Davis and Comcare
[2005] AATA 716
•28 July 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 716
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2003/427
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re ANEZKA DAVIS Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member
Dr M.D. Miller AO, MemberDate28 July 2005
PlaceCanberra
Decision i. The decision under review, being a decision of 18 February 2005 that for the period from 27 June 2003 to 18 February 2005 Comcare is not liable to pay compensation to Ms Davis pursuant to sections 16 and 131(4) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), is affirmed.
ii. The parties have liberty to apply to the Tribunal in relation to the costs of this application.
..............................................
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – treatment and incapacity – reviewable decision that respondent has no liability for the effects of an accepted condition over specific time period – whether applicant continues to suffer from effects of compensable injury – significance of previous motor vehicle accident involving the applicant – tribunal not satisfied that applicant continues to suffer from the effects of the compensable injury – decision affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – s 16, 19, 124(1), 131
Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514
Hannaford v Telstra Corporation Limited [2004] AATA 1250 (26 November 2004)
REASONS FOR DECISION
28 July 2005 Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member
Dr M.D. Miller AO, Member
1. Ms Davis was injured at work while she was an employee of the Australian Senate in 1987 and received compensation for loss of earnings and medical expenses arising from that injury from 1987 until 27 June 2003. On 20 June 2003 Comcare decided that Ms Davis had ceased to suffer any effects of the injury and declined to make any further compensation payments. This decision was affirmed by a reviewable decision dated 16 September 2003. On 15 November 2004 the Tribunal remitted the decision to Comcare for reconsideration. On 18 February 2005 Comcare substituted a decision that did not purport to cease liability under section 14 of the Act, but decided that in the period 27 June 2003 to 18 February 2005 Ms Davis was not entitled to incapacity payments under section 131(4) of the Act nor medical expenses under section 16 of the act for the condition of “muscle overuse syndrome”. Ms Davis is now seeking a review of Comcare’s decision of 18 February 2005.
2. For the reasons set out we have decided to affirm the decision under review.
FINDINGS OF FACT
3. Unless otherwise stated we make these findings based on the evidence of Ms Davis. We are satisfied of these facts on the balance of probabilities.
4. Ms Davis was born on 25 October 1947 and is 57 years of age.
5. On 4 November 1974 Ms Davis commenced employment with the Australian Public Service. In 1978 she completed her tertiary course which she had commenced prior to her employment. In the early 1980’s she started work at the Australian Senate. Her work involved testing computer equipment for the new Parliament House and the development of tender documents for that equipment.
6. On 12 November 1983 Ms Davis was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she suffered injuries to her neck and left shoulder.
7. On 5 November 1984 Ms Davis was promoted to Senior Parliamentary Officer, Network Manager. In this position she continued similar work undertaken in her previous position.
8. In late 1985, as part of her duties as Network Manager, Ms Davis was doing keyboard work to test and analyse equipment and for the preparation of various documents. The amount of typing being done by Ms Davis is in dispute. She gave evidence that she was “pushed for time” and that her hours varied but that she would type for “up to 10 hours per day.” In cross-examination Ms Davis agreed that her work involved a number of tasks other than typing and that at times she would spend up to 60% of her day typing. The duty statement for her position[1] indicated that she held a senior position in which she had a number of tasks which would not involve working at a keyboard.
[1] Exhibit R2.
9. Mr Goodall gave evidence. He was Ms Davis’ supervisor during the time she worked for the Senate. He said that Ms Davis’ keyboard work was normal for a Senior Officer and involved the preparation of memos, briefs and reports. He estimated that Ms Davis would have undertaken 2-3 hours typing on an average day and at peak times this time could rise. He agreed that at times Ms Davis would have worked from 9 am to 10-11 pm, but that she would not have spent the whole day typing.
10. We are satisfied that Ms Davis was required to undertake variable amounts of typing as part of her job. We are not satisfied that this could amount to 9-10 hours per day, but rather that Ms Davis would type up to 4-5 hours on a busy day and 2-3 hours on other days This typing activity was interspersed with other non-keyboard duties.
