Cotton and Repatriation Commission
[2006] AATA 648
•24 July 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 648
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2004/783
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re GEOFFREY COTTON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Rear Admiral A R Horton AO, Member, Dr M E C Thorpe, Member Date24 July 2006
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is varied in that the condition of Ischaemic Heart Disease is accepted as being related to service. [Sgd] Rear Admiral A R Horton AO,
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – eligible war service – Army service in Australia - hypertension – ischaemic heart disease – whether causal connection with service – consumption of alcohol - Statements of Principles – standard of proof - reasonable satisfaction – Ischaemic heart disease related to war service - decision varied.
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 - sections 7, 9, 13(1), 120(4, 120(B)
Statement of Principles Instrument Number 36 of 2003, as amended by Number 4 of 2004 - Hypertension
Statement of Principles Number 54 of 2003 as amended by Number 10 of 2004 – Ischaemic Heart Disease
AUTHORITIES
Repatriation Commission v Law 147 CLR 635
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 17 AAR 158
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
REASONS FOR DECISION
24 July 2006 Rear Admiral Horton AO, Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member
1. This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (”the Tribunal”) by Geoffrey Norman Cotton (“the Applicant”), who seeks review of a decision of the which affirmed a decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the Respondent”) dated 6 August 2003 which refused a claim for Ischaemic Heart Disease. This decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) on 12 May 2004, the Disability Pension being increased from 70% to 90% of the General rate.
2. At the hearing before the Tribunal on 26 to 27 June 2006, the Applicant was represented by Mr Mark Vincent of Counsel, instructed by Thomson Playford. Ms Jane Warmoll represented the Respondent. The Applicant, Dr David Beard, General Practitioner and Professor Michael O’Rourke, Cardiologist, gave evidence. The Tribunal took into evidence the documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1 – T13), reports by Dr L Thomas, Cardiologist, dated 31 August 2005 (Exhibits A1 and A4) and Dr P Henke, Consultant in Rehabilitation Medicine, dated 2 February 2006 (A2), an Alcohol History of the applicant dated 28 January 2006 (A3) and a report by Professor M O’Rourke dated 5 July 2005 (R1).
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
3. Mr Cotton has accepted conditions of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus, solar keratoses, basal cell carcinoma and malignant neoplasm of the colon. On 22 May 2003, he lodged a claim for conditions subsequently defined by the Respondent as osteoarthrosis affecting both feet, malignant neoplasm of the prostate and ischaemic heart disease. These conditions were assessed by the Respondent on 6 August 2003 as not being related to service, with disability pension continuing at 70% of the general rate.
4. On review, the VRB subsequently determined that those conditions were not war caused, but increased the disability pension to 90% of the General rate. At the commencement of the hearing, this Tribunal was advised that an application for increase in disability pension was not being pursued, the Respondent agreeing that 90% was appropriate. Mr Vincent advised that the Applicant was not pursuing the claim in respect of malignant neoplasm of the prostate. He advised that the diagnosis of osteoarthrosis of both feet was amended to congenital hallux valgus, a condition accepted by the Respondent as war caused. Thus the only matter before the Tribunal was whether ischaemic heart disease, the diagnosis of which was accepted, was related to service.
LEGISLATION
5. Mr Cotton served in the Royal Australian Air Force (“the RAAF”) from 11 May 1943 to 10 April 1946. He had no operational service, his whole period of service being in Australia. Thus his service was eligible war service vide section 7(1)(b) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”). Section 9 of the Act refers to war-caused injuries or disease and relevantly states:
“(1)
Subject to this section and section 9A, for the purposes of this Act, an injury suffered by a veteran shall be taken to be a war-caused injury, or a disease contracted by a veteran shall be taken to be a war-caused disease, if:
(a) ….;
(b) the injury suffered, or disease contracted, by the veteran arose out of, or was attributable to, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran;”
Section 9A is not relevant in this matter.
