Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd
[2024] FedCFamC2G 1124
•1 November 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 1124
File number: MLG 576 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE SYMONS Date of judgment: 1 November 2024 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work – application for default judgment pursuant to rule 13.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – applicant seeking declaration of contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by reason of failure of first respondent to comply with compliance notice – applicant seeking declaration that second respondent involved in the contravention and liable as an accessory – acts of default established – statement of claim establishes basis for declarations – where applicant seeks orders that would require first respondent to make payment to employee of specified amount identified as underpayment – where question of relief to be addressed at hearing on penalty Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 12, 14, 87, 90, 550, 700, 716
Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020, cll 16.3, 21.4
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), rr 1.06, 4.03, 4.04, 6.01, 13.04, 13.05
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 665; [2006] FCA 1427
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 378; [2012] FCAFC 56
Fair Work Ombudsman v Carers Portland Inc [2023] FedCFamC2G 620
Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 336
Fair Work Ombudsman v Double Hao International Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 343
Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing [2024] FedCFamC2G 270
Macquarie Bank Limited v Seagle (2005) 146 FCR 400; [2005] FCA 1239
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra (1998) 41 IPR 225; [1998] 2 All ER 638
Rathner; in the matter of Mildura Grand Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bendigo Skyrider Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 626
Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 38 Date of last submissions: 31 October 2024 Date of hearing: 31 October 2024 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the applicant: Ms A Mitchell Respondents: No appearance ORDERS
MLG 576 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND: NEW SWITCH ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (ACN 646 823 396)
First Respondent
MARK LADORES TAN
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE SYMONS
DATE OF ORDER:
31 OCTOBER 2024
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.Upon admissions taken to have been made by reason of the first and second respondents’ default pursuant to rule 13.04(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules):
(a)the first respondent contravened section 716(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by failing to comply with the compliance notice issued on 16 December 2022 (Compliance Notice); and
(b)the second respondent was involved, within the meaning of section 550(2)(c) of the FW Act, in the first respondent’s contravention of the FW Act referred to in paragraph 1(a) above and by reason of section 550(1) of the FW Act is therefore taken to have himself contravened section 716(5) of the FW Act.
2.The matter be listed for penalty hearing before Judge Symons at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in Melbourne on 6 February 2025 at 10:00am on an estimate of half a day.
3.The applicant file and serve any further affidavits directed at the issue of penalty on or before 22 November 2024.
4.The respondents file and serve any affidavits directed at the issue of penalty on or before 20 December 2024.
5.The applicant file and serve written submissions on the question of penalty and any further relief sought on or before 17 January 2025.
6.The respondents file and serve responsive written submissions on or before 31 January 2025.
7.Reasons for judgment will be published shortly from chambers.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE SYMONS:
INTRODUCTION
The applicant (the FWO) applies under r 13.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules) for default judgment against the first respondent, New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (New Switch) and the second respondent, Mark Tan (Mr Tan) in a proceeding the FWO has brought under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). The FWO relies on an application in a proceeding filed on 23 October 2024 and the affidavits of FWO lawyer Alyson Michelle Mitchell affirmed on 10 April 2024, 16 April 2024, 10 September 2024, 23 October 2024, and 28 October 2024 (the first Mitchell affidavit, the second Mitchell affidavit, the third Mitchell affidavit, the fourth Mitchell affidavit, and the fifth Mitchell affidavit, respectively) each of which I have treated as being read and which contain evidence of matters referred to throughout these reasons.
The FWO claims that New Switch contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act by failing to comply with the requirements of a compliance notice given to it on 16 December 2022. The FWO claims that Mr Tan was an intentional participant and therefore involved, within the meaning of s 550(2)(c) of the FW Act, in the alleged contravention and taken therefore to have himself contravened s 716(5).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The FWO commenced this proceeding on 13 March 2024 by filing an application and statement of claim. On the same date, Ms Mitchell, sent a letter addressed to the registered office for New Switch, enclosing sealed copies of the originating documents.[1]
[1] First Mitchell affidavit, [7]; Annexure AMM-02.
Ms Mitchell also sent an email attaching a covering letter, and a copy of the originating documents to '[email protected]' (New Switch email).[2] The New Switch email had been used by the FWO in the past to communicate with Mr Tan.
[2] Second Mitchell affidavit, [7]; Annexure AMM-02.
On 14 March 2024, Ms Mitchell received a response from the New Switch email which read: “Thank you for your email. I will get back to you end of next week with a formal response”. The author of the email was Mr Tan.[3]
[3] Second Mitchell affidavit, [8]; Annexure AMM-03.
On 22 March 2024, 2 April 2024, and 9 April 2024, Mr Morrano, a process server, attended three separate addresses in an attempt to personally serve the originating documents upon Mr Tan. None of these attempts at service were successful.
Application in Proceeding for Substituted Service
On 17 April 2024, the FWO filed an Application in a Proceeding, seeking orders for deemed and substituted service on Mr Tan.
On 17 April 2024, a lawyer for the FWO appeared before me at the first directions hearing which occurred using Microsoft Teams. There were no appearances by or on behalf of either New Switch or Mr Tan. On this day I made orders including that the FWO’s application for substituted service be listed for hearing on 12 September 2024 (April orders).
On 18 April 2024, Ms Mitchell sent a letter to the registered office for New Switch, located at Unit 2, 8-10 Catalina Drive, Tullamarine, Victoria 3043 enclosing a copy of the April orders, a sealed copy of the substituted service application, a sealed copy of the first and second Mitchell affidavits and an affidavit of service filed 16 April 2024.
On 18 April 2024, Ms Mitchell sent an email to the New Switch email attaching a letter and the same documents referred to above.
When the matter returned before me on 12 September 2024, Ms Mitchell appeared on behalf of the FWO. There were no appearances by or on behalf of the first or second respondent. I made orders on this date for deemed and substituted service of originating documents on Mr Tan having been satisfied, on the affidavit material filed and relied upon by the FWO, that it had taken reasonable steps in an attempt to serve these documents on Mr Tan and the means identified to effect service would likely have brought these documents to Mr Tan’s attention and that going forward, use of the New Switch email would continue to bring documents filed in the proceeding to his attention.
In addition to orders for deemed and substituted service, I made orders that (September orders):
(a)Each of the respondents file a Notice of Address for Service by 19 September 2024 (paragraph 4).
(b)Each of the respondents file and serve any defence and response by 10 October 2024 (paragraph 5).
(c)The matter be listed for a directions hearing on 31 October 2024 at 9.30 am.
(d)If one or both of the respondents do not comply with paragraphs 4 and/or 5 of these orders, the applicant may file and serve an application in a proceeding supported by affidavit evidence, for default judgment pursuant to rule 13.05(2) of the Rules, and that application will be made returnable on 31 October 2024.
On 12 September 2024, Ms Mitchell sent a copy of the September orders to the registered address of New Switch[4] and to the New Switch email.[5]
[4] Fourth Mitchell affidavit [9]; Annexure AMM-9.
[5] Fourth Mitchell affidavit [11]; Annexure AMM-11.
The Court file records that no notice of address for service was filed by either respondent by 19 September 2024 (or at all) and no defence or response was filed by either respondent by 10 October 2024 (or at all).
Reflecting this situation, on 11 October 2024, Ms Mitchell sent a letter by express post to the respondents at the registered address of New Switch noting that there had been no compliance with the September orders, and that the FWO intended to apply for default judgment unless the respondents filed a NOAFS and any response and defence by 18 October 2024.[6] Ms Mitchell also sent an email to Mr Tan to the New Switch email enclosing a copy of the letter that had been posted.[7] As at 31 October 2024, the FWO had not received a response to any of this correspondence despite it producing evidence that it had been successfully delivered or transmitted.
[6] Fourth Mitchell affidavit [13]; Annexure AMM-13.
[7] Fourth Mitchell affidavit [15]; Annexure AMM-14.
On 23 October 2024, the applicant filed an Application in a Proceeding for default judgment, along with the Fourth Mitchell affidavit.
On 23 October 2024, Ms Mitchell sent a copy of the application for default judgment, along with a cover letter and a copy of the September orders, to the registered address of the first respondent,[8] and to the New Switch email.[9]
[8] Fifth Mitchell affidavit [8]; Annexure AMM-16.
[9] Fifth Mitchell affidavit [10]; Annexure AMM-18.
The matter returned before me as provided in the September orders on 31 October 2024 at 9.30 am. The hearing was convened using Microsoft Teams. A link to the hearing had been sent to the respondents on 22 October 2024 using the New Switch email. There was no indication that the email had not been successfully transmitted.
The FWO was represented by lawyer, Ms Mitchell. There was no appearance by or on behalf of either respondent.
The FWO moved on its application for default judgment.