11. During 1985 Ms Davis began to experience pain in both hands and subsequently pain in both arms. She described the pain in her arms as “down to my elbows and up to my neck.” Ms Davis said that pain was constant and was such that her hands were weak. By way of illustration she said that she could not use ordinary household taps.
12. Mr Goodall was aware of the problems Ms Davis was experiencing with her hands and arms. He recalls being told by Ms Davis in early 1986 that her work was exacerbating previous injuries she had suffered and that she was having difficulty carrying IT products. This is consistent with what Mr Goodall stated in a Supervising Officer’s Statement on 10 August 1987.[2] Mr Goodall responded to this situation by reducing the physical activities required of Ms Davis to the point that she was unable to fulfil her duties and she was placed on the unattached list.
[2] Document T11.
13. Ms Davis said that Mr Goodall “was aware of the problem”, but she did not say that she told him that the problem was a result of her work at the Senate. We are not satisfied that Ms Davis informed Mr Goodall or anyone else at her workplace prior to her ceasing her employment that her problems with her hands and arms were work related.
14. Ms Davis consulted Dr Danta, Neurologist, on 6 July 1987. Dr Danta advised Ms Davis that in his opinion the symptoms in her arms were due to muscle overuse syndrome. This was the first time Ms Davis had received medical advice that her condition was work-related. Dr Danta confirmed this opinion in his report of 6 July 1987.[3]
[3] Document T4.
15. From 13 July 1987 onwards Ms Davis was unable to work because of the condition of her hands and arms and she has not returned to work since that time.
16. By a claim dated 3 August 1987[4] Ms Davis sought compensation for “overuse muscle syndrome (both arms) and spinal injury” which had commenced 12 months previously.On 28 October 1987 the Commissioner for Employees Compensation accepted liability for the condition.
[4] Exhibit A28/2.
17. Ms Davis was retired from the Australian Public Service on grounds of medical invalidity from 21 October 1988.
18. In 1989 Ms Davis undertook a Lifeline Counselling course but could not do the counselling work because she could not hold a telephone or do the necessary writing. At about the same time she did some voluntary work at a Nursing Home. She has not otherwise been employed since she ceased working for the Senate.
19. On 11 January 1990 Ms Davis’ solicitors filed in the ACT Supreme Court a document entitled “Statement of Particulars”.[5] This document was filed in proceedings commenced in 1986 by Ms Davis claiming damages for the injuries she received in the 1983 motor vehicle accident. In the document Ms Davis claimed that she suffered permanent pain and muscle fatigue symptoms in both arms as a result of the accident. Ms Davis also claimed a wage loss from 13 July 1987 until 13 March 1989 as a result of the accident and claimed that she was not able to work at that time nor in the foreseeable future.
[5] Exhibit R7.
20. On 13 March 1990 Ms Davis settled her damages claim for considerably less than the full amount claimed and for less than the claimed wage loss.[6] Mr McCarthy, solicitor, gave evidence that he prepared the Statement of Particulars on behalf of Ms Davis. Mr McCarthy also acts for Ms Davis in relation to this application. We accept his evidence that the settlement of the damages claim was for a “closed period” which did not include the period after 13 July 1987. However Mr McCarthy did not suggest that the Statement of Particulars did not accurately reflect his instructions from Ms Davis at the time the document was prepared and filed in the Supreme Court.
[6] Exhibit R7.
21. By a decision of 18 February 2005 Comcare decided that for the period 27 June 2003 to 18 February 2005 Ms Davis was not entitled to compensation for incapacity payments under section 131(4) and medical expenses under section 16 of the Act in respect of her condition of “muscle overuse syndrome”. It is the decision of 18 February 2005 which is the subject of this application for review.
22. Ms Davis described the pain she now suffers in her hands and arms as similar to that she suffered in 1985/86, but not constant as it was then. She gave evidence that pressure on her hands causes pain which goes away when the pressure stops, but that if she repeats the activity the pain gets worse. Ms Davis said that she could work now provided that the work was not too repetitive in the use of her hands and did not involve much typing or keyboarding.
