Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (No.4)
[2019] FCCA 2708
•26 September 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FAULKNER v TIDEWATER MARINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (No.4) [2019] FCCA 2708
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for hearing of witness’ evidence by video link – factors for consideration – witness overseas – application made on last day of multi-day hearing – application previously withdrawn – importance of evidence of witness.
Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.361, 570
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75
Cases cited:
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical & Further Education v Barclay & Anor [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044; (2012) 220 IR 445; (2012) 290 ALR 647; (2012) 64 AILR 101-722
Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal (No 5) [2015] FCA 1504
Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCCA 2918]
State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecutions) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184; (2014) 246 IR 441; (2014) 67 ALR 102-122
Applicant: FRANK FAULKNER
Respondent: TIDEWATER MARINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number: PEG 194 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Antoni Lucev
Hearing date: 23 January 2017
Date of Last Submission: 23 January 2017
Delivered at: Perth via video-link to Sydney
Delivered on: 26 September 2019
(and delivered by video-link by Judge Street pursuant to s.75 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth))
REPRESENTATION
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Hooker
Solicitors for the Applicant: Friedman Lurie Singh & D’Angelo
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Lochore
Solicitors for the Respondent: Jarman McKenna ORDERS
(1)That the further hearing of the matter be listed for 10.00am on 15 July 2020.
(2)That leave be granted to the Respondent for the evidence of Edward Rose-Cooper to be adduced by video-link at 10.15am (Australian Western Standard Time) until 12.15pm on 8 July 2020, with the Respondent to make all necessary arrangements with the Perth Registry of the Court to facilitate that evidence being adduced by video-link.
(3)That if it is not possible to establish a video link at the time and date referred to in order 2 then leave be granted to the Respondent for the evidence of Edward Rose-Cooper to be adduced by telephone link at the time and date referred to, and on the same conditions as set out, in order 2 above.
(4)That the cross-examination of Edward Rose-Cooper, whether by video link or telephone link, is to be limited to one and a half hours, within any remaining time to be available for his re-examination.
(5)That by 30 May 2020 the book of documents to be used in the cross-examination of Edward Rose-Cooper is to be:
(a)agreed between the applicant and the respondent;
(b)prepared by the respondent;
(c)provided to Edward Rose-Cooper in electronic form;
(d)served on the applicant; and
(e)filed with the court.
(6)That costs, if any, reserved.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTHPEG 194 of 2013
FRANK FAULKNER Applicant
And
TIDEWATER MARINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.There is an Application in a Case by the respondent, TideWater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (“Tidewater”) before the Court for the evidence of a witness in these proceedings to be heard by video-link, alternatively by telephone. The substantive proceedings are proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”) alleging a contravention of a general protection.
Background
2.It is necessary to set out some of the litigation history by way of background to the present Application in a Case.
3.The matter was originally listed for a three day hearing in May 2014, which was adjourned to a further three days of hearing in August 2014. After a half day of the further listed three day hearing in August 2014 the matter was again adjourned. On 4 September 2015 the matter was listed for a further three days of hearing on 5, 6 and 7 December 2016. More than a year then passed, but on 28 September 2016, that is just over two months before the recommencement of the hearing, the solicitors for Tidewater apparently began the process of advising their witnesses of the forthcoming hearing dates.
4.On 31 October 2016 by way of completion of a “Telephone/Video Link Attendance Request” form available for litigants in this Court Tidewater sought orders that its witnesses give evidence by telephone-link, alternatively by video-link. For various reasons, and perhaps unsurprisingly given the delay by Tidewater in advising the witnesses of the December 2016 hearing dates, Tidewater’s witnesses were said to be unavailable to attend the Court in person to give evidence at the December 2016 hearing in Perth.
5.The request filed on 31 August 2016 came before the Court on 14 November 2016. There were some robust exchanges between the Court and Counsel for Tidewater, with the Court observing at one point that:
… it’s presented as a fait accompli. … respondent’s solicitors haven’t contacted any witness within 12 months of being told of the hearing date, which was set in an order of the court, and then when they finally do get around to contacting them they find that they’re – some of them at least have dispersed. And then they simply say to the court “Well, they’re not in Perth. Bad luck”. That’s what it amounts to, doesn’t it?
Transcript, 14 November 2016 at page 4.
6.Relevantly, there was some discussion concerning the case of Mr Rose-Cooper, a Tidewater witness apparently overseas at that time, and that his evidence might need to be led through a video-link, or a combination of video-link and Skype, and the limitations that Mr Rose-Cooper had either put, or apparently had, in relation to the times at which he might be available to give evidence: Transcript, 14 November 2016 at pages 5-10. The Court observed that what Tidewater seemingly now sought to do was further adjourn the hearing of the application to take evidence by telephone, alternatively by video-link, so that it could put on evidence in support of an alternative proposition with respect to the leading of video-link evidence, particularly from Mr Rose-Cooper: Transcript, 14 November 2016 at page 9. Ultimately, orders were made in the following terms on 14 November 2016:
1.The respondent have leave by 4pm on 18 November 2016 to file and serve an application in a case for leave to lead evidence in these proceedings by way of video-link, together with any affidavit in support thereof, and any outline of submissions thereof.
2.The applicant have leave by 4pm on 25 November 2016 to file and serve any affidavit and outline of submissions in opposition.
3.Any application in a case filed in accordance with order 1 be listed for hearing on a time and date to be fixed, but no later than 30 November 2016.
4.Costs of today be reserved.
7.No application in a case for leave to lead evidence in these proceedings by way of video-link was made by 18 November 2016 as envisaged by order 1 of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2016.
8.When the hearing of the matter recommenced on 5 December 2016 there was still no application in a case to lead evidence by video-link filed by Tidewater. Three days of hearing on 5, 6 and 7 December 2016 ensued, and it was not until 3.37pm on the third day of hearing (and the final scheduled listed day of hearing) that Counsel for Tidewater indicated that the evidence of Mr Rose-Cooper, the final witness for Tidewater, who was apparently working in Angola, was sought to be led by video-link. Counsel for Tidewater conceded that there was no affidavit as to Mr Rose-Cooper’s circumstances, and that no inquiries had been made of the Registry as to whether or not a video-link could be arranged with Angola, and the Court observed that following the hearing on 14 November 2016 no application had been made for any person to give evidence by video-link on behalf of Tidewater. The Court further went on to observe that Mr Rose-Cooper’s evidence was clearly relevant to the issues in this case: Transcript, 7 December 2016 at page 214, but in the face of opposition to any order issuing to allow video-link evidence to be led from Mr Rose-Cooper, it was appropriate for the Court to make orders to determine whether or not evidence by way of video-link ought to be led. Consequently, the Court made orders in the following terms on 7 December 2016:
1.Any application in a case for further evidence for the Respondent in these proceedings to be heard by video be filed and served, along with any affidavit in support thereof by 4pm on 11 December 2016.
2.Any application in a case be listed on a date to be fixed.
3.If no application in a case is filed in accordance with order 1, then the matter be adjourned to 19 December 2016 for mention not before 4pm.
4.Costs reserved.
Application in a Case
9.On 14 December 2016 Tidewater filed the Application in a Case pursuant to ss.66, 67 and 68 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (“FCCA Act”) that the evidence of Edward Rose-Cooper be given by video-link or Skype, or alternatively by telephone link. The Application in a Case was supported by an affidavit of a solicitor acting for Tidewater, Marie Dominique Rachel Eberlein, affirmed 14 December 2016 (“Ms Eberlein’s Affidavit”).
Relevant provisions of the FCCA Act
10.Sections 66, 67, 68 and 69 of the FCCA Act provide as follows:
66. Testimony by video link or audio link
(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge may, for the purposes of any proceeding, direct or allow testimony to be given by video link or audio link.
(2) The testimony must be given on oath or affirmation unless:
(a) the person giving the testimony is in a foreign country; and
(b) either:
(i) the law in force in that country does not permit the person to give testimony on oath or affirmation for the purposes of the proceeding; or
(ii) the law in force in that country would make it inconvenient for the person to give testimony on oath or affirmation for the purposes of the proceeding; and
(c) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge is satisfied that it is appropriate for the testimony to be given otherwise than on oath or affirmation.
(3) If the testimony is given otherwise than on oath or affirmation, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is to give the testimony such weight as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge thinks fit in the circumstances.
(4) The power conferred on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge by subsection (1) may be exercised:
(a) on the application of a party to the proceedings concerned; or
(b) on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's own initiative or on the Judge's own initiative, as the case may be.
(5) This section applies whether the person giving testimony is in or outside Australia, but does not apply if the person giving testimony is in New Zealand.
67. Appearance of persons by video link or audio link
(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge may, for the purposes of any proceeding, direct or allow a person to appear before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge by way of video link or audio link.
(2) The power conferred on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge by subsection (1) may be exercised:
(a) on the application of a party to the proceedings concerned; or
(b) on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's own initiative or on the Judge's own initiative, as the case may be.
(3) This section applies whether the person appearing is in or outside Australia, but does not apply if the person appearing is in New Zealand.
68. Making of submissions by video link or audio link
(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge may, for the purposes of any proceeding, direct or allow a person to make a submission to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge by way of video link or audio link.
(2) The power conferred on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge by subsection (1) may be exercised:
(a) on the application of a party to the proceedings concerned; or
(b) on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia's own initiative or on the Judge's own initiative, as the case may be.
(3) This section applies whether the person making the submission is in or outside Australia, but does not apply if the person making the submission is in New Zealand.
69. Conditions for use of video links and audio links
Video link
(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge must not exercise the power conferred by subsection 66(1), 67(1) or 68(1) in relation to a video link unless the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is satisfied that the following conditions are met in relation to the video link:
(a) the courtroom or other place where the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is sitting is equipped with facilities (for example, television monitors) that enable all eligible persons present in that courtroom or place to see and hear the person (the remote person ) who is:
(i) giving the testimony; or
(ii) appearing; or
(iii) making the submission;
as the case may be, by way of the video link;
(b) the place at which the remote person is located is equipped with facilities (for example, television monitors) that enable all eligible persons present in that place to see and hear each eligible person who is present in the courtroom or other place where the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is sitting;
(c) such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed by the Rules of Court in relation to the video link;
(d) such other conditions (if any) as are imposed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge.
(2) The conditions that may be prescribed by the Rules of Court in accordance with paragraph (1)(c) include conditions relating to:
(a) the form of the video link; and
(b) the equipment, or class of equipment, used to establish the link; and
(c) the layout of cameras; and
(d) the standard of transmission; and
(e) the speed of transmission; and
(f) the quality of communication.
Audio link
(3) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge must not exercise the power conferred by subsection 66(1), 67(1) or 68(1) in relation to an audio link unless the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is satisfied that the following conditions are met in relation to the audio link:
(a) the courtroom or other place where the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is sitting is equipped with facilities (for example, loudspeakers) that enable all eligible persons present in that courtroom or place to hear the person (the remote person ) who is:
(i) giving the testimony; or
(ii) appearing; or
(iii) making the submission;
as the case may be, by way of the audio link;
(b) the place at which the remote person is located is equipped with facilities (for example, loudspeakers) that enable all eligible persons present in that place to hear each eligible person who is present in the courtroom or other place where the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge is sitting;
(c) such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed by the Rules of Court in relation to the audio link;
(d) such other conditions (if any) as are imposed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Judge.
(4) The conditions that may be prescribed by the Rules of Court in accordance with paragraph (3)(c) include conditions relating to:
(a) the form of the audio link; and
(b) the equipment, or class of equipment, used to establish the audio link; and
(c) the standard of transmission; and
(d) the speed of transmission; and
(e) the quality of communication.
Eligible persons
(5) For the purposes of the application of this section to a particular proceeding, eligible persons are such persons as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge considers should be treated as eligible persons for the purposes of that proceeding.
The law re hearing by video-link
11.The Federal Court had occasion to consider the issue of video-link evidence in Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal (No 5) [2015] FCA 1504 (“Oswal (No 5)”).
12.In Oswal (No 5) at [24]-[29] per Gilmour J, the Federal Court observed as follows:
24 The Federal Court has the discretion to direct or allow testimony to be given by video-link: FCA s 47A(1). There is insufficient evidence as to certain technical matters set out in s 47C(1)(b) as to which I must be satisfied before I may lawfully make an order as sought. This is of no consequence as the application is to be refused.
25 Whether or not the discretion should be exercised one way or the other will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Its exercise will involve a balancing of competing factors. The overriding consideration is what will be in the best interests of the administration of justice, including the need to ensure that justice is done as between the parties: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pirovic Enterprises Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 544 at [11]; Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (2012) 288 ALR 601 at [10].
26 Justice Buchanan in Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 181 FCR 152 stated:
[77] … Despite the undoubted efficiencies available in an appropriate case, the trend of authority seems to me to emphasise the need for a persuasive case to be made out to use a video link to take evidence, particularly to impose it on an unwilling cross-examining party, rather than the reverse.
[78] I share the concerns … about the limitation on the effectiveness of video link arrangements as a means of taking oral evidence. I am particularly troubled by the prospect (or possibility) that the cross-examination of an important witness might be rendered less effective by the limitations of video link technