eligible war service rendered by him. When considering the role of medical evidence in that context, the High Court of Australia stated:
… it is not decisive that a connection has not been proved between the kind of injury which occurred and circumstances of the kind which constitute the relevant incidents of the veteran’s service. Nor is it decisive that medical or scientific opinion which supports the hypothesis has little support in the medical profession or among scientists …
However, a hypothesis cannot be reasonable if it is contrary to proved scientific facts or to the known phenomena of nature. Nor can it be reasonable if it is “obviously fanciful, impossible, incredible or not tenable or too remote or too tenuous.”
But, leaving aside cases of those kinds, the case must be rare where it can be said that a hypothesis, based on the raised facts, is unreasonable when it is put forward by a medical practitioner who is eminent in the relevant field of knowledge. Conflict with other medical opinions is not sufficient to reject a hypothesis as unreasonable.
… it is vital that the Commission keep in mind that that hypothesis may still be reasonable although it is unproved and opposed to the weight of informed opinion.[4]
[4] Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 at 414 per Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ.
30. Subsequently, the High Court stated:
The position may be summarized as follows: (1) First, sub-s. (3) of s. 120 is applied: do all or some of the facts raised by the material before the Commission give rise to a reasonable hypothesis connecting the veteran's injury with war service? The hypothesis will not be reasonable if it is contrary to known scientific facts or is obviously fanciful or untenable. If the hypothesis is not reasonable, the claim fails. Proof of facts is not in issue at this point. (2) If a reasonable hypothesis is established, sub-s.(1) of s 120 is applied. The claim will succeed unless: (a) one or more of the facts necessary to support the hypothesis are disproved beyond reasonable doubt; or (b) the truth of another fact in the material, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis, is proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus disproving, beyond reasonable doubt, the hypothesis.[5]
[5] See Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 at 571 per Mason CJ, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.
31. Most of the evidence before us leaves open any definitive diagnosis of the nature of Mr Conaghan’s kidney condition or any cause of it. The reports of Dr Scoddalaro and the PAH are unavailable. The condition is not referred to in Mr Conaghan’s service documents. Dr Smeeton and Dr Chopra are unable to identify any cause. Dr Holmes provides no guidance in his report. With that background, it is unsurprising that Dr Row described the diagnostic process as a speculative one.
32. Dr Row is a specialist in his field and he advanced an opinion on the diagnosis and causal process leading to the loss of Mr Conaghan’s kidney and left adrenal gland. His evidence points to Mr Conaghan’s kidney condition as pre‑existing his enlistment in the army. It points to a pattern of deterioration from the incident in the mid 1960s which occurred while Mr Conaghan was playing football through to some time before the nephrectomy in 1973. It also points to an absence of diagnosis of a kidney condition when Mr Conaghan consulted an army medical officer in March 1969, some seven months before Mr Conaghan’s eligible war service commenced. Dr Row described Mr Conaghan as having a “continuing pattern of loin pain” during his service and his opinion was that Mr Conaghan gave a “classical and consistent story” of left loin pain. Dr Row’s opinion was that Mr Conaghan’s kidney condition continually deteriorated after the blockage formed and this included the period of his army service.
33. While Dr Row’s opinion is, on his own evidence, speculative and not supported by the evidence of the other medical practitioners in this matter, there is nothing before us to suggest that it is contrary to proved scientific facts or to the known phenomena of nature, obviously fanciful, impossible, incredible or not tenable or too remote or too tenuous in the manner set out above.[6] Accordingly, we accept that the hypothesis raised by Mr Harding is reasonable.
Step 4: Is the condition war-caused?
[6] Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 at 414 at [29] and note 4.
34. Dr Row’s opinion was based upon the history provided to him by Mr Conaghan. He described a “continuing pattern of loin pain” during Mr Conaghan’s service and a “classical and consistent story” of loin pain. That is not supported by evidence available to us. When Mr Conaghan saw the medical officer on 17 March 1969, we do not accept his evidence that he was complaining about his kidney. The clinical note is not related to such a complaint but to pain underneath the ribs. This led to a medical examination by the doctor, not of the loin area, but of Mr Conaghan’s stomach region. Further, that examination revealed a problem i.e. a dilated stomach. This resulted in a diagnosis of dyspepsia and to the administration of medication appropriate for such a condition. We note that Mr Conaghan made no reference to a football-related injury to his kidney in his pre‑enlistment medical examination. The absence of any such reference meant that there was nothing that a doctor who examined him at any time during his service might be put on notice of that previous history. That includes the examinations on 17 March 1969 and at the time of his pre-embarkation examination. In any event, those March medical examinations took place before the commencement of Mr Conaghan’s eligible war service.