23. Mr Clifford Davis, Ms Davis’ husband, gave evidence on her behalf. His statement is also in evidence.[7] He first met Ms Davis in 1990 and observed then that she had problems with both arms and hands and appeared clumsy, dropping things and having difficulty with tasks such as removing lids from jars. He said that now her condition varies in that she has “good days and bad days” depending on her activities during the preceding days. He has noticed an overall improvement since 1990 to the point where she appears to be free of symptoms if she has been careful in her activities. He describes Ms Davis’ activities as reading, playing chess watching television, shopping and sharing the cooking.
[7] Exhibit A27.
Medical evidence
24. Dr Marinos was Ms Davis’ general practitioner for some years prior to July 1987 and subsequently. Dr Marinos’ clinical notes for the period 30 October 1986 until 10 February 1997 are in evidence.[8] The first reference to hand problems in the notes is in the entry for 16 April 1987 and notes a complaint of numbness in the left hand since the motor vehicle accident on 12 November 1983. On 29 May 1987 Ms Davis complained of “sore weak hands”. Dr Marinos’ notes for this consultation include:
“Significant muscle tension……..Long discussion. Advised that will have to cope with symptoms better – try muscle relaxation course.”
[8]Exhibit A2.
25. In his note of 6 July 1987 Dr Marinos records that Ms Davis “[s]ays she is now having trouble using her hands for any activities!” He also has the following entry:
“My advice – lot of muscle tension and stress…..Discussed in detail with her. NB Appeared very tense and depressed during interview and also appeared to become hostile at the suggestion (again) that muscle tension and stress could be a factor in her complaints”.
Ms Davis did not consult Dr Marinos again until 11 February 1992.
26. Dr Marinos’ notes for the period referred to do not make any reference to Ms Davis’ symptoms being work-related.
27. Ms Davis saw Dr Danta, Neurologist, on 6 July 1987 at the request of her solicitors. Dr Danta’s opinion was that the symptoms Ms Davis was suffering in her arms were due to “muscle over-use syndrome (repetition strain injury).”[9] In a report of 19 October 1987 Dr Danta expressed the view that the effects of the motor vehicle accident “would have to a great extent have ceased when she became disabled from the muscle over-use syndrome.”[10]
[9] T4.
[10] Exhibit A29.
28. Dr Danta reviewed Ms Davis in May 2004 for the purpose of this application. He had not seen Ms Davis in the previous 17 years. In his view, in May 2004 Ms Davis was suffering from regional pain syndrome mainly related to her former employment.[11]
[11] Exhibit A20.
29. Dr Danta was called to give evidence. He confirmed the opinions expressed in his reports. It is his view that if pain is suffered for a period of 2 years it tends to become chronic and that if activity causes pain Ms Davis would still be unable to return to work.
30. Dr Newcombe, Neurosurgeon, first saw Ms Davis in 1983 in relation to the injuries received in the 1983 motor vehicle accident. On 28 July 1987 Dr Newcombe reported he had seen Ms Davis on 17 December 1986 when she was “complaining of burning sensations in the left hand” and he noted “some weakness of the intrinsic musculature of the hands.”[12] Magnetic resonance scanning showed disc injury at C5/6 and C6/7.Ms Davis was reviewed in April 1987 and on 13 July 1987. Dr Newcombe also reported that on the latter date Ms Davis “continues to suffer from neck pain with radiation down the arms and there is numbness with weakness of the hands.” On 13 July 1987 Dr Newcombe certified Ms Davis as unfit for work until 10 August 1987 by reason of the injury received on 12 November 1983.[13]
[12] Exhibit R14.
[13] Exhibit R13.
31. By a report of 12 August 1987[14] Dr Newcombe indicated that he was aware that Dr Danta had raised the question of muscle over-use syndrome and that he agreed that that “this may be at least a partial explanation for her pain.” In a report of 4 November 1987 Dr Newcombe expressed the opinion that “the arm pains that she has presented to me seem to be consistent with disc injury rather than any environmental work related problems.”[15]
[14] Exhibit R15.
[15] Exhibit R16.
