Devine & Devine (No 2)
[2022] FedCFamC2F 920
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Devine & Devine (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 920
File number(s): PAC 2192 of 2016 Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON Date of judgment: 14 July 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – Part heard trial – oral application by respondent of no case to answer on certain counts – test for no case to answer - where applicant’s pleadings with respect to three counts are deficient – no case to answer on those counts – where there is a case to answer on two counts – counts to be listed for Trial Cases cited: Patrick v Capital Finance Corporation and Ors V637 of 2001 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 73 Date of hearing: 1 July 2022 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Lynch of Gorval Lynch Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Tabbernor Solicitor for the Respondent: Sydney Family Law Specialists Pty Ltd ORDERS
PAC 2192 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR DEVINE
Applicant
AND: MS DEVINE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE DICKSON
DATE OF ORDER:
14 JULY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Counts 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the husband’s Application for Contravention be dismissed.
2.Counts 11, 12 and 13 of the said application be listed for Trial on 3 February 2023 at 10:00am SA time (1 day allowed) such hearing to occur by way of Microsoft Teams.
3.The hearing listed on 31 August 2022 at 9:30am be vacated.
4.The respondent wife have leave to file and serve an affidavit (if she is so advised) no later than 21 days prior to the Trial date.
5.The applicant husband have leave to file and serve an affidavit in reply no later than 7 days prior to the Trial date.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Devine & Devine has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE DICKSON:
INTRODUCTION
The Trial in this matter concerns an Application for Contravention filed on 3 November 2021 (‘the Application’) by the applicant husband (‘the husband’).
On 7 February 2018, final consent orders were made in relation to the parties children B born in 2009 and C born in 2011 (‘the children’).
The Application was listed for final hearing on 1 July 2022. At the commencement of the Trial, counsel for the respondent wife (‘the wife’) made an oral application seeking:-
(1)That Count 15 of the Application be dismissed as it is a duplication of Count 14; and
(2)That the balance of the Application be summarily dismissed.
It was argued that the Application was “frivolous and/or an abuse of process”.
The oral applications made by the wife’s counsel were opposed in their entirety by the solicitor for the husband. The husband’s solicitor conceded that the alleged breach in Count 15 was incorrectly pleaded with the date of the alleged contravention said to be 7 October 2021, whilst the events in question were said to have taken place on the weekend of 21 October 2021.
There was no application made by the husband’s solicitor at the commencement of the Trial to orally amend the said application.
The Court heard extensive argument in relation to the two oral applications made by the wife’s counsel before delivering reasons and making orders dismissing counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 15 of the Application. Those reasons are contained in the Judgment of Devine & Devine [2022] FedCFamC2F 919.
After the husband was sworn in, the wife’s counsel elected not to cross examine the husband. A further oral application was then made by the wife’s counsel seeking to dismiss all remaining counts save and except for Count 13. It was argued that there was “no case to answer” based on the evidence pleaded by the husband.
These reasons address the oral application for no case to answer made by the wife’s counsel.
BACKGROUND
Final parenting orders were made by consent on 7 February 2018.
The husband is the applicant. He was born in 1970 and is currently 51 years of age.
The respondent wife was born in 1976 and is currently 46 years of age.
The parties were married in 2006 and separated for the final time in or around August 2015.
As referred to herein, the parties have two children.
On 7 February 2018, the parties entered into final consent orders. It is helpful to set out the full text of those orders here. The final consent order provides as follows:
Parenting
20. That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children B born in 2009 and C born in 2011.
21.That the children live with the mother.
22.That the children spend time with the father as agreed between the mother and the father but failing agreement.
(a)During school terms each alternate week commencing Thursday 8 February 2018 from the conclusion of school until the commencement of school on the following Tuesday with the father to collect the children from school at the commencement of time and to return the children to school at the conclusion of time;
(b)For one week of each of the term 1, term 2 and term 3 school holidays with the father’s time to commence at 12 noon on the first Sunday of each holiday period and to conclude at 12 noon on the following Sunday;
(c)During the Christmas School holiday period on the basis that the father is personally available to care for the children as follows:
(i)From 5.00pm on Christmas Eve to 2pm on Christmas day in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter;
(ii)From 2.00 pm on Christmas Day until 5.00pm on Boxing Day in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter;
(iii)for one period of 14 consecutive or non consecutive nights as agreed between the parties in writing but failing agreement as follows:
(A) From the 9.00am on the first Saturday following the conclusion of term 4 until 9.00am on the following Saturday;
(B) From 9.00am on 1 January until 9.00am on 8 January ;
(d)That during each Christmas School holidays period the father may elect to spend a block period of three (3) weeks with the children to commence on 1 January on the basis of the following:
(i)That such time occur in substitute for a time set out in (iii) (A) and (B);
(ii)That no less than 4 weeks written notice is given to the mother;
(iii)That confirmation is provided to the mother that the father is able to take leave sufficient to allow him to personally care for the children;
(iv)That provision of details is provided to the mother as to where the children will be living including details of proposed intrastate or interstate travel.
(e)On the Father’s Day weekend in the event that the children are not otherwise spending time with the father from 5.00pm on Saturday until the commencement of school on the following Monday;
(f)That the Father’s time with the children shall be suspended on the Mother’s Day weekend from 5.00 pm on the Saturday preceding Mother’s Day until the commencement of school on the following Monday.
23.That the parties agree that for the purpose of the children’s schooling that from the commencement of term 1 of 2018 that each party shall do all such things and sign all such documents as might be necessary to enrol the children in N Public School.
24.That for the purpose of changeovers that do not otherwise occur at the children's school, that the parent in whose care the children are living at the time of changeover shall deliver the children to the other parent at their home at the commencement of time and the parent to whom the children have been delivered shall return the children to the other parent, at their home at the conclusion of time.
25.That when the children are living with her that the mother do all such things as may be necessary to facilitate telephone communication between the father and the children each second day, by initiating a phone call to the father between 6.00pm and 6.30pm and encouraging the children to engage in the conversation.
26.That when the children are living with him that the father shall do all such things as may be necessary to facilitate telephone communication between the mother and the children each second day, by initiating a phone call to the mother between 6.00pm and 6.30pmm and encouraging the children to engage in the conversation.
27.That pursuant to section 65Y(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), both parties shall be entitled to take the children or cause for the children to be temporarily removed, to a place outside of the Commonwealth of Australia on the basis that the following provisions have been satisfied:
(a)That the travelling parent shall first provide to the non-travelling parent at least two (2) months prior to any intended travel, the written details of the following:
(b)The names of all places outside of the Commonwealth of Australia where it is proposed that the children are to travel (being countries, cities and towns);
(c)The proposed dates of travel including departure and return dates; and
(d)The contact telephone numbers, and addresses for all the places where it is proposed that the children will be staying overnight when outside of the Commonwealth of Australia.
(e)That in the event the intended period of travel time exceeds three (3) weeks and does not occur wholly during a school holiday period the non travelling parent must provide express written consent to the travelling parent.
(f)Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the proposed date of the children’s departure from the Commonwealth of Australia, the travelling parent must provide to the non travelling parent the following further documents and information in writing:
(i)A photocopy of all return airline and/or shipping tickets for the children evidencing the children’s return travel to Australia taken from the original of the same;
(ii)A copy of the relevant travel insurance policy verifying that whilst the children are travelling outside of the Commonwealth of Australia they are listed and covered on valid travel insurance policy for the duration of the time the are overseas;
(iii)Copies of all written itineraries for the actual overseas travel and
(iv)Details in writing confirming the contact telephone numbers upon which the children may be contacted whilst overseas and details in writing of all addresses of the places where the children will be staying overnight when outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
28.That for the purposes of facilitating the children’s travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to these Orders, and in the event the children require a current Australian passport, travel visas and/or other travel related documents for such travel, then both parties shall do all things necessary, sign all documents, deeds and instruments and provide all necessary consents to facilitate the issue of an Australian passport, all required travel visas and all other travel related documents for the children within seven (7) says of the non travelling parent receiving a request from the travelling parent.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The husband relies upon the following documents:
(1)Application for Contravention filed on 3 November 2021; and
(2)Husband’s affidavit filed 3 November 2021.
The husband filed an affidavit on 1 July 2022 at 9:17am (ACT time) on the day of Trial. The affidavit was not executed and was said to be prepared in accordance with “FCFCOA Practice Direction-COVID-19 Special Measures”. It transpired that the affidavit had been prepared in this manner as the husband was in transit travelling from his home at Town O into his solicitor’s office situate in central Sydney. The affidavit was filed without leave and was opposed by the wife. The wife’s counsel objected to the affidavit being received by the Court without leave and because it sought to address alleged deficiencies in the husband’s case which were highlighted in the wife’s written submissions.
I subsequently declined to receive the affidavit filed 1 July 2022 into evidence.
The husband did not file an Outline of Case document or any written submissions.
The wife has elected thus far not to file an affidavit, as she is entitled to do. The wife had sought to rely on written submissions filed by her counsel. However, the written submissions were not filed in accordance with paragraph 3 of the order made on 1 March 2022.
In order to ensure parity between the parties, I declined to receive the wife’s counsel’s written submissions and each of the parties addressed the Court orally.
REMAINING ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS
Details of the remaining alleged contraventions are as follows:
Count 8
It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on Thursday 28 January to around 1:00pm Saturday 30 January 2021, the respondent (‘the wife’) without reasonable excuse refused to allow the applicant (‘the husband’) to spend time with B.
Count 9
It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on Thursday 11 February to Saturday 13 February 2021 at or around 1:00pm, the wife, without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the husband to spend time with B.
Count 10
It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on Thursday 25 February to around 1:00pm, Saturday 27 February 2021. The wife, without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the husband to spend time with B.
Count 11
It is alleged that from 5:00pm on 4 September 2021 until the commencement of school on Monday 6 September 2021, the wife, without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the husband to spend time with his children on the Father’s Day weekend.
Count 12
It is alleged that without reasonable excuse, from around 10:30am on 13 September 2021 until the commencement of school on 14 September 2021, the wife attended at the husband’s residence and demanded that the children be returned to her care which resulted in the children leaving the husband’s care.
Count 14
It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on 7 October 2021 to around 12 October 2021, the respondent prevented the applicant from spending time with the child C.
THE HEARING ON 1 JULY 2022
The father was represented by his solicitor, Mr Lynch.
The wife was represented by Ms Tabbernor of counsel.
The hearing was conducted by way of Microsoft Teams.
After the preliminary rulings referred to above, each of the remaining charges were formally put to the wife. In response to each and every alleged contravention of the said order, the wife denied breaching the said order.
As set out above, the wife’s counsel elected not to cross examine the husband. The wife is yet to be cross examined. Cross examination of the wife will take place when the Trial resumes, subject to my rulings in relation to the wife’s application for no case to answer.
NO CASE TO ANSWER SUBMISSIONS
Count 8 of the Contravention Application
Count 8 alleges a breach of paragraph 22(a) of the final order. It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on Thursday 28 January 2021 to 1:00pm on 30 January 2021, the wife without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the applicant to spend time with B.
Paragraph 42 of the husband’s affidavit reads as follows:
The excuse provided, being B wanting to play sports for a team in Suburb P, is not a reasonable excuse when he is too young to make these decisions and could have played sports for a team in Town O.
Paragraph 22(a) of the final order provides that the children spend time with the husband each alternate week commencing Thursday from the conclusion of school until the commencement of school on the following Tuesday, with the father to collect the children from school at the commencement of time and to return the children to school at the conclusion of time.
The wife’s counsel submits that there is no evidence before the Court as to whether or not the husband had attended at the school to collect the children in accordance with the terms of paragraph 22(a) of the final order. Furthermore, there was no allegation that the mother had “refused” to allow the applicant time as alleged in the application.
In short, the wife’s counsel submits that the allegation of “refusal” is not made out in any of the evidence provided by the husband in paragraphs 41 to 43 of his supporting affidavit.
Count 9 of the Contravention Application
Count 9 alleges that the wife breached paragraph 22(a) of the final order by refusing to allow the applicant to spend time with B from around 3:00pm on Thursday 11 February 2021 to Saturday 23 February 2021 at or around 1:00pm.
In paragraph 44 of the said Affidavit the husband deposes:
The excuse provided, being B wanting to play sports for a team in Suburb P, is not a reasonable excuse when he is too young to make these decisions and could have place sports for a team in Town O.
The same submissions in relation to Count 9 were made as for Count 8, namely that there is no evidence provided to the Court demonstrating an alleged “refusal” by the wife to permit time spending in accordance with the Court order. Accordingly, the wife’s counsel submits that this count should be dismissed.
Count 10 of the Contravention Application
Count 10 alleges that from around 3:00pm on Thursday 5 February 2021 to Saturday 27 February 2021 the wife, without reasonable excuse, refuse to allow the husband to spend time with B in accordance with paragraph 22(a) of the final order.
The count is said to be supported by paragraphs 45 and 46 of the husband’s affidavit. Paragraph 45 simply repeats the allegation. Paragraph 46 reads as follows:
The excuse provided, being B wanting to play sports for a team in Suburb P, is not a reasonable excuse when he is too young to make these decisions and could have played sports for a team in Town O.
The same submissions as were made for Counts 8 and 9 are said to apply namely, that there is no evidence of the husband attending at the school to collect B in accordance with the terms of paragraph 22(a) of the said affidavit. There is no evidence of the wife’s alleged “refusal” and therefore nothing to support the husband’s assertions as contained therein.
Count 11 of the Contravention Application
Count 11 alleges that from 5:00pm on 4 September 2021 until the commencement of school on Monday 6 September 2021, the wife without reasonable excuse refused to allow the husband to spend time with his children on the Father’s Day weekend.
The alleged count is said to be supported by paragraphs 49 to 53 of the husband’s affidavit. In paragraph 50 of the said affidavit, the husband deposes that on 31 August 2021 he received a text message from the wife advising that she was unable to bring the children to his home for Father’s Day “due to Covid-19 restrictions”. The husband alleges that he replied reminding the wife of the orders.
On 4 September 2021 (being the day prior to Father’s Day) the wife forwarded a text message to the husband stating that the children would call him for Father’s Day. A copy of her text message is annexed as “-07” to the affidavit. The husband goes on to say that he “understood” the children spent time on Father’s Day with the wife and her partner. The husband alleges that the excuse provided namely “there being Covid-19 restrictions which prevented travel” was not a reasonable excuse given that there was a specific exception to travel to allow for time spending.
Annexure -07 being text messages between the parties read as follows:
Tue, 31 August, 8:25am
Mr Devine,
It appears COVID
restrictions have limited
movements for Fathers
Day.
I am not be able to move
the kids around unless
it’s directly related to
parenting care.
Thanks
I see your point but I
think our orders say
Father’s Day they are to
be here. The kids a more
than welcome if they
want to come.
Following on from the exchange above, the wife the indicated to the husband in a further text message that she would have the children call him for Father’s Day and that they would otherwise be brought down to him the following Thursday in accordance with the order. It is submitted by the wife that the father acquiesced with her proposal for time spending not to occur and that the Court could “safely find” that there was a variation of the order by consent. It is submitted that nowhere in the communication between the parties regarding the Father’s Day weekend is there any suggestion that the wife “refused” to allow the husband to spend time with the children. Furthermore that the husband having failed to show how the wife had “refused” time spending, the count should be dismissed.
Count 12 of the Contravention Application
Count 12 alleges that without reasonable excuse, from around 10:30am on 13 September 2021 until the commencement of school on 14 September 2021 the wife attended the husband’s residence and demanded that the children be returned to her care which resulted in the children leaving the husband’s care. It is alleged that such conduct constitutes a breach of order 22(a) of the final order.
The count is supported by paragraphs 61 to 65 of the husband’s affidavit. In this passage of the affidavit the husband deposes as follows:
61.From around 10.30am on 13 September 2021 until the commencement of school 14 September 2021 Ms Devine prevented the children spending time with me.
62.On Monday 13 September 2021, at around 10am, my partner Ms M was hospitalised after a fall. Ms M was taken to hospital by an ambulance. I received a text from Ms Devine to the effect that she was told by B that Ms M had a fall and that she was corning to my house. I then sent a text message to Ms Devine notifying her that I did not require her assistance. Annexed hereto and marked '-09' is a copy of the text message correspondence.
63.Despite my message, Ms Devine arrived at my house. I went outside and said words to the effect of "There is no reason for you to be here." The children were inside at the time. I informed Ms Devine that I would drop the children to her at the end of my allocated time per the Orders. Ms Devine then proceeded to bang on the glass windows of my house which caused the children to cry. B said words to the effect "I want to go." Given the pressure I was put under by Ms Devine physically banging on the glass and upsetting the children I said words to the effect "Ok. Fine" and so I let B go. C said words to me words to the effect of "What should I do?" I was upset by B's comments and Ms Devine's conduct so I said, "It's up to you" C said to me words to the effect of "Don't worry I'll come back' and went with B. Ms Devine made the experience far more confrontational and emotional than it needed to be.
64.There was no reasonable excuse provided by Ms Devine for taking the children during my time with them.
65. I did not receive make up time for the time lost being one night.
The wife’s counsel submits that there is no evidence of the wife having “demanded” that the children be returned. It is submitted that therefore there is no prima facie case and the count should be dismissed.
Count 14 of the Contravention Application
It is alleged that from around 3:00pm on 7 October 2021 to around 9:00am on 12 October 2021, the wife prevented the husband from spending time with C in accordance with paragraph 22(a) of the final order.
Count 14 is supported by paragraphs 79 to 83 of the applicant’s affidavit. This portion of the husband’s affidavit reads as follows:
79.From around 3:00pm 7 October 2021 to around 9.00am 12 October 2021 Ms Devine prevented me from spending time with C.
80.At 9:05AM on Tuesday 5 October 2021, I received a text message from Ms Devine stating “Mr Devine. I have to return to work this week and have notified their school. You can collect them from school on Thursday afternoon. Thank you. “Shortly after the first text message I received a second text message stating “C is staying because she has her friends birthday. She sent u a message on B’s phone.” Annexed hereto and marked ‘-13’ is a copy of the text message correspondence between Ms Devine and myself.
81.When Ms M attended school on 7 October 2021 she collected B but not C because of Ms Devine’s message.
82.Ms Devine refused to allow me to spend time with C. I have missed out on time from 7 to 12 October 2021, being 5 nights, which was regular time with C.
83.I have not received make up time for this time lost.
The wife alleges that there is nothing in the evidence provided by the husband which demonstrates that the wife “prevented” him from spending time with C in accordance with the final order and accordingly there is no case to answer.
THE TEST FOR NO CASE TO ANSWER
Ms Tabbernor submits that there is no prima facie case in relation to the abovementioned counts save and except for Count 13. Counsel did not refer to the Court to any authorities.
The test of whether or not there is a case to answer has been described as whether the evidence has before the Court, taken at its highest and ignoring those things which might diminish it, is capable of founding a conviction. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not need to be satisfied of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question of the test to be applied in a no case to answer submission was addressed in the decision of Patrick v Capital Finance Corporation and Ors.[1] In that decision, Justice Tamberlin approached a no case submission on the basis that the relevant question for determination was:
Whether on the present state of the evidence at the close of the applicant’s case, if no further evidence is called, would I find for the applicant?[2]
[1] Patrick v Capital Finance Corporation and Ors V637 of 2001 (per Tamberlin J).