I decided that it was appropriate to determine the FWO’s application for default judgment in circumstances where both respondents have been on notice that an application for default judgment might be made if they failed to comply with their obligations under the September orders and that such application (if made) would be heard on this date. They later received notice that the foreshadowed application had in fact been made. Furthermore, both respondents had been afforded the opportunity to participate in and defend the application and had failed, absolutely, to do so. The respondents have not put any material before the Court, they have not appeared at any hearing, and they have not communicated with the Court or the FWO to explain their position or to seek any indulgence with respect to an extension of time and/or an adjournment.
RULE 13.05(2)
Rule 13.05(2) of the FCFCOA Rules applies to a respondent who is “in default”
Pursuant to r 13.04(2) of the Rules a respondent is in default if they have not satisfied the applicant’s claims and have failed to do one or more of the things identified in r 13.04(2)(b) of the Rules.
When a respondent is in default or absent from a hearing, the Court may make one of the orders set out in r 13.05(2) of the Rules. Relevant to the application before me is r 13.05(2)(c) which provides that the Court may:
c) if the proceeding was started by an application supported by a statement of claim or the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on the pleadings – give judgment against the respondent for the relief that:
i.the applicant appears entitled to on the statement of claim; and
ii.the Court is satisfied it has power to grant.
ARE THE RESPONDENTS IN DEFAULT?
In the case of both New Switch and Mr Tan there has been a failure to:
(e)File and serve a notice of address for service in accordance with r 6.01 of the Rules and paragraph 4 of the September orders;
(f)File and serve a response and any defence within 28 days of service of originating documents as required by rr 4.03 and 4.04(3)(a) of the Rules and paragraph 5 of the September orders;
(g)Attend the directions hearing on 17 April 2024, 12 September 2024 and 31 October 2024; and
(h)Defend the proceeding with due diligence.
PRINCIPLES
The principles guiding the exercise of the Court’s power in relation to default judgment are well settled. These principles include:
(a)First, r 13.05(2)(c) of the Rules “does not require proof of the claim by evidence, but only requires that – on the face of the statement of claim – there is a claim for the relief sought”.[10]
(b)Second, before the Court may make an order under r 13.05(2)(c) of the Rules it must be satisfied that the document, which the applicant has filed with the application, is on its face “a statement of claim”. A statement of claim is a pleading, which means it must comply with the rules of pleading.[11]
(c)Third, it follows from (b) that the statement of claim must plead at least one reasonable cause of action that supports the granting of the relief the applicant seeks in the application. More particularly, “each element of the civil wrong” of which the applicant complains must be “properly and discretely pleaded in the statement of claim”.[12]
(d)Fourth, although r 13.05(2)(c) of the Rules does not require proof of the claim by evidence, it is permissible for the applicant to adduce evidence that is relevant to the relief sought.[13]
(e)Finally, the Court retains a discretion not to make an order under r 13.05(2)(c) of the Rules even if the preconditions for making an order are satisfied.[14]
[10] Rathner; in the matter of Mildura Grand Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bendigo Skyrider Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 626 at [9].
[11] Under r 1.06(3) of the Rules, the rules of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FC Rules) identified in Schedule 1 to the Rules apply, with necessary changes to general federal law proceedings. The FC Rules there identified include the rules of pleading.
[12] Macquarie Bank Limited v Seagle [2005] FCA 1239 at [24].
[13] Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra (1998) 41 IPR 225, at p 230.
[14] See the authorities decided under Order 35A of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) referred to by Flick J in Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 at [20].
THE FWO’S PLEADED CASE AND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In its statement of claim filed on 13 March 2024 the FWO alleges the following:
(a)New Switch operates an electrical business, which trades as “New Switch Electrical”.
(b)New Switch, is and was at all relevant times:
(i)a company incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and registered since 27 December 2020;
(ii)a “constitutional corporation” within the meaning of s 12 of the FW Act;
(iii)a “national system employer” within the meaning of s 14 of the FW Act
(c)The second respondent, Mr Tan, is and was at all relevant times
(i)a natural person capable of being sued;
(ii)the sole director of the first respondent;
(iii)a person with actual or apparent responsibility of the operation, management and control of the first respondent;
(iv)a person with actual or apparent responsibility for ensuring that the first respondent complied with its legal obligations under the FW Act;
(v)a person who communicated with the applicant using the email address [email protected]; and
(vi)a person whose conduct is taken to be that of the first respondent pursuant to s 793(1) of the FW act
(d)From or around October 2022, Fair Work Inspector (FWI) Logan conducted an investigation into New Switch’s compliance with Commonwealth workplace laws after which FWI Logan formed a reasonable belief that:
(i)New Switch employed Anh Tuan Do (employee) from 9 August 2021 to 28 September 2022 (which was the date of termination) on a full-time basis;
(ii)the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 (Award) covered and applied to New Switch with respect to its employment of the employee;
(iii)as per Schedule A of the Award, the employee was classified as an Electrical Worker Grade 5;
(iv)the employee was entitled to be paid an all-purpose rate in accordance with clause 16.3 of the Award;
(v)the employee was entitled to accrue paid annual leave throughout his employment pursuant to s 87 of the FW Act;
(vi)on 28 September 2022 the employee had a balance of accrued annual leave, which he was entitled to be paid; and
(vii)New Switch failed to pay the employee:
(A)the all-purpose rate applicable to an Electrical Worker Grade 5 for the hours of work he performed from 22 to 28 September 2022, contrary to clause 16.3 of the Award;
(B)his accrued annual leave (together with annual leave loading as required by clause 21.4 of the Award) which was payable when the employee’s employment ended, contrary to s 90(2) of the FW Act (a provision of the National Employment Standards).
(together, the contraventions)
(e)Because of the matters in (d) above, FWI Logan formed a reasonable belief, pursuant to s 716(1) of the FW Act, that New Switch contravened a provision of the National Employment Standards and a term of the Award.
(f)On 16 December 2022, FWI Logan gave New Switch a compliance notice in respect of the contraventions pursuant to 716(2) of the FW Act (compliance notice) which required New Switch to do the following by 14 February 2023 (specified action):
(i)calculate and pay to the employee any outstanding amounts due in respect of the contraventions
(ii)calculate any additional superannuation contributions required to be paid pursuant to clause 19.2 of the Award in respect of the underpayment amount and pay such contributions to the employee’s superannuation fund;
(iii)make a record of the amounts calculated and paid;
(iv)by 21 February 2023 produce reasonable evidence to the FWO of New Switch’s compliance with the compliance notice by producing a copy of the records referred to in sub-paragraph (f)(iii) and proof that full payment had been made to the employee and his superannuation fund.
(g)New Switch did not take any of the specified action by 14 February 2023 or produce evidence of compliance by 21 February 2023, or at all.
(h)By reason of the matters pleaded in sub-paragraph (g), New Switch failed to comply with the compliance notice and contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act.
Accessorial liability of Mr Tan
(i)On 16 December 2022, FWI Logan caused a copy of the compliance notice to be sent to the New Switch email.
(j)On 7 February 2023, Mr Tan replied to the email referred to above.
(k)By reason of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (c), (h),(i) and (j) above, Mr Tan was responsible for ensuring that New Switch complied with the compliance notice.
(l)By reason of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (c), (h), (i), (j) and (k) above, Mr Tan:
(i)had actual knowledge that:
(A)the compliance notice was given to New Switch;
(B)New Switch was required to comply with the compliance notice within the timeframe specified;
(C)New Switch failed to comply with the compliance notice; and
(ii)was an intentional participant in New Switch’s failure to comply with the compliance notice.
(m)By reason of the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (l) above, Mr Tan:
(i)was involved, within the meaning of s 550(2)(c) of the FW Act, in the contravention by New Switch of s 716(5) of the FW Act referred to in sub-paragraph (h); and
(ii)pursuant to s 550(1) of the FW Act, is taken to have himself contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act.
Relief sought by the FWO
In a minute of orders provided by the FWO to chambers on 24 October 2024 the FWO clarified that it sought:
(a)A declaration that New Switch contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act by failing to comply with the compliance notice;
(b)A declaration that Mr Tan was involved, within the meaning of s 550(2)(c) of the FW Act, in New Switch’s contravention of the FW Act and by reason of s 550(1) of the FW Act, taken to have contravened s 716(5) himself;
(c)An order pursuant to s 545(1) of the FW Act that within 28 days, New Switch take the action required by the compliance notice by:
(i)paying the amount of $4,810.56 (outstanding amount) to the FWO with the FWO to distribute the funds received to the employee within 60 days of their receipt.
(ii)paying an additional superannuation contribution to the employee’s nominated superannuation fund as required by clause 19.2 of the Award in respect of the outstanding amount;
(iii)providing evidence to the FWO of the payment to the employee’s nominated superannuation fund.