32. Ms Davis was referred to Dr Corry, Consultant in Rehabilitation Medicine, by Dr Danta. Dr Corry first saw her on 14 August 1987. In Dr Corry’s opinion the symptoms Ms Davis was suffering in her upper limbs were “related to occupational overuse injury (RSI) brought on by prolonged work at the keyboard other (sic) than relating to the motor vehicle accident.” [16] Dr Corry records that Ms Davis told him that she would use a keyboard for about 2 hours per day but that from July to October 1986 she was spending up to 10 hours at a keyboard each day. By a report of 11 August 1988 [17] Dr Corry attributed approximately 70% of her ongoing complaints to the occupational overuse and the balance to the accident. In his clinical notes of a visit of 1 September 1987 Dr Corry noted that “1983-MVA-whiplash – recovered quite well – learned to live with pain – some pins + needles + clumsiness in hand.”[18]
[16] Exhibit A3.
[17] Exhibit A5.
[18] Exhibit R3.
33. On 12 December 1989 Dr Corry reported that “[t]here is increased number of non-organic signs on examination, suggesting that there is increasing psychological component to her disability.”[19]
[19] Exhibit A33.
34. In a report of 25 July 1994 [20] Dr Corry said that in February 1991 Ms Davis described persisting symptoms “spreading from the back of the neck down into both arms and forearms.”
[20] Exhibit A10.
35. On 10 August 1988 the Commonwealth medical officer, Dr Dickson examined Ms Davis. At that time he estimated 50% of Ms Davis’ incapacity was attributable to a regional pain syndrome and 50% to cervical disc prolapse.[21]
[21] Exhibit A30.
36. Dr Marinos also referred Ms Davis to Dr Saboisky, Consultant Psychiatrist, initially in relation to anxiety associated with car travel. Dr Saboisky treated Ms Davis on a number of occasions between 6 December 1984 and 26 June 1985. Dr Saboisky was of the view that during this period her neck pain was genuine, was related to nerve-root compression at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels and was a significant periodic problem.[22]
[22] Exhibit A11.
37. Dr Saboisky re-assessed Ms Davis at the request of her solicitors in November 2004. Testing carried out by Dr Saboisky indicated that at that time Ms Davis was not consciously exaggerating her symptomatology. In Dr Saboisky’s opinion Ms Davis did not have a psychiatric condition.[23]
[23] Exhibit A21.
38. Ms Davis was examined by Dr McGrath, Musculoskeletal & Occupational Physician, on 27 October 2003 at the request of her solicitors. In Dr McGrath’s opinion Ms Davis was suffering from idiopathic neck pain and bi-lateral forearm impairment, meaning that the origin of her pains and nature of her problem is largely unknown. In his view the terms “RSI” and “Occupational Overuse Syndrome” have fallen into disrepute in the last decade. He conceded that the diagnosis of her problem is a contentious issue. He assessed workplace factors as contributing one third to her disability.[24]
[24] Exhibit A18.
39. Dr McGrath gave evidence and confirmed the opinions in his reports. He said that Ms Davis suffers impairment of her neck and forearms and if her forearms were affected her hands would be also. He was of the opinion that Ms Davis could engage in work that was not too repetitive or focally stressful and which was diverse in its nature. She could probably engage in keyboarding “in small doses”.
40. In April 2005 Ms Davis was assessed for the purpose of this application by Dr Preston, Consultant Rheumatologist. Dr Preston reported that:
“I do not think clinically she has features to suggest reflex sympathetic dystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome type 1)……….. It is likely that given the fact that she has had symptoms for over a decade that some activity related discomfort in her hands will persist.” [25]
[25] Exhibit A22.
41. Comcare arranged for the examination of Ms Davis by Professor Sambrook on 30 August 2004. Professor Sambrook is Professor of Rheumatology at Sydney University. He provided a very detailed and comprehensive report[26] which included a diagnosis in part as follows:
“Ms Davis sustained a whiplash injury to her cervical spine in the MVA from 1983. This appears to have resulted in some disc protrusions on MRI but the overall syndrome was largely confined to a few months from Dr Danta’s descriptions and is a separate condition to her upper limb symptoms.
Occupational overuse syndrome was probably an appropriate label in the context of her symptoms in 1987 for these, but some 18 years on it is difficult to maintain as an entity in her case. Although I did not find signs of ‘gross falsification’ on examination, there was clearly inconsistency in assessment of muscle power. This is especially apparent if we note that immediately after the MVA in 1997 (in a non medicolegal setting) her upper limb muscle power was recorder as grade 4 out of 5 (ie about 75% of normal) whereas at other times she has been more like a grade 2 out of 5. I would consider that the personal and psychological factors referred to by Dr McGrath in his report are still operative to explain these symptoms. They should not be regarded as related to her occupation after 18 years.”
