Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Graham
[2008] FMCA 1679
•17 December 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v GRAHAM | [2008] FMCA 1679 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – whether debt due to the petitioning creditor – whether debtor able to pay his debts as they fall due – payment of judgment debt where other debts were due to the creditor at the time of the act of bankruptcy. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.41, 43, 44, 52 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), ss.8AAZA, 8AAZD, 8AAZI, 8AAZJ |
| Emerson and Another v Wreckair Pty Limited (1992) 33 FCR 581 Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1013 Kiama Wharf v DCT [2005] NSWSC 929 Re Debtors [1927] 1 Ch. 19 Re Frank; Ex parte Piliszky (1987) 16 FCR 396 Re Mendonca; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 15 FLR 256 Re Sarina; Ex parte Council of the Shire of Wollondilly (1980) 43 FLR 163 Re Tait; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 65 FCR 592 Sandell v Porter and Another (1966) 115 CLR 666 |
| Applicant: | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION |
| Respondent: | ALLAN MAXWELL GRAHAM |
| File Number: | SYG 3503 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Barnes FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 November 2008 |
| Last Date for Submissions: | 1 December 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 17 December 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms S Foda |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Australian Taxation Office |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Johnston Vaughan |
ORDERS
That a sequestration order be made against the estate of Allan Maxwell Graham.
That the applicant creditor’s costs (including any reserved costs) be taxed in accordance with the Federal Court Rules and paid from the estate of the respondent debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
That under the Bankruptcy Regulations a copy of this sequestration order be given to the Official Receiver within two (2) days.
THE COURT NOTES:
The date of the act of bankruptcy is 7 August 2007.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3503 of 2007
| DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION |
Applicant
And
| ALLAN MAXWELL GRAHAM |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings
The applicant creditor presented a creditor’s petition on 12 November 2007 seeking that a sequestration order be made against the estate of the respondent debtor Allan Maxwell Graham. On 2 April 2008 a Registrar of this Court made a sequestration order in the absence of the respondent. On 7 August 2008 the sequestration order was set aside by consent on the basis that the creditor’s petition remain in force pending a final determination. An amended creditor’s petition was filed on 4 September 2008. The matter was adjourned on a number of occasions. On 3 November 2008 the time for expiration of the creditor’s petition was extended up to and including 11 November 2009 under s.52(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). A further adjournment application by the respondent was refused.
The petitioning creditor now moves on the amended creditor’s petition that relies on an act of bankruptcy said to consist of the failure by the respondent to comply on or before 7 August 2007 with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice issued on 4 June 2007 and served on him on 17 July 2007.
The amended creditor’s petition claims that the respondent owes the petitioning creditor the amount of $172,826.48 made up of $62,132.90 due under a final judgment obtained in the District Court of New South Wales at Newcastle on 20 August 2004 inclusive of $463 costs that was the debt on which the bankruptcy notice was based; judgment interest claimed in the bankruptcy notice calculated pursuant to s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) from 24 August 2004 to 2 June 2007 in the sum of $15,626.61; judgment interest from 3 June 2007 to 19 August 2008 in the sum of $7,608.32; credit for payments or credits in the amount of $85,589.21 from 20 August 2004 until 4 September 2008; and $173,047.86 being the “unpaid balance of the respondent’s Running Balance Account Deficit Debt” as at 4 September 2008.
The petitioning creditor relies on an affidavit of service of the bankruptcy notice sworn 19 July 2007, an affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition sworn 12 December 2007, an affidavit of service of the amended creditor’s petition sworn 8 September 2008, an affidavit of Giulia Inga sworn 17 July 2008, affidavits of debt of Christopher Valacos sworn 26 September 2008 and 31 October 2008, an affidavit of final search sworn on 3 November 2008 and a further affidavit sworn by Christopher Valacos on 11 November 2008.