35. As noted above, Mr Harding referred to the decision of the High Court in Johnston v The Commonwealth in relation to the aggravation of Mr Conaghan’s condition.[7] There, Mr Johnston served in Vietnamese waters with the Royal Australian Navy. On complaint of pain in the region of the bowel, he was diagnosed by a doctor in a military hospital in Vietnam in 1970 as suffering from haemorrhoids. He continued to suffer pain and did not seek further medical advice but treated himself with the cream and suppositories which had been prescribed for his haemorrhoids. In 1974, he was diagnosed with bowel cancer from which he died in 1975 at the age of 23 years. His mother sought compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) (“the Compensation Act”). At issue was whether or not Mr Johnston’s employment contributed to the aggravation of his cancerous condition.[8]
[7] See note 2.
[8] See Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), s 29.
36. There was evidence that Mr Johnston’s cancerous condition could have been detected in 1970 if a proper examination had been made and that Mr Johnston made continuous complaint of bowel pain from 1970 until 1974. It was held that “the failure to diagnose and treat the cancer resulted in a worsening or aggravation of the condition when compared with the course which, given timely treatment, it should have taken”.[9] Material to that decision was that the failure to diagnose the condition in 1970 occurred while Mr Johnston was an employee of the Commonwealth and, accordingly, covered by the Compensation Act at that time.[10]
[9] Johnston v The Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54; (1982) 150 CLR 331at [14].
[10]Johnston v The Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54; (1982) 150 CLR 331at [18].
37. Dr Row’s reference to a continuing pattern of loin pain and of anorexia and weight loss during service is not supported by the evidence. His weight increased from 138 to 152 pounds during his period in the army. There was an absence of any complaint of loin pain or of a kidney problem by Mr Conaghan during his service and, in particular, during his eligible war service. We do not accept that Mr Conaghan failed to refer to loin pain because of concern about being labelled as a malingerer. This is because he did report for medical treatment in relation to other conditions such as a wart, a sore throat and blisters.
38. Because there was an absence of any complaint to a medical practitioner of loin pain, there was no further diagnostic opportunity for a kidney condition to be diagnosed during that service or at the time of his discharge medical examination. Further, Dr Row conceded in his evidence that he probably would have missed the diagnosis in March 1969 and, indeed, it was not revealed in the first PAH investigation of Mr Conaghan after he left the army. Accordingly, there was no ongoing failure to diagnose the kidney condition. The question of any such diagnosis did not arise. Indeed, the evidence continues to demonstrate an absence of a diagnosis of the condition responsible for the loss of Mr Conaghan’s kidney and adrenal gland.
39. Aggravation has been held to mean that an existing condition has been made worse and not that it has simply become worse.[11] This interpretation has been applied under the Act.[12] As I read it, that is also the interpretation applied in Johnston’s case.[13] Dr Row’s evidence was that the kidney would have been progressively damaged while it was not diagnosed. However, there is no evidence that the circumstances of Mr Conaghan‘s operational service contributed to such worsening. As noted above, the diagnosis of a stomach problem in 1969 did not occur in that period. There may have been a progressive worsening of Mr Conaghan’s condition during his service although the absence of a clear diagnosis at any time leaves open the prospect that the kidney damage may have been complete even before his service commenced. However, if there was deterioration during service, there is no evidence that this was caused by service as opposed to it being the natural progression of a pre-existing condition during that service.
[11] Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas (1967) 116 CLR 537 at 593 – 594.
[12] See Re Petty and Repatriation Commission (1990) 19 ALD 573 at 574 – 575; Re Flett and Repatriation Commission (2000) AATA 469 at [92] – [95].
[13] Johnston v The Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54; (1982) 150 CLR 331 per Gibbs CJ, Mason and Wilson JJ at [13].
40. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any kidney condition suffered by Mr Conaghan and which led to the loss of his left kidney and loss of his left adrenal gland is not war-caused under s 9 of the Act.
DECISION
41. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 41 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member
Signed:..................[SGD]...........................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 27 January 2011
Date of Decision 25 February 2011
Solicitor for the Applicant Woods Prince Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent Jeff Kelly, departmental advocate
0
9
2