[26] Exhibit R9.
42. Professor Sambrook gave evidence. At his examination of Ms Davis he noted normal muscle size in both arms which indicated that there was no muscle wasting. Muscle wasting would be expected in a case of reduced use of a limb. He was of the view that variations in the physical response by Ms Davis were explicable by psychological factors rather than by falsification.
43. Dr McGill, Consultant Rheumatologist, examined Ms Davis on behalf of Comcare on 10 March 2003. Dr McGill reported that “there was evidence of gross falsification during the examination.” [27] He particularly referred to his efforts to measure Ms Davis’ grip strength, the muscle power of her upper limbs and her sensitivity to touch of the upper limbs. His conclusion was:
“The current situation is that she has cervical disc degeneration probably contributed or caused by the motor vehicle accident in 1983 but without any evidence of neural compression. There was no evidence of any other disorder involving the neck or upper limbs. She demonstrated false behaviour during the formal examination.”
[27] Exhibit R11.
44. Dr McGill also gave evidence and confirmed the opinions he had expressed in his reports. In his opinion it was implausible that Ms Davis condition could still be influenced by her work duties so many years later. He accepted that Ms Davis may have suffered muscle soreness arising from her work, but he was of the view that this would not have lasted for any substantial time after the activity ceased.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
45. Section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Cth) (SRC Act) provides for compensation in respect of the cost of reasonable medical treatment obtained in relation to an injury which has been determined to be compensable.
46. Section 19 provides for compensation for loss of earnings arising from a compensable injury.
47. In a case such as this, where the injury occurred before the commencement of the SRC Act, and the applicant was receiving compensation under previous Act,[28] the SRC Act applies in relation to the injury: sub-section 124(1). Ms Davis continued to receive compensation for loss of earnings under sub-section 131(4) which makes special provision for a person who was not capable of engaging in any work at the commencement of the SRC Act (1 December 1988) and who was in receipt of a superannuation pension. The effect of the provision is to provide compensation to top up the pension payment to a level set by the legislation.
[28] Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act (Cth) 1971.
48. As Comcare comes to consider claims for ongoing compensation for treatment costs and/or loss of earnings from time to time it may decide, on the evidence available at that time, that it is no longer required to pay compensation as the compensable injury has ceased to have the effect of requiring the treatment claimed (under section 16) and/or is no longer the cause of the incapacity for work (under section 19).
49. The decision under review, being that of 18 February 2005, effectively confirmed a decision to cease payment for both treatment expenses and loss of earnings from 27 June 2003.
THE ISSUES
50. The issues for our decision are:
(a)at any time since 27 June 2003, has it been reasonable for Ms Davis to obtain medical treatment in relation to a compensable injury;
(b)at any time since 27 June 2003, has Ms Davis been incapacitated for work as a result of a compensable injury;
(c)if the answer to (b) is “yes”, has Ms Davis been able to engage in any work since 27 June 2003?
REASONING
At any time since 27 June 2003, has it been reasonable for Ms Davis to obtain medical treatment in relation to a compensable injury?
51. The parties have argued this matter on the question as to whether the accepted compensable injury of “overuse muscle syndrome (both arms) and spinal injury” has ceased to have effect. This is not a case where the reasonableness or otherwise of particular treatment is in contention.
52. Comcare has argued that in deciding this issue we are not bound to accept the initial determination by it that Ms Davis suffered the injury of overuse muscle syndrome and spinal injury. Ms Davis does not agree and says that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine that Ms Davis did not suffer from this injury on 6 July 1987. We do not accept Ms Davis’ argument on this point. In Power v Comcare[29] the Federal Court said:
“I think the better view is that the reconsideration decision-maker, for the purpose of determining whether Comcare had a continuing liability to compensate the applicant for his coronary condition, had power to consider whether that condition had ever been casually related to his work. The question of Comcare’s liability arose because Comcare was empowered under s 68 (a) of the SRC Act to make a determination “in relation to” the claim made by the applicant to Comcare in about 1990 for compensation for acceleration of his coronary heart disease. It was required to make that determination accurately (s 69(a)) and in accordance with the “substantial merits of the case” (s 72 (a)).