The respondent filed a notice of opposition on 22 October 2008. He relies on affidavits sworn by him on 15 May 2008 and 3 November 2008. There are three grounds in the notice of opposition: first that the amount claimed in the creditor’s petition is “not correct”; second that the respondent is not insolvent and is able to pay his debts as they fall due; and third that the respondent has the capacity to pay the amount on the creditor’s petition upon sale of a property listed for sale at 2 Roy Kemp Close, Crescent Head.
The amount claimed in the creditor’s petition
In submissions, while Mr Dlakic, the solicitor for the respondent, did not dispute that there was a debt due to the creditor that exceeded the sum of $2,000 he took issue with precisely how much the respondent owed the petitioning creditor and whether the debt was due at the date of the act of bankruptcy.
Mr Dlakic submitted that it was “possible” that amounts which the respondent had paid to the petitioning creditor since February 2008 had not been applied correctly to reduce the amount owed by him as at the date of bankruptcy. In effect this new ground of opposition took issue with the accuracy and interpretation of accounts maintained by the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to the respondent as attested to in the affidavits of debt of Mr Valacos.
The manner in which this fresh ground of opposition was raised meant that counsel for the petitioning creditor was not in a position to respond to all of the issues raised by the respondent. Accordingly the creditor was given the opportunity after the hearing to file and serve further evidence and written submissions in relation to the debt due as at the date of the act of bankruptcy and whether the debt on which the petitioning creditor relied was still owing. Such material was filed by the creditor. The debtor did not file and serve any submissions in reply. Neither party sought to bring the matter back before the Court as was provided for in directions. The evidence now before the Court, including the detailed written submissions of counsel for the petitioning creditor and the further affidavit from Christopher Valacos is, for the reasons given below, such as to satisfy me with proof of the matters in s.52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
It is not disputed that that the debtor committed an act of bankruptcy consisting of non-compliance with the bankruptcy notice on 7 August 2007 and that the amount of the judgment debt relied on was not paid prior to that time. It has not been suggested that there was any defect in the bankruptcy notice (for example as to the amount claimed) and no notice was given by the debtor under s.41(5) of the Act. Rather, it was suggested that the payments by the debtor to the creditor of $35,000 on 18 February 2008, $45,000 on 19 August 2008 and $61,000 on 31 October 2008 (of which $1,272 was payment of a costs order) had not been correctly applied to the debt that was owed by the debtor to the creditor as at the date of the act of bankruptcy. The debtor’s contention appears to be that the debt relied on by the creditor was not “still” owing as required under s.52(1)(c) of the Act (although there may now be other debts that did not exist at the date of the act of bankruptcy) because the three payments exceeded what Mr Dlakic understood to be the debtor’s indebtedness to the creditor at the date of the act of bankruptcy.
However I am satisfied on the material before the Court that the amount due to the creditor as at 7 August 2007 and relied on in the amended creditor’s petition included not only the judgment debt and interest which formed the basis for the bankruptcy notice but also other amounts. The total amount due as at 7 August 2007 was $194,664.08. After taking into account the subsequent payments (which have resulted in payment of the judgment debt) this leaves an amount of $57,342.69 which the debtor still owes the creditor from the date of the act of bankruptcy. His total indebtedness to the creditor at 11 November 2008 of $123,356.17 includes this amount.
The debts relied on in the amended creditor’s petition are taxation debts owed by the debtor to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. Business Activity Statements (BAS forms) lodged by the debtor with the creditor for certain periods disclose that he had certain tax related liabilities under the BAS provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (in particular amounts the debtor withheld under the “Pay as You Go” provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the TAA) that had to be paid to the Commissioner of Taxation and liabilities for GST) that were primary tax debts within the meaning of s.8AAZA of the TAA. Pursuant to that Act, on 1 July 2000 the creditor established and maintained a running balance account (RBA) in respect of such primary tax debts of the debtor. Copies of statements for that account are annexed to the affidavits of Christopher Valacos.