(d)An order pursuant to s 545(1) or s 547(2) of the FW Act that New Switch pay interest to the FWO on the outstanding amount.
The FWO also sought orders that the matter be set down for a hearing on penalty with a timetable for the exchange of evidence and submissions.
To what relief is the FWO entitled?
The statement of claim alleges a cause of action based on a contravention of s 716(5) of the FW Act, which provides that a “person must not fail to comply with a notice given under this section”. The “notice” referred to in s 716(5) is the notice which s 716(2) of the FW Act authorises “an inspector” to issue. “Inspector” is defined in s 12 of the FW Act as a “Fair Work Inspector”, which, in turn, is defined in s 12 of the FW Act to mean (relevantly) a person appointed as a Fair Work Inspector under s 700 of the FW Act. Subsection 716(2) provides for the giving of a notice in the circumstances identified in s 716(1) of the FW Act, namely, where an inspector reasonably believes that a person has contravened, among other things, a provision of the National Employment Standards (NES) or a term of a modern award. The notice that s 716(2) of the FW Act authorises an inspector to give is one which requires the person whom the inspector reasonably believes has contravened (among other things) a provision of the NES or a term of a moder award to take specified action “to remedy the direct effects of the contravention referred to in subsection (1)”.
The statement of claim also alleges a cause of action that Mr Tan was involved in New Switch’s contravention of s 716(5). The “involvement” is said to arise from Mr Tan being knowingly concerned in or a party to the contravention. The statement of claim properly identifies the elements of the contravention and contains an express pleading that Mr Tan had knowledge of each of the essential elements constituting the contravention. It identifies the material facts said to establish such knowledge or from which such knowledge is to be inferred.
I am satisfied that the statement of claim filed in this matter and upon which the applicant relies complies with the rules of pleading and properly pleads a cause of action against both New Switch and Mr Tan. In particular, I am satisfied that the facts alleged in the statement of claim establish that both New Switch and Mr Tan contravened s 716(5) of the FW Act.
Should declarations be made?
It is not in doubt that this Court has a wide discretion to make declarations, including in circumstances where due to an act of default, a respondent is deemed to have made admissions. In this respect, there is no requirement, as there once was, for there to be a proper contradictor before declaratory relief can be granted. The requirement for a contradictor is met if there is a party who had an interest to oppose the declaratory relief that was being sought.[15] However, it has been recognised that when considering declaratory relief in cases such as the present, the particular characteristics of an application for default judgment should be borne in mind. In particular, default judgment is given on the basis of the claim as pleaded by the applicant and in the absence of a defence or contradictory evidence. Accordingly, as the FWO by its proposed form of declarations has recognised, it is appropriate to make clear that there has been no adjudication on the merits of the applicant’s claims by including wording in the declaration to the effect that the declarations are made “upon admissions which the respondent in question is taken to have made consequent upon their non-compliance with the requirements of the rules of Court”, as suggested by Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427 at [59].
[15] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 56 at [30] per Greenwood, Logan and Yates JJ.
I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for declaratory relief, if for no other reason than to mark the Court’s disapproval of the contravening conduct.
Orders requiring New Switch to comply with the requirements of the compliance notice and for payment of interest
As recorded earlier, the FWO seeks orders that would require New Switch to make a payment of a specified amount said to be referable to the underpayment contraventions alleged in the compliance notice (identified as the “outstanding amount”). The FWO also seeks an order for the payment of any additional superannuation arising from the outstanding amount as well as interest on the outstanding amount. The FWO appears to suggest that these orders can be made under s 545(1) of the Act.
This position has in recent times been questioned and there are several decisions of this Court that suggest that an order requiring payment by an employer of a predetermined amount is not one that can or should be made in compliance notice proceeding.[16]
[16] For example, Fair Work Ombudsman v Carers Portland Inc [2023] FedCFamC2G 620; Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 336; Fair Work Ombudsman v Taing [2024] FedCFamC2G 270 and Fair Work Ombudsman v Double Hao International Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 343.
The FWO has not been given a proper opportunity to address this issue. Should the FWO wish to maintain an application for an order requiring a fixed underpayment to be made then this is a matter that can be addressed in submissions on penalty.
The matter will otherwise be set down for a hearing on penalty on 6 February 2025 and procedural orders made in the terms appearing at the beginning of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Symons. Associate:
Dated: 1 November 2024
1
9
5