6. In accordance with the legislation relating to such service, the standard of proof in this matter is that at section 120(4) of the Act which states:
“Except in making a determination to which subsection (1) or (2) applies, the Commission shall, in making any determination or decision in respect of a matter arising under this Act or the regulations, including the assessment or re-assessment of the rate of a pension granted under Part II or Part IV, decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction.”
7. Section 120(4) is affected by section 120B which relates to Statement of Principles, and which relevantly states:
“SECT 120B
Reasonable satisfaction to be assessed in certain cases by reference to Statement of Principles(1)
This section applies to any of the following claims made on or after 1 June 1994:
(a) a claim under Part II that relates to the eligible war service (other than operational service) rendered by a veteran;
(b) a claim under Part IV that relates to the defence service (other than hazardous service) rendered by a member of the Forces.
Note 1: Subsection 120(4) is relevant to these claims.
Note 2: For hazardous service and member of the Forces see subsection 5Q(1A).
(2)
…
(3)
In applying subsection 120(4) to determine a claim, the Commission is to be reasonably satisfied that an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person was war-caused or defence-caused only if:
(a) the material before the Commission raises a connection between the injury, disease or death of the person and some particular service rendered by the person; and
(b) there is in force:
(i) a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B(3) or (12); or
(ii) a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A(3);
that upholds the contention that the injury, disease or death of the person is, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service.
(4)
…”
8. It was agreed by the parties that a relevant condition that must be established and determined as being relevant to the condition of ischaemic heart disease was hypertension, it also being agreed that the time lapse between Mr Cotton’s ceasing smoking and the diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease was such as to make such a connection untenable. Accordingly the parties were in accord that that the relevant Statements of Principles that must be considered in this matter are:
“Number 36 of 2003 as amended by number 4 of 2004 in respect of hypertension, this being relevant to the condition of ischaemic heart disease; and
Number 54 of 2003 amended by number 10 of 2004, in respect of ischaemic heart disease.”
EVIDENCE
9. Mr Cotton was born on 24 April 1925. Following employment with Goldsborough Mort, he joined the RAAF on 11 May 1943. His evidence was that he did not drink alcohol at that time, albeit he had “a beer with my father the night before enlistment”. The dates of his various RAAF postings are at T3. His first posting was to Tocumwal for new entry training, and his evidence was that it was here that he commenced drinking at weekends in company with his acquaintances. He did not drink on the base and could not recall that any such facilities existed for the enlisted personnel.
10. He described going to and from town in the camp bus every Saturday, usually before noon, and remaining in town for lunch. He drank at one of the local hotels, although he could not recall the name, and always draught beer in middies or schooners. He stated he often had half a dozen and at times a lot more because he took his turn at shouting in the group. He believed at times he “drank to excess” . The alcohol history statement (Exhibit A3) provided by the Applicant, refers to drinking “at least 10 drinks per night during service”. Under cross examination, Mr Cotton refuted that statement, as he “drank only at weekends” and not necessarily 10 drinks on each occasion.
11. Whilst not pursued in the hearing, the undisputed evidence is that Mr Cotton commenced smoking during RAAF service, but ceased in 1965.
12. His next posting was to Sydney. He was accommodated at Darlinghurst and worked over a three month period, at Pyrmont, where he qualified as a flight rigger. On weekend leave he attended dances and “drank a lot of beer” at hotels in the Newtown area. He was subsequently posted for various periods for training at Ascot Vale and Deniliquin, qualifying as a fitter 2A at the latter establishment. At Deniliquin he was based out of town, at Ascot Vale camping in the showground. His evidence was that in each posting, there was no “wet” canteen and he went into town for lunch and to a local hotel every weekend (Saturday). During his second period at Deniliquin, of 12 months duration from November 1944, he was frustrated at not being posted for overseas service, although he said this did not make him drink more.
13. Whilst not shown in his Record of Service, Mr Cotton stated that he had been posted to Evans Head for about 9 months, where he restored and refuelled mosquito bombers. He stated that he – and “everyone” – went into town to drink at the weekend. Mr Cotton told the Tribunal there was little stress in his RAAF service, except on one occasion when he was in the emergency crew and an aircraft crashed and the pilot was burnt. He had been duty about every fourth weekend; these duties did not put him under pressure.
14. His RAAF service concluded at Bradfield Park in March 1946. He returned to employment with Goldsborough Mort in Sydney, remaining with that firm until 1957. He described his drinking pattern in this period as having a couple of beers after work before catching the ferry to Manly, a couple more beers in Manly hotel, and then beer at home, usually about one (large) bottle. This was his routine each working day. At the weekends, he “probably drank less” as he played sport. He joined Manly Golf Club in 1952, playing regularly each Saturday. In that 11 year period, he thought his consumption lessened, but on occasions he had to participate in shouts.
15. In 1957, Mr Cotton moved to Winchombe Carson, his job involving considerable country travel. This firm amalgamated with Dalgety in 1980, and Mr Cotton remained with the firm until 1982. His job required him to be away from home for up to a week at a time, visiting pastoral clients. When on the road, he had a few beers on most evenings, with a requirement to entertain clients from time to time. He believed his drinking pattern lessened a little in this period, but perhaps more so in later years after he had established his own stock and station agency. By that time, he was also drinking whisky. He conducted his business until retirement in 1990, at the age of 65.
16. As to his current situation, Mr Cotton stated that he continued to play golf, but now uses a cart. He would have two or three beers after golf. On other days, he would normally have two whiskies after 5pm and two glasses of wine with dinner.
17. Mr Cotton gave evidence that he consulted his general practitioner, Dr David Beard, in 1973 to 1974 having suffered an incident of dizziness at his office. He did not feel unwell, but was very busy with sales, travelling a lot and carrying out telephone business each evening. In turn he was sent to a specialist, diagnosed with hypertension, and put on Aprinox medication. In 1991 he was fitted with a pacemaker, this being replaced on two subsequent occasions. As to longer term medication, Mr Cotton said he had always been on medication since the diagnosis of hypertension, both for that condition and for the later diagnosed heart condition.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE18. At short notice, Dr David Beard gave evidence by telephone. He has retired from practice, and as he was travelling, he did not have access to his clinical notes. He confirmed that he had been the Cotton family doctor from 1963, originally in Manly and more recently at Balgowlah. His clinical notes from about 1998 were available to the Tribunal, but were not formally taken into evidence.
19. Those notes, and a medical impairment assessment document completed by Dr Beard (T6) dated 29 September 2000 refer to “hypertension on Isoptin in 1985”, perhaps implying that such a condition was diagnosed at that time. Dr Beard confirmed that notwithstanding the absence of clinical notes for an earlier period, he had put Mr Cotton on Aprinox in about 1973 to 1974, hypertension having been diagnosed at that time. The referral to Isoptin merely reflected change to a new medication. The evidence of Dr Beard was not disputed.
20. In her report of 31 August 2005 (Exhibit A1), Dr Lisa Thomas concludes that on the balance of probabilities Mr Cotton’s hypertension and ischaemic heart disease are, or could be, related to war service. Her brief report of the same date at Exhibit A4, which refers to the standard of proof in this matter being the balance of probabilities, states “Mr Cotton’s war service was responsible for him developing hypertension and subsequent ischaemic heart disease”. Dr Thomas based her conclusions on the diagnosis of hypertension in the early 1970s, and his description of traumatic experiences whilst serving in the RAAF. She was also of the opinion that his history of smoking, as she obtained it, of a packet a day until 1965, could have significantly contributed to the development of hypertension.
21. In oral evidence, Professor O’Rourke confirmed the smoking and alcohol history given him by Mr Cotton as recorded in his report of 5 July 2005. In that report, he notes that Mr Cotton said that hypertension was diagnosed in the early 70’s. He records that ischaemic heart disease was diagnosed in 1993, but there are presently no symptoms, Mr Cotton also leading an active life for his age. Professor O’Rourke sees no connection between Mr Cotton’s smoking habit and heart disease, and hence disagreed with the assessment by Dr Thomas. He believed the Statement of Principles for ischaemic heart disease had no application in this matter. Professor 0’Rourke did not address the matter of alcohol consumption other than to note that Mr Cotton did not consume alcohol prior to joining the RAAF, but did during service and this decreased after leaving the service. He records that Mr Cotton now drinks nearly every day, one or two whiskies and a glass of wine. Referring to the 1985 date of diagnosis of hypertension, as in the papers before him, Professor O’Rourke notes that this was a period well after the war when Mr Cotton was not drinking heavily.
22. In oral evidence, Professor O’Rourke was of the opinion that drinking history was relatively minor and nothing like the 300 grams per week required by factor 5(b) of the amended Statement of Principles (Number 4 of 2004).for hypertension. This was the case whether the onset of hypertension occurred in the 70s or the 80s. He observed that alcohol consumption was not addictive like smoking, and the history given him by Mr Cotton confirmed that after service, his consumption lessened. He referred to alcohol in excess as having a temporary effect on blood pressure, but that once hypertension occurs it remains but can be controlled by medication, and that allowance must be made for this condition being a common occurrence in ageing. In response to the Tribunal, he stated that he had not been specifically requested to consider aetiology.
SUBMISSIONS
23. Mr Vincent for the Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should accept the evidence of Dr Beard that the onset of hypertension occurred in the 1970s, particularly as he was able to relate to the relevant medication. Thus the issue was whether the Statement of Principles could be met at that time, the only relevant factor being that of 5(b).
24. Factor 5(b) is stated in Instrument Number 4 of 2004 as:
“consuming an average of at least 300 grams per week of alcohol for a continuous period of at least 6 months immediately before the clinical onset of hypertension, which cannot be decreased to less than an average of 300 grams per week of alcohol …”
25. Mr Vincent submitted that on the evidence, the pattern of drinking by Mr Cotton did not vary much over the period leading up to the onset of hypertension. He drank on most days, after work, on the way home and bottled beer at home. When travelling in the country as part of his job, his drinking habit was less regular, but he drank in the evenings and as necessary to entertain clients or when with a group. At the later stages he also consumed whisky. Mr Vincent opined that 300 grams equates to 30 beers a week, a consumption rate supported by Mr Cotton’s evidence. Further, the history given to the Tribunal showed a more significant consumption rate than that recorded by Professor O’Rourke. The reduction in drinking by Mr Cotton did not occur until the early 80s particularly after he set up his own business. In summary, Mr Cotton met the threshold in the Statement of Principles.
26. As to the evidence of Professor O’Rourke, Mr Vincent opined that he had given no reason, other than the ageing process, for the onset of hypertension, whereas excess drinking was a common cause. In regard to the relationship of alcohol consumption and in turn hypertension to service, subsection 9(1)(b) refers to injuries or diseases “arising out of” or “attributable to” eligible war service; Mr Vincent opined that the reasoning in Repatriation Commission v Law 147 CLR 635 should be followed. He referred to the reasoning of the Full Court in the matter under appeal to the High Court, and the acceptance by the High Court of that reasoning in that “arising from” and “attributable to” involved an element of causation, it being sufficient if the cause was a “contributing cause”. Further, and at 649, the High Court rejected the argument that the relevant legislation should be read as requiring a temporal connection. Mr Vincent further referred to the later decision in Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 17 AAR 158 where the Full Court took the view that under section 9(1)(b), the question to be answered was whether life in camp, (in that matter), was a contributing cause rather than merely a setting in which an event occurred.
27. Mr Vincent submitted that alcohol consumption by Mr Cotton had indeed a casual connection with service. It could be argued that it was slight, but it was enough; it was more than “de minimus”. The onset of drinking occurred in service, and because he was enlisted into service. Thereafter, he followed or went with his peers or group, establishing and maintaining a relationship. Alcohol became part of the “fabric”. Following Tuite (supra), the setting in which he found himself helped constitute a habit. Mr Vincent further suggested that alcohol has some addictive quantities, and there was no requirement for Mr Cotton to cease drinking.
28. In respect of the accepted diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease, Mr Vincent submitted that factor 5a of Instrument 54 of 2003 was appropriate, this being “the presence of hypertension before the clinical onset of ischaemic heart disease”. Dr Thomas saw the connection between the two, stating hypertension as a significant risk factor. Professor O’Rourke accepted the diagnosis of heart disease as December 1993, but did not specifically address the connection with hypertension. That is of no consequence opined Mr Vincent, as once hypertension is accepted, then the connection with ischaemic heart disease follows pursuant to the Statement of Principles. Mr Vincent submitted that the connection between hypertension, and hence Ischaemic heart disease and war service was supported on the evidence before the Tribunal.
29. In response, Ms Warmoll for the Respondent submitted that the requirement to consume 300 grams of alcohol for a continuous period of at least 6 months … had not been met on the evidence of the Applicant. That may have been so had the drinking pattern described in the alcohol history (A3) been adhered to, but that had not happened. Instead, Mr Cotton ascribed to a lesser consumption. Dr Thomas referred to a history of very heavy drinking only during RAAF service; other reference to drinking was to the effect that it was only moderate, and “usually 1 – 2 glasses of whisky and 2-3 glasses of wine daily”.
30. Even when in service, Mr Cotton’s evidence was that he only drank on Saturdays; there was no evidence that he drank the required 30 glasses of beer on that day. He evinced no real disappointments or stress during his service, that might suggest he was anything but a social drinker. When examined by Dr Samuell, consultant psychiatrist, in November 2000 (T7), Mr Cotton only referred to the aircraft crash where the pilot was incinerated, and that whilst upset at the time with occasional thought thereafter, there were no long term effects.
31. The Respondent submitted that the drinking pattern changed after service, and any connection to service could only be temporal. Factor 5(b) of the Instrument relating to hypertension could not be satisfied. Even should the Tribunal accept this factor, there was no connection to service.
CONSIDERATION32. There is no dispute between the parties that Mr Cotton has been diagnosed with hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. There is no dispute as to the Statements of Principles that are applicable to those conditions, and there is agreement as to the only factors that need be considered in each case.
33. The written evidence before the Tribunal as to the presence of hypertension is that in the medical impairment assessment by Dr Beard, wherein it states “hypertension since 1985”. Accordingly, the opinions of various medical practitioners, including Professor 0’Rourke but not Dr Thomas, was based on that date of clinical onset. Subsequent oral evidence from Dr Beard is that hypertension was diagnosed in about 1973 to 1974 and he was quite firm in that view. Dr Beard’s evidence is that he was the Cotton family treating general practitioner from 1963; he related the date of diagnosis to the prescribing of Aprinox, and the reference to 1985 to a change to the newer medication, Isoptin.
34. We have earlier noted that the oral evidence of Dr Beard was not disputed. Accordingly, we find on the balance of probabilities and to our reasonable satisfaction (Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327 refers), that pursuant to section 120(4) of the Act, the onset of hypertension occurred in about 1973-74. That date reflects the opinion of Dr Beard, and the evidence of Mr Cotton, that the first appearance of the signs and symptoms of the disease occurred at that time, and a diagnosis was made accordingly. (Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398).
35. The remaining issue before us is whether that condition of hypertension relates to eligible war service, and again this must be decided on the balance of probabilities. The only factor to be considered is that at 5(b) of Instrument number 4 of 2004 as previously defined, that relating to the consumption of alcohol. No other factor appears relevant nor has any other factor being addressed by either party. That factor requires a casual connection between war service from 1943 to 1946 and the onset of hypertension in 1973 to 74, a gap of some 17 to 18 years.
36. The oral evidence of Mr Cotton was significantly at variance with that given in the alcohol history tabled by his counsel. Why such a document would be introduced into evidence when it was to present a significantly higher consumption rate, and over a longer period, than would be adduced in evidence gives us some concern. We observe that under cross examination, Mr Cotton resiled from the claim that he drank “10 drinks per night during his service – this became his usual amount”, his oral evidence being that he only drank on weekends. So too, the alcohol history records that he continued to drink the “usual amount” after service “right through the 70s”. Again this is at variance with his oral evidence, and indeed the history recorded by Professor O’Rourke, which generally indicated a somewhat lesser consumption.