Mr Valacos attests that on 19 February 2004, in anticipation of commencing proceedings against the debtor in relation to his RBA, the debtor’s Legal Running Balance Account was established. Entries were transferred from the debtor’s RBA into his Legal RBA on that date leaving his RBA with a nil balance and his Legal RBA with a balance of $57,779.88 as at 19 February 2004. That amount was not ever transferred back to the RBA and it is not included in the RBA balance of $108,087.05 as at 7 August 2007, which reflected debts arising after 19 February 2004.
On 23 February 2004 the creditor commenced the District Court proceedings against the debtor seeking recovery of a sum of $68,293.42 consisting of the RBA deficit in the amount of $57,779.98 which represented the amount transferred from the debtor’s RBA to his Legal RBA in the records maintained by the creditor and also income tax for the year ending 30 June 2002 together with a general interest charge (GIC) amounting to $10,513.34.
On 20 August 2004 the creditor obtained judgment against the debtor in the amount of $62,132.90. This amount made an allowance for an income tax credit but also included further judgment interest, additional GIC and costs.
As explained in Mr Valacos’ affidavits, between 20 August 2004 and 4 June 2007, the date on which the bankruptcy notice was issued, further judgment interest and GIC accrued resulting in an amount of $77,593.39 owing at that time in relation to the debt the subject of the judgment. This is the amount referred to in the bankruptcy notice. These calculations are not disputed by the debtor.
Contrary to the debtor’s contention it is clear on the material before the Court that there was also a debt consisting of the balance of the debtor’s RBA as at 7 August 2007 that did not include and was in addition to the amount owing in relation to the debt the subject of the District Court judgment.
Under s.8AAZD of the TAA the Commissioner may allocate a primary tax debt to an RBA that has been established for that type of debt. Payments made by the debtor to the creditor were allocated to his RBA or Legal RBA as appropriate, pursuant to Division 3 of Part IIB of the TAA.
The $57,779.88 transferred from the debtor’s RBA to his Legal RBA as at 19 February 2004 was not ever transferred back and (contrary to the debtor’s suggestion) was not included in the calculation of the RBA deficit of $108,087.05 as at 7 August 2007. This is clear from the affidavit evidence of Mr Valacos, including the annexure to his affidavit of 11 November 2008 which traces the transfer of every entry between the debtor’s RBA and his Legal RBA.
As at 7 August 2007, the date of the act of bankruptcy, the debtor was indebted to the creditor for the amounts of $77,593.39 (the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice) and $117,070.69 (made up of $108,087.05 being the deficit of the debtor’s RBA at that date, income tax liability of $7580.59 and judgment interest from 3 June 2007 to 7 August 2007 in the sum of $1403.05). Thus the total debt owed by the debtor to the creditor as at 7 August 2007 was $194,664.08, not a lesser amount as the debtor suggested may have been the case.
The debtor also submitted that the payments he had made to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation since 7 August 2007 may not have been applied correctly to reduce the amount owed by him as from the date of bankruptcy. The particular payments in issue are $35,000 paid on 18 February 2008, $45,000 paid on 19 August 2008 and $61,000 paid on 31 October 2008.
Section 8AAZI(1) of the TAA 1953 is as follows:
The production of an RBA statement:
(a) is prima facie evidence that the RBA was duly kept; and
(b) is prima facie evidence that the amounts and particulars in the statement are correct.
There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the debtor’s RBA or Legal RBA were not duly kept or that the amounts and particulars in the statements before the Court are not correct. The debtor (who did not file any post-hearing written submissions in response to those of the creditor) has not established that the running balance accounts are not accurate. Moreover, annexed to the affidavit of Mr Valacos sworn on 31 October 2008 is a certificate pursuant to s.8AAZJ of the TAA which states:
1. In proceedings for recovery of an RBA deficit debt, a Commissioner’s certificate stating any of the following matters in respect of a specified RBA is prima facie evidence of those matters:
(a) that no tax debts (other than general interest charge on the RBA deficit debt) were allocated to the RBA after the balance date shown on a specified RBA statement;
(b) that general interest charges payable on the RBA deficit debt, as specified in the certificate;
(c) that payments and credits were allocated to the RBA, as specified in the certificate;
(d) that a specified amount was the RBA deficit debt on the date of the certificate.
2. In this section:
“Commissioner’s certificate” means a certificate signed by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, or by a second Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
That certificate, signed by Raelene Susan Vivian, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and a delegate of the Commissioner, certified that the sum of $117,070.69 “is as at 7 August 2007, a debt due and payable” by the debtor to the Commonwealth of Australia and also that the sum of $182,607.88 “is as at 31 October 2008, a debt due and payable” by the debtor to the Commonwealth of Australia. As Macready AJ stated in Kiama Wharf v DCT [2005] NSWSC 929 at [31] such certificates mean that the Commissioner “can proceed to recover without any explanation or allocation of the amounts to a primary tax liability.” There is no evidence before the Court to establish that such debts were not due and payable as certified.
The debtor appears to have understood this to mean that his total indebtedness as at 7 August 2007 (including the judgment debt) was $117,070.69. This confusion is understandable. However as now explained by Mr Valacos the sum of $117,070.69 was the amount still due from that date, excluding the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice which had been paid prior to 31 October 2008.
I am satisfied on the evidence before the Court that the certificate signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation as at 31 October 2008 did not take into account the $77,593.39 debt in the bankruptcy notice outstanding as at 7 August 2007 which was paid by the debtor before 31 October 2008. Nor did it take into account the further payment the debtor made on 31 October 2008.
The debtor has made three payments since the time the bankruptcy notice was issued. The total amount he has paid in relation to debts due from 7 August 2007 is $137,321.39. The first two payments were entered into his RBA (on 18 February 2008 and 19 August 2008) but transferred out to his legal action account and applied to the amount of $77,593.39 relied on in the bankruptcy notice and to interest of $2,406.61. The $61,000 paid by the debtor on 31 October 2008 included costs in the sum of $1,272. An amount of $2,406.61 was allocated to additional interest owing to the creditor. Hence $57,321.39 of the amount paid on 31 October 2008 was allocated in relation to other debts due as at 7 August 2007.
The creditor does not dispute that the amount of $77,593.39 included in the bankruptcy notice and the original creditor’s petition presented on 12 November 2007 has been paid or that the debtor has paid a total amount of $137,321.39 that has been allocated in relation to his debts due as at 7 August 2007. However, as set out above, the total amount owed as at the date of the act of bankruptcy was $194,664.08. Hence taking these three payments into account, the balance still owed by the debtor to the creditor of the amount that was due as at the date of the act of bankruptcy is $57,342.69.
A further Commissioner’s certificate dated 11 November 2008 is annexed to the affidavit of Mr Valacos of 11 November 2008. It takes into account the payment of 31 October 2008 and certifies that the sum of $57,342.69 was due as at 7 August 2007 “and continues to be a debt due and payable” by the debtor to the Commonwealth of Australia.
Thus it is clear that, contrary to the debtor’s contention, the original debt due to the creditor as at 7 August 2007 was $194,664.08 (not $117,070.69) and the subsequent payments of $137,321.39 left the sum of $57,342.69 due as at 7 August 2007 that continues to be due. This amount is part of the total sum of $123,356.17 that is now said to be due and payable by the debtor as at 11 November 2008, although this figure also includes liabilities that have become due since 7 August 2007.
Mr Dlakic also suggested that the debtor had sought to lodge “re-assessments” in relation to his income tax returns and BAS forms that may affect the extent of his liability to the creditor. In his affidavits of 31 October 2008 and 11 November 2008 Mr Valacos referred to the fact that on or about 26 September 2008 the debtor lodged amended income tax returns for the years ending 30 June 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. However income tax payable by the debtor is not a primary tax debt within s.8AAZA of the TAA. I accept Mr Valacos’ evidence that any amendments to the income tax returns would be reflected in entries in the debtor’s separate Income Tax Account and would not be entered in his RBA. Thus any credits or debits that may arise as a consequence of any amendments to the debtor’s income tax returns would not change the amount due in relation to his RBA, even if a part of his indebtedness from 7 August 2007 (his income tax liability of $7580.59) were to be affected.
In July 2008 the debtor lodged BAS forms for periods from September 2007 onwards. Entries in the debtor’s RBA have been made in respect of these periods and there is no suggestion that as a result there was not and is not still a debt to the creditor that amounts to $2,000 within ss.44 and 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act. The creditor’s calculation of the debtor’s actual present indebtedness has taken into account the BAS forms lodged by the debtor.
It is well established that the debt upon which a creditor’s petition and a sequestration order are based must be a debt that accrued before the date of the act of bankruptcy (see Re Debtors [1927] 1 Ch. 19 and Re Tait; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 65 FCR 592).
As the Full Court of the Federal Court stated in Emerson and Another v Wreckair Pty Limited (1992) 33 FCR 581 at 588 per Morling, Neaves and Spender JJ (at a time when the Act required a debt of $1,500):
To found the presentation of a creditor's petition, it is necessary that there be owing by the debtor to the petitioning creditor a debt that amounts to $1,500 or two or more debts that amount in the aggregate to $1,500: Bankruptcy Act, s 44(1)(a). There is however, no requirement for the issue of a bankruptcy notice that the creditor have a judgment for any minimum amount. Nor is there a requirement that a creditor who petitions for a sequestration order based upon an act of bankruptcy of the kind for which s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act provides rely, wholly or at all, upon the debt upon which the bankruptcy notice was founded.
(See also Re Frank; Ex parte Piliszky (1987) 16 FCR 396 at 403 – 4 per Fisher J and Farrington v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1013).
I am satisfied that in this case there was owing at the date of the act of bankruptcy as well as at the date of presentation and hearing of the petition a debt sufficient to enable the creditor to present the amended petition now relied on under s.44 of the Bankruptcy Act. I note that in Re Mendonca; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 15 FLR 256 Gibbs J pointed out (at 260) that if the creditor was entitled to present a petition based on the statutory amount, the erroneous inclusion in the petition of an additional debt that was not liquidated or payable immediately or at a certain future time as at the date of the act of bankruptcy did not render the petition invalid.
Based on the affidavit evidence of Mr Valacos I am satisfied that as at 11 November 2008 the sum of $123,356.17 remained due to the Commonwealth and was payable by the debtor to the creditor. Of this amount $57,342.69 remained outstanding which had been outstanding since 7 August 2007, the date of the act of bankruptcy. As a consequence of this amount remaining outstanding since the act of bankruptcy the debtor’s submissions and ground one in the notice of opposition do not establish a basis to oppose the creditor’s petition.
I am satisfied on the material before me of the matters required under s.52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act (and see also ss.43 and 44). The creditor’s petition was presented in correct form for a debt of more than $2,000 within six months of the date of the act of bankruptcy which was 7 August 2007. No issue is taken with the form of the amended creditor’s petition. I am satisfied with proof of the fact that the debt on which the petitioning creditor relies is still owing, as set out above.
Solvency
The debtor bears the onus under s.52(2) of the Bankruptcy Act to satisfy the Court that he is able to pay the debts he owes within a reasonable time (see Re Sarina; Ex parte Council of the Shire of Wollondilly (1980) 43 FLR 163). The second and third grounds in the notice of opposition are that the debtor is not insolvent, that he able to pay his debts as they fall due and that he has the capacity to pay the amount in the creditor’s petition upon sale of a property listed for sale at 2 Roy Kemp Close, Crescent Head.
