Dr Ross Gregory Pedrana v Racing NSW

[2014] NSWSC 462

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Dr Ross Gregory Pedrana v Racing NSW [2014] NSWSC 462
Hearing dates:	17, 18, 19 December 2013, 4 February 2014, 17 February 2014, 19 March 2014, 24 March 2014
Decision date:	24 March 2014
Before:	Rothman J
Decision:	Summons dismissed. Subject to Order 4, the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of and incidental to the proceedings. Any party seeking a special or different order as to costs shall file and serve an application therefor within fourteen (14) days of the publication of the reasons for judgment. Such application shall be accompanied by an outline of submissions of no more than three (3) pages and any documentation upon which the party relies. Any party affected by any proposed vacation or variation of Order 3, herein may reply thereto. Any such reply shall be filed and served within (7) days of the receipt of the aforementioned application and shall be subject to the same conditions as to length and accompanying documents as set out above for the application. Parties have liberty to approach my Associate and restore the matter on two days' notice. Otherwise, proceedings dismissed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - "another person associated with racing" - licensing power - abrogation of rights - alleged inconsistency in regimes under Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 and Veterinary Practice Act 2003
Legislation Cited:	Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW) Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (NSW) Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384 Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1 Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia (No 9) [2007] FCA 31 Lilley v Lindsay-Smith [2001] WASCA 168 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Latham (deceased) [1962] Ch 616
Texts Cited:	Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (4th edition, 2004)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Dr Ross Gregory Pedrana (Plaintiff) Dr David Russel Johnson (Plaintiff) Dr Allan Charles Frogley (Plaintiff) Dr Nicholas John Kannegieter (Plaintiff) Dr Christopher Gerard Lawler (Plaintiff) Racing New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: TGR Parker SC/OR Jones (Plaintiff) CRC Newlinds SC/JS Emmett (Defendant) Solicitors: Holman Webb Lawyers (Plaintiff) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2013/372880
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Each plaintiff is a veterinary scientist (vet) who, as part of his practice, treats racehorses. Each challenges the licensing system introduced by the defendant for such vets.

1. On 19 December 2013, the Court issued interlocutory orders maintaining and reinstating the status quo ante pending final hearing. On 19 March 2014, the final hearing occurred and on 24 March 2014, the Court issued orders dismissing the proceedings, with judgment for the defendant. At the time, the Court reserved its reasons for judgment. These are the reasons.

Facts and Regulatory History

1. The defendant, Racing NSW, is established as a body corporate by operation of s 4 of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (the Act). Its committee membership is appointed by the Minister and the Act gives Racing NSW the following functions and powers:

"s 13 Functions of Racing NSW

(1) Racing NSW has the following functions:

(a) all the functions of the principal club for New South Wales and committee of the principal club for New South Wales under the Australian Rules of Racing,

(b) to control, supervise and regulate horse racing in the State,

(b1) such functions in relation to the business, economic development and strategic development of the horse racing industry in the State as are conferred or imposed by this Act,

(c) to initiate, develop and implement policies considered conducive to the promotion, strategic development and welfare of the horse racing industry in the State and the protection of the public interest as it relates to the horse racing industry,

(d) functions with respect to the insuring of participants in the horse racing industry, being functions of the kind exercised by the AJC on the commencement of this section, and such other functions with respect to insurance in the horse racing industry as may be prescribed by the regulations,

(e) such functions as may be conferred or imposed on Racing NSW by or under the Australian Rules of Racing or any other Act,

(f) such functions with respect to horse racing in New South Wales as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The functions of Racing NSW are not limited by the Australian Rules of Racing and are to be exercised independently of the Australian Racing Board.

(3) The AJC ceases to have the functions that are solely the functions of the principal club for New South Wales or committee of the principal club for New South Wales under the Australian Rules of Racing.

(4) In this section: "AJC" means the club known as the Australian Jockey Club as referred to in the Australian Jockey Club Act 1873 on the commencement of this section.

s 14 Powers of Racing NSW

(1) Racing NSW has power to do all things that may be necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the exercise of its functions.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), Racing NSW has power to do the following:

(a) investigate and report on proposals for the construction of new racecourses, and inspect new racecourses or alterations or renovations to existing racecourses,

(b) register or licence, or refuse to register or licence, or cancel or suspend the registration or licence of, a race club, or an owner, trainer, jockey, stablehand, bookmaker, bookmaker's clerk or another person associated with racing, or disqualify or suspend any of those persons permanently or for a specified period,

(c) supervise the activities of race clubs, persons licensed by Racing NSW and all other persons engaged in or associated with racing,

(d) inquire into and deal with any matter relating to racing and to refer any such matter to stewards or others for investigation and report and, without limiting the generality of this power, to inquire at any time into the running of any horse on any course or courses, whether or not a report concerning the matter has been made or decision arrived at by any stewards,

(e) allocate to registered race clubs the dates on which they may conduct race meetings,

(f) direct and supervise the dissolution of a race club that ceases to be registered by Racing NSW,

(g) appoint an administrator to conduct the affairs of a race club,

(h) register and identify galloping horses,

(i) disqualify a horse from participating in a race,

(j) exclude from participating in a race a horse not registered under the Rules of Racing,

(k) prohibit a person from attending at or taking part in a race meeting,

(l) impose a penalty on a person licensed by it or on an owner of a horse for a contravention of the Rules of Racing,

(m) impose fees for registration of a person or horse,

(n) require registered race clubs to pay to it such fees and charges (including fees for registration of a race club) as are required for the proper performance of its functions, calculated on the basis of criteria notified to race clubs by Racing NSW,

(o) consult, join, affiliate and maintain liaison with other associations or bodies, whether in the State or elsewhere, concerned with the breeding or racing of galloping horses,

(p) enter into contracts,

(q) acquire, hold, take or lease and dispose of real and personal property whether in its own right or as trustee,

(r) borrow money,

(s) order an audit of the books and accounts of a race club by an auditor who is a registered company auditor nominated by Racing NSW,

(t) scrutinise the constitutions of race clubs to ensure they conform to any applicable Act and the Rules of Racing and that they clearly and concisely express the needs and desires of the clubs concerned and of racing generally,

(u) publish material, including periodical publications, to inform and keep informed the public concerning matters relating to racing, whether in the State or elsewhere,

(v) undertake research and investigation into all aspects of the breeding of horses and of racing generally,

(w) take such steps and do such acts and things as are incidental or conducive to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions."

1. The general registration and licensing functions of Racing NSW are governed by s 14AA of the Act, which is in the following terms:

"s 14AA Registration and licensing functions of Racing NSW-general

(1) Racing NSW is to exercise its registration and licensing functions so as to ensure that any individuals registered or licensed by Racing NSW are persons who, in the opinion of Racing NSW, are fit and proper persons to be so registered or licensed (having regard in particular to the need to protect the public interest as it relates to the horse racing industry).

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person is not to be so registered or licensed if the person has a conviction and Racing NSW is of the opinion that the circumstances of the offence concerned are such as to render the person unfit to be so registered or licensed.

(3) This section does not limit any provisions of the Rules of Racing relating to the exercise of the registration and licensing functions of Racing NSW.

(4) In this section:

"conviction" has the meaning given by the Criminal Records Act 1991 but does not include a conviction that is spent under that Act.

"registration and licensing functions" means the functions referred to in section 14 (2) (b)."

1. There is a specific provision, s 14A of the Act, governing the registration and licensing of bookmakers. Other than noting its existence, it is unnecessary to deal with s 14A of the Act.

1. As set out above, s 14(2)(b) of the Act grants to Racing NSW the power to register or to license "an owner, trainer, jockey, stablehand, bookmaker, bookmaker's clerk or another person associated with racing". Purportedly pursuant to that power, Racing NSW has enacted a local rule requiring vets treating racehorses, or horses in training, to be licensed with Racing NSW.

1. The aforementioned local rule is Local Rule 82C (LR 82C) and is one of a number of local rules. Each of the plaintiffs derives his income, wholly or substantially, from the treatment of racehorses training for, or competing in, races in NSW.

1. On 7 November 2013, Racing NSW published its new rule, LR 82C, and announced it would have effect on and from 1 December 2013. Its announcement in part was in the following terms:

"Racing NSW is duty bound to act in the interests of thoroughbred horse racing in this State. The integrity of the industry is critical and is fundamental to the confidence of the public and the punter.

It is essential to the integrity of thoroughbred racing that all persons involved in the care, welfare and management of the horse are bound by the same rules, required to assist the Stewards in their investigations and inquiries and subject to the same sanctions if they breach the rules."

1. Racing NSW published application forms: one for general vets treating horses in training; another for stable vets, i.e. those seeking to treat horses at a race meeting or barrier trial or to enter the horse stall area. The allegedly relevant conditions for each licence are the same.

1. By signing the application for registration, a vet would purportedly be submitting to the jurisdiction of the Principal Racing Authority; be submitting to the policies, directions, rules and regulations promulgated from time to time; restricting his or her ability to comment on any matter that was being investigated by Racing NSW; and, it seems, agreeing not to be exempt from personal liability.

1. The application was in the following terms:

"The [veterinary practitioner] acknowledges and agrees to be subject to and be bound by/agree to the below:

(a) The Rules of Racing of each Principal Racing Authority as amended or varied by each Principal Racing Authority from time to time...

(b) The terms and conditions of licence and licence acknowledgments as published by each Principal Racing Authority;

(c) Such rules, regulations, policies and directions as may from time to time be formed, made or given by each Principal Racing Authority, the stewards of each Principal Racing Authority ("Stewards") or the officials of any racing club registered by each Principal Racing Authority to conduct thoroughbred racing under the Rules ("Club");

(d) The [veterinary practitioner] submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of each Principal Racing Authority, its officials and Stewards in respect of all matters arising in relation to racing in the State or Territory of that Principal Racing Authority;

(e) That the licence may be revoked at any time by a Principal Racing Authority without the giving of any reason in accordance with the Rules;

(f) Not to make any public statement or comment concerning any matter currently the subject of investigation or hearing by a Principal Racing Authority, or the Stewards, Committee or Appeals panel or other body authorised by each;

(g) That [the veterinary practitioner] shall not be exempt from personal liability arising under the Rules for or by any reason whatsoever."

1. The functions of Racing NSW are prescribed by s 13 of the Act, as set out above, and the powers are generally prescribed by s 14 of the Act, also set out above. By operation of s 13(1)(a) of the Act, Racing NSW was granted all the functions of the principal club and its committee, and the functions conferred by the Australian Rules of Racing: see s 13(1)(e) of the Act.

1. Prior to Racing NSW being legislatively granted the status as principal club in NSW, the Australian Jockey Club (NSW) (AJC) was the principal club. The AJC had members bound inter se by its rules. Racing NSW has no members, in the unincorporated association sense. It has a committee appointed by the Minister. Nevertheless, the Act allows the Australian Conference of Principal Racing Clubs to confer, through the Australian Rules of Racing (Australian Rules), powers or functions on Racing NSW.

1. A power to license is also granted by the Australian Rules to each principal club, and the power is expressly to license "jockeys, trainers and others". All vets are registered with the Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales and are required by the terms and conditions of the general licence to continue to be so registered.

1. As is clear from the foregoing, s 14AA of the Act requires persons who are licensed by Racing NSW to be persons who, "in the opinion of Racing NSW, are fit and proper persons...(having regard in particular the need to protect the public interest as it relates to the horse racing industry)".

1. Local Rule 82C is in the following terms:

"LR 82C

(1)

a. No veterinarian shall provide services to a horse in training and/or competing in New South Wales unless that veterinarian is licensed by Racing NSW or, in the case of a veterinarian that principally carries on business in Queensland, by Racing Queensland.

b. A trainer shall not allow a horse under his care or control in New South Wales to receive veterinary services from any person other than a veterinarian who is licensed by Racing NSW or, in the case of a veterinarian that principally carries on business in Queensland, by Racing Queensland

(2) Subrule (1) of this rule does not apply in emergency circumstances where the health or welfare of a horse is at risk if veterinary services are not provided immediately and a licensed veterinarian is not available to provide those services.