37. The difficulty we have with the report by Professor O’Rourke is that it focussed on smoking rather than alcohol consumption, possibly because the questions he was asked to address by the Respondent, and the emphasis placed on that aspect in the report of Dr Thomas, led to that occurring. Hence we treat with some reservations the history he obtained of alcohol consumption.
38. Taking account of the above concerns, we are of the opinion that the drinking habits of Mr Cotton, both during service and thereafter were such as to meet the conditions prescribed in the Statement of Principles for hypertension. It is clear from his evidence that during his employment with Goldsborough Mort and then Winchcombe Carson until 1980, he drank on most days. When in Sydney, he drank beer in a hotel after work, and again on reaching Manly, and on arriving home, he had a further drink. That occurred each week day, with less at the weekends. Extrapolating from his evidence, a reasonable consumption in a week might well equate to 30 glasses of beer or 300 grams. When travelling, the frequency of drinking might be more erratic, but on his evidence, the outcome is similar. Suffice that we find that the conditions of factor 5(b) of instrument number 4 of 2004 are met.
39. We draw on the decisions and reasoning in the matters of Law (supra) and Tuite (supra) in considering whether there is a causal connection between Mr Cotton’s eligible war service and the clinical onset of hypertension. The reasoning in Law has been earlier referred to. In Tuite, Davies J stated at 160:
“eligible war service encompasses not only active service but all the incidents of service, such a life in camp. Under s9(1)(b) …if an injury or disease is claimed to have arisen out of or attributable to a serviceman’s period of camp life, the question will usually be whether life in camp was a contributing cause and not merely the setting in which the event occurred.”
and again at 160:
“If the circumstances of eligible war service provide an operative cause contributing to the serviceman’s injury or disease, it matters not that the relevant circumstances, such as peer pressure to smoke, could be found elsewhere than in camp life. The question in each case, and it is a question for the administrative decision-maker, is whether the eligible war service contributed causally to the injury or disease”
40. In that same decision, Burchett and Einfield JJ went on to say at 163:
“It is true that not everything that occurs while man is in camp is attributable to his war service. But here the circumstances and incidents of camp life were plainly capable of having a casual influence upon the respondent’s decision to take up smoking and upon his continuance ….. It was open to the tribunal to find the circumstances persuasive. If, in the case of a particular person, one of the inevitable concomitants of war service is camp life, it must be open to the tribunal to conclude that a consequence (in the sense explained in Repatriation Commission v Law (Supra) of camp life is a consequence of was service.”
41. In this matter, we find the circumstances persuasive. Mr Cotton did not drink before joining the RAAF. He was then isolated from his family, and in a “camp” like environment, subject to particular demands and privations, initially in the company of new recruits and trainees and subject to the influence of others in that service environment. That he joined others, as he said in his evidence, in regular weekend visits to the local hotels, is in our view a reflection of the causal influence that led to him making a decision to start drinking, (and indeed smoking, and to continue to do so. His reference to witnessing a major aircraft crash and his frustration at being precluded from overseas service merely emphasis that causal connection.
42. Taking account of the evidence before us, and placing particular emphasis on the oral evidence of Mr Cotton, on the balance of probabilities we are reasonably satisfied that Mr Cotton’s condition of hypertension resulted from his eligible war service, and hence the condition of Ischaemic Heart Disease is also related to his service. The agreement reached between the parties on other matters, which were not before us, is at paragraph 4 of this decision.
DECISION
43. The decision under review is varied in that the condition of Ischaemic Heart Disease is accepted as being related to service.
I certify that the 43 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of REAR ADMIRAL A R HORTON AO, Member:
Signed: Associate
Dates of Hearing 26 and 27 June 2006
Date of Decision 24 July 2006
Counsel for the Applicant Mr M Vincent
Solicitor for the Applicant Ms A Bentley,
Thomas Playford Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent Ms J Warmoll
1
3
0