As the majority said in Langley, the reconsideration decision-maker had to analyse all the necessary facts for herself to determine whether Comcare had a continuing liability. Fresh information, in the form of medical reports from Dr Keogh, was available. The reconsideration decision-maker was not bound by any issue estoppel arising from the earlier determination: Comcare v Grimes at 64. The AAT was in a similar position…”
[29] (1998) 89 FCR 514 at 526.
53. In light of the above decision, which was applied by the Tribunal in Hannaford v Telstra Corporation Limited[30] (presently on appeal), we are of the view that we are not bound to accept that Ms Davis suffered any particular injury as a result of her employment and that we must decide the nature of the injury (if any).
[30] [2004] AATA 1250.
54. We are satisfied that Ms Davis did suffer an injury to her upper limbs in 1987 and that this injury was a result of her employment. We are satisfied that it at least involved muscle strain with muscle soreness as suggested by Dr McGill. Taking into account the conflicting views of Dr Danta, Dr Corry and Dr McGrath on the one hand and Dr Newcombe, Professor Sambrook and Dr McGill on the other, we are not satisfied that since 27 June 2003 Ms Davis has suffered the effects of a repetitive strain injury, a consequent regional pain syndrome or any other injury which was work-related.
55. Whilst some of the practitioners called on behalf of Ms Davis had the advantage of being treating doctors we were impressed by the thoroughness of Professor Sambrook’s examination of the material available to him and of his report. In addition he is highly qualified and experienced. His evidence, along with the evidence of Dr Newcombe and Dr McGill raises considerable doubt as to the correct diagnosis of Ms Davis’ current condition and consequently we are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Davis continues to suffer the effects of the compensable injury.
56. In reaching the conclusion set out in the preceding paragraph we also take into account that Ms Davis has suffered from the effects of the cervical disc injury caused by the 1983 motor vehicle accident. According to Ms Davis she was still suffering the effects of this injury in 1990, as she set out in the Statement of Particulars filed in the Supreme Court. This was some years after Dr Danta raised with Ms Davis the possibility of a work-related injury and we conclude therefore that Ms Davis believed that the symptoms she was suffering in 1990 were the same as, or similar to, those she had been suffering as a result of the motor vehicle accident. If Ms Davis continues to suffer from a form of regional pain syndrome it may be that this syndrome has been brought about by the pain associated with motor vehicle accident injury rather than the work injury.
57. Whilst some of the practitioners who have assessed Ms Davis are of the opinion that Ms Davis no longer suffers from the effects of the injury at work at all, others, namely Dr Danta, Dr Corry, Dr McGrath and Dr Davis express the view that the work injury still has an effect, but their assessment of the extent of the effect varies.
58. In all these circumstances we are not satisfied to the requisite degree that Ms Davis suffers from the effects of the work injury since 23 June 2003. It follows that we are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at any time since 27 June 2003 has it been reasonable for Ms Davis to obtain medical treatment in relation a compensable injury.
At any time since 27 June 2003, has Ms Davis been incapacitated as a result of a compensable injury?
59. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs we are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Davis has been so incapacitated.
60. The third issue raised in paragraph 50 does not arise for decision.
DECISION
61. The decision under review, being a decision of 18 February 2005 that for the period from 27 June 2003 to 18 February 2005 Comcare is not liable to pay compensation to Ms Davis pursuant to sections 16 and 131(4) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), is affirmed.
62. The parties have liberty to apply to the Tribunal in relation to the costs of this application.
I certify that the 62 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J.W. Constance, Senior Member and Dr M.D. Miller AO, Member
Signed: .....................................................................................
Associate (Chelsey Bell)Date/s of Hearing 6 & 7 June 2005
Date of Decision 28 July 2005
Counsel for the Applicant Mr D. Richards
Solicitor for the Applicant Bradley Allen Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent Ms E. Ford
Solicitor for the Respondent Phillips Fox
0
1
0