(3) For the purposes of this rule:

"licensed veterinarian" means a veterinarian licensed by Racing NSW or Racing Queensland;

"veterinary services" means any services (including the prescribing or provision of any medication) provided to or in connection with a horse by a person who is qualified to practice veterinary science."

1. As can be seen Local Rule 82C provides for the licensing of vets and also prohibits trainers (who are otherwise subject to licensing requirements) from allowing a horse under the trainer's care or control to receive veterinary services from anyone other than a licensed veterinarian.

Principles of Statutory Interpretation

1. It is now trite that a statute must be construed as a whole and so as to provide that each of its terms are intended to give effect to harmonious goals. Each of its terms must be construed on the basis that it achieves that result that will best give effect to the purpose and language of those provisions while maintaining the unity of all the statutory provisions: Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [70], per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ; see also CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ.

1. It is the foregoing approach that must be applied in construing s 14(2)(b) of the Act and the provisions relating to the capacity of the Australian Rules to provide greater powers than might otherwise be the subject of legislative authority.

The Plaintiff's Case

1. Initially the plaintiffs relied on the following grounds to submit that the provisions of Local Rule 82C are invalid: that a vet was not "another person associated with racing" within the meaning of s 14(2)(b) of the Act; that the licensing system implemented by Racing NSW was inconsistent with the Veterinary Practice Act 2003; and that the restrictions on the conduct and liberty of vets were outside the capacity of Racing NSW.

1. I will deal last with the construction of s 14(2)(b) of the Act. The operation of the Veterinary Practice Act was utilised in two quite distinct ways. First, at least initially, the plaintiffs submitted the licensing of vets was, itself, inconsistent with the registration and licensing system, and its ancillary scheme of regulation, embodied in the Veterinary Practice Act. The second aspect, a nuance on the first, was that the independent operation of a registration and licensing system, together with the scheme of regulation for veterinary practitioners, could be used as support for the statutory construction that vets were never intended to be "another person associated with racing" and subject to a further scheme of regulation over and above the regulation as a veterinary scientist.

1. First, the provisions of the Veterinary Practice Act and the Act are enacted by the same legislature. There is no principle by which statutes of the same legislature are subordinate to each other. The terms of the statute, and any inconsistency, are resolved on ordinary statutory construction issues, repeal or variation by implication: legis posteriores priores contraias abrogant.

1. In Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1, the High Court dealt with such issues. It is clear from that judgment, and the many judgments adopting the classical approach therein, that a later statute will, if there be necessary inconsistency, repeal by implication, or vary by implication, the earlier statute with which it is inconsistent.

1. Nevertheless, the Court must be satisfied that the two statutes (or those parts said to be inconsistent) are so inconsistent or repugnant that they cannot stand together before a court will construe the later statute as impliedly repealing the earlier enactment. The foregoing assumes no express variation or repeal.

1. Nowadays, even implied repeal is a complicated task. Most legislation is updated from time to time and while the latest version of a statute may post date the latest version of another statute, an inconsistent approach will be difficult where earlier versions of each statute exist and have been re-enacted in a former version that is unamended. Thus, the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 remained relatively unamended until approximately 10 February 2003 and was then amended on 1 July 2004, 1 October 2004, 1 July 2005, twice in 2006, four times in 2008, once in 2009, twice in 2010, three times in 2011, once in 2013, and the latest version is as at 1 January 2014. The 1996 Act contained the same provision as currently in exists s 14(2)(b) of the Act, which has remained unamended since its promulgation.

1. The Veterinary Practice Act 2003 provides for the registration (and refusal of registration) for veterinary practitioners, the effect of which is that they can engage in restricted veterinary practices and the basis for such registration is academic completion of qualifications (or that which the Board approves as equivalent). In similar fashion to the Act governing thoroughbred racing, the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 was promulgated and remained unamended until 6 July 2004. It was amended on three occasions in 2004; once in 2005; once in 2006; once in 2007; once in 2009; twice in 2010; once in 2011; once in 2013 and twice in 2014. It replaced the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986, which had similar provisions for the registration of veterinary surgeons (as then called). Registration of veterinary surgeons can be traced back to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1923.

1. In those circumstances, which of the two statutes is the later in time? In my view it is unnecessary to answer the question.

1. There is much to be said for the principle adopted in the approach of the defendant in utilising the existence of each scheme of registration and/or licensing in construing the effect of the other statute. In other words, if the modern approach to statutory construction is the achievement of harmonious goals, it must be expected, at least in a perfect world, that harmonious goals will be achieved by the promulgation of different statutes of the same legislature. A construction which achieves such harmony should be preferred.

1. Nevertheless, the foregoing assumes that the goals achieved by the Veterinary Practice Act and the Thoroughbred Racing Act may not be harmonious. In my view, there is no tension between the two statutes.

1. The Veterinary Practice Act allows the Board appointed under the Veterinary Practice Act, to refuse to register an applicant if the applicant is not of good character; has been found guilty of certain offences; has been refused registration as a veterinary practitioner in another jurisdiction; upon satisfaction that the applicant is not fit to practice veterinary science; or because the applicant has refused to make a declaration of the relevant kind relating to conduct. The qualifications for registration (full registration) is, as earlier stated, academic. Nevertheless, the Board appointed pursuant to the Veterinary Practice Act is required to look at the applicant as a veterinary practitioner and in no other capacity. As a consequence, for example, association with persons who had been involved in the fixing of races may not, on its face, render the applicant "not of good character" nor otherwise form a basis upon which the Board could refuse registration as a vet.

1. The purpose and effect of the Thoroughbred RacingAct is, in that sense, directed at a wholly different subject matter. The purpose of the Act is to control and regulate racing and, in that respect, the protection of the public interest. The licensing of vets is for the achievement of that purpose. While there may be a condition that the vet continue to be registered under the Veterinary Practice Act (understandably), the purpose and subject matter of the registration under the Thoroughbred Racing Act (assuming that it is otherwise valid) is the effect that vets have on the performance of racehorses and the consequential integrity of racing in New South Wales.

1. There is not, in my view, the kind of inconsistency that is required to conclude that there is a subsequent implied repeal of one statute by another. Further, the existence of each of the schemes does not lead to a conclusion that the goals of both statutes, read together, are otherwise than harmonious. Even a limited degree of overlapping or repetitive conditions would not lead to such a finding.

1. There is no inconsistency between the Veterinary Practice Act, on the one hand, and the Thoroughbred Racing Act, on the other, and no invalidity in the registration of veterinary practitioners under the Thoroughbred Racing Act as a consequence of such a ground.

1. I turn then to deal with the fundamental basis upon which the plaintiffs put their case, namely, that a veterinary practitioner is not "another person associated with racing". There are a number of bases upon which this argument is agitated. First, it is said that the provisions of s 14(2)(b) of the Act describe a genus into which vets do not fit. Secondly, it is said that the term "associated with racing" is insufficiently broad to encompass vets. The second is, in some senses, a particular of the first.

1. The use of the term "another" tends to suggest that each of the previously enumerated words form a broad class from which one can derive particular attributes that would be required for a person to be "another person" associated with racing. The attribute to which the plaintiffs point is that, it is said, each of the listed classes of persons earn their income directly from racing.

1. In that sense the plaintiffs urge an application of the ejusdem generis rule: see, for example, Re Latham (deceased) [1962] Ch 616.

1. The difficulty with the foregoing approach is that the enumerated classes of persons are a very broad group. Some are employed directly by trainers. Some are employed directly by owners. Each has a direct impact upon the integrity of race meetings. Thus the group, if it be a genus, would need to be of such a broad category that it included race clubs and owners together with stable hands. At the same time it would also need to include bookmakers and bookermakers' clerks. In other words, it is not confined to those persons engaged directly in the conduct of race meetings, but includes those who bet on races.

1. It seems to me that if there be a need to determine a genus to which the term "another" relates, it is the group of persons whose conduct will or may directly or indirectly effect the integrity of a race meeting and the public's involvement in wagers thereon.

1. Thus, it would include persons who would be privy to inside information, the knowledge of which provides an unfair advantage if wagers were to be placed or the distribution of wagers may distort and affect the integrity of the betting system and, thereby, horseracing.

1. Such a genus accords with the purpose of the Act and the establishment of Racing NSW, as otherwise described under the terms of the statute.

1. I turn to the meaning of the term "associated" in the context of s 14(2)(b) of the Act. In the context of this statute and this particular provision, the term "associated with racing" means connected directly or indirectly with racing.

1. The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th Edition, defines "associate", relevantly, to include a definition equivalent to "connect in the mind" or "to join or combine" or "to combine for a common purpose" or "to meet frequently or have dealings" (particularly, in the last mentioned definition, when followed by the word "with"). It is also defines the word to mean "a thing connected with another or joined in function or allied in the same group or category". See also Lilley v Lindsay-Smith [2001] WASCA 168 at [46], [47], per Hasluck J (relating to associated work) and Harrington-Smith on behalf of theWongatha People v State of Western Australia(No 9) [2007] FCA 31.

1. It seems to me properly construed the term "another person associated with racing" includes, at least, a person connected, directly or indirectly with racing, whose conduct affects the integrity of race meetings and thereby the public interest as it relates to horse racing.

1. Veterinary scientists (or practitioners) are persons who are at least indirectly connected with racing and whose conduct directly affects the integrity of racing meets and the public interest as it relates to the horse racing industry.

1. As a consequence, s 14(2)(b) of the Act contains a power for Racing NSW to license veterinary practitioners who are treating horses that are racing or in-training for racing (as that latter term has been defined).

Licensing Conditions

1. Much effort was expended by the plaintiffs to prove that the licensing regime implemented by Racing NSW significantly impacts upon the liberties of citizens or persons operating in New South Wales (and possibly beyond). The terms of the licence, already described, purport to impose upon any vet, who seeks to register, agreement to conditions such as consent to search and seizure, the ousting of the civil jurisdiction of the courts in some respects and the submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Stewards established under the Rules of Racing.

1. It is unnecessary for the Court to deal with this aspect. Vets who register are not members of Racing NSW and are not bound, under a contract inter se, between the vet and Racing NSW. Racing NSW is not an association.

1. A refusal to abide by the terms seemingly imposed and/or accepted under the registration application may result in registration being refused or revoked. Were it to result in revocation (which it may on one view of the defendant's argument), very different issues would arise as to the validity of any such condition.

1. It would seem, without finally dealing with the issue, that any such condition would not be a necessary condition in order to achieve registration and licensing in the public interest as it relates to the racing industry. Nevertheless, as Racing NSW correctly submits, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that Local Rule 82C is invalid. Local Rule 82C involves only registration and licensing and not any attempt to impose conditions for licensing or for registration.

1. For the foregoing reasons, the Court issued the orders it did on 24 March 2014, which were in the following terms:

(i)   Summons dismissed.

(ii)   Reasons reserved.

(iii)   Subject to Order 4, the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

(iv)   Any party seeking a special or different order as to costs shall file and serve an application therefor within fourteen (14) days of the publication of the reasons for judgment. Such application shall be accompanied by an outline of submissions of no more than three (3) pages and any documentation upon which the party relies.

(v)   Any party affected by any proposed vacation or variation of Order 3, herein may reply thereto. Any such reply shall be filed and served within seven (7) days of the receipt of the aforementioned application and shall be subject to the same conditions as to length and accompanying documents as set out above for the application.

(vi)   Parties have liberty to approach my Associate and restore the matter on two days' notice.

1. Having published the reasons for judgment, the Court will vacate its reservation of reasons and otherwise dismiss the proceedings.

**********

Amendments

24 April 2014 - Typographic Error: "Training" changed to "Treating"

Amended paragraphs: 45

Decision last updated: 23 April 2014