There is limited evidence before the Court as to the debtor’s present financial situation. The evidence from the debtor consists of affidavits sworn by him on 15 May 2008 and 3 November 2008. The earlier affidavit annexes a statement of affairs signed on 8 May 2008. The later affidavit refers only to the debt to the creditor. It states that the debtor had placed “his” property at 2 Roy Kemp Close, Crescent Head on the market and annexes a copy of an agency agreement dated 23 October 2008 in which an opinion is expressed that the current estimated selling price was $175,000 to $225,000.
There is conflicting evidence before the Court about the property in issue. The creditor tendered a copy of a title search said to be for the property in question on which the registered proprietor was shown as another person. It is not clear that the agency agreement relates to “2” Roy Kemp Close as the street number is indistinct. In his first affidavit the debtor referred to “his” property at “Lot 20” (and disclosed a mortgage of $135,000), but in the attached statement of affairs signed on 8 May 2008 (completed before the earlier sequestration order was set aside) he disclosed that he jointly owned “20 Roy Kemp Close” with another person. He also stated that it was listed for sale at that time.
Also before the Court (and relied on by the creditor) is an affidavit sworn by Guilia Inga on 17 July 2008 as a report under Rules 7.04 and 7.06(6) of the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules at a time when the sequestration order was the subject of a review application. Ms Inga attested to the result of searches revealing that the property at Roy Kemp Close was registered in the joint names of the debtor and his partner. I accept this evidence. At that time the debtor had a business overdraft of $121,052 (which exceeded his limit of $121,000) secured on the property which the National Australia Bank had valued at $250,000. The debtor also had a business instalment loan of over $30,000 and, together with his partner (who owned another property), an interest only home loan of $157,000 and a variable rate home loan of over $147,000. The secured liabilities to the NAB (apart from the overdraft) were repayable at the rate of $2,728.18 per month.
The debtor disclosed unsecured debts as at 8 May 2008 of $3,660 and $13,250 in unencumbered assets. However he also claimed that as at 8 May 2008 his business was owed $55,000 by way of trade debts. The debtor operates a plumbing business. His financial statements up to 31 March 2007 showed a net operating loss of $15,079.04.
There is no more recent information before the Court about the debtor’s financial position or the position of his business. There is no current information as to his liabilities, other than the debt to the creditor discussed above.
There is no suggestion by the debtor (and nor does the evidence before the Court suggest) that he has any further capacity to borrow or obtain further finance to meet his debts, although he has made three significant payments to the creditor since February 2008. There is no evidence before the Court as to whether the debtor has ongoing projects or work in progress or other assets such as to establish that he is able to pay his debts within s.52(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act. This was not disputed by Mr Dlakic, who conceded that the debtor had failed to provide the Court with sufficient evidence to support the ground that he had the capacity to pay his debts, including the amount claimed by the creditor, upon sale of the jointly owned but mortgaged property at Crescent Head. In that respect I note that his evidence is that the Crescent Head Property was listed for sale with Crescent Head Real Estate as at 8 May 2008.
The evidence presently before the Court is not such as to establish that the debtor has assets which can be realised in a relatively short time or income such as to enable him to meet all of his debts (in relation to which there is no up-to-date information) (see Sandell v Porter and Another (1966) 115 CLR 666 at 670 – 672).
Nor am I satisfied that for any other sufficient cause a sequestration order ought not to be made. The fact that the debtor has made payments to the Australian Taxation Office over the past few months is not such as to persuade me that a sequestration order ought not to be made. Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the creditor’s petition, the debtor sought a further adjournment to enable the property at Crescent Head to be sold (the matter having already been adjourned on a number of occasions). However having regard to all of the circumstances, including the absence of up-to-date information in relation to the financial position of the debtor, I was not persuaded that a further adjournment of the creditor’s petition should be granted. Having now heard this matter, the circumstances are not such as to persuade me that a sequestration order ought not to be made.
In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent debtor committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the petition and with proof of the other matters required by s.52 of the Bankruptcy Act. I consider that it is appropriate to make a sequestration order against the estate of Allan Maxwell Graham.
I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM
Associate:
Date: 17 December 2008
8
4