[2] Ibid [13].
In Patrick (supra) the Court observed that:
The no case submission is presented on the basis that there are critical gaps in the evidence adduced to this point so that the applicant’s case is not made out. In particular, the respondents submit that there is an evidentiary hiatus as to essential elements in each of the causes of action pleaded: see Residues Treatment & Trading Co Limited v Southern Resources Limited (1989) 52 SASR 54 at 68.[3]
In Residue Treatments, Perry J, at 68 considered that there are four categories of cases in which a no-case submission might be advanced. His Honour identified these categories as follows:
“1. Where no reference at all to the evidence is required.
2. Where a reference to the evidence is required only to establish that there is an evidentiary hiatus or failure to adduce any evidence as to an essential element in the cause of action.
3. Where it is argued that on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff taken at its highest from the plaintiff’s point of view, the evidence could not support the causes of action pleaded.
4. The situation where it is contended that although there is some evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim, it is so weak and unreliable that it should be dismissed without calling upon the defendant (emphasis added)”.[4]
[3] Ibid [14].
[4] Ibid [15].
In this case I intend to approach the test as identified in paragraph 58 herein, namely, whether on the present state of the evidence at the close of the applicant’s case, if no further evidence is called, would I find for the applicant?
EVALUATION
Count 8
I accept the submissions of the wife’s counsel that there was no evidence pleaded by the husband in his affidavit as to:
(1)Whether or not he in fact attended the handover to collect B;
(2)If so, what happened at the said handover; or
(3)Any evidence of the wife’s “refusal” for him to spend time with the children.
Due to the husband’s deficiencies in his pleadings, the Court cannot be satisfied that there is a prima facie case to answer by the wife.
This count will be dismissed.
Count 9
For the same reasons as Count 8, this count will be dismissed.
Count 10
For the same reasons as Counts 8 and 9, this count will be dismissed.
Count 11
Father’s Day is provided for in paragraph 22(e) of the final orders. The requirement for handover is provided for in paragraph 24 of the final orders. The husband pleads a breach of paragraph 22(e) in Count 11. The text messages between the parties at Annexure -07 of the husband’s affidavit indicates that the wife was not able to move the children around unless it was “directly related to parenting care”. The husband’s response reminds the wife that there are orders with respect to the children spending Father’s Day with him.
Taking the husband’s evidence at its highest, the Court cannot “safely find”, as the wife’s counsel submits, that the husband agreed not to have the children or acquiesced to the mother’s position on Father’s Day weekend. There is a prima facie case to answer for the wife as to the circumstances of that weekend.
This Count will proceed to Trial.
Count 12
The husband’s pleadings as to the alleged breach at Count 12 as to the wife’s alleged behaviour on that day are concerning to the Court. Why the wife attended at the father’s house in the circumstances alleged to remove the children from the husband’s care will need to be the subject of further evidence. The Court’s view is that there is a prima facie case to answer for the wife as to her alleged attendance at the father’s residence to collect the children on the day of 13 September 2021.
This Count will proceed to Trial.
Count 14
For the same reasons as Counts 8-10 inclusive, the husband did not plead any specific evidence as to the wife’s “refusal” or “prevention” of him spending time with C on the weekend alleged. Further, the husband deposes to having his partner Ms M attend the handover to collect the children that day. There is no evidence from Ms M as to the circumstances of handover that day. For reasons as already referred to above, given the quasi criminal nature of contravention proceedings, hearsay evidence is not admissible.
Accordingly, there is no prima facie case to answer and this count will also be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons I make the orders as set out at the commencement of this Judgment.
I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dickson. Associate:
Dated: 14 July 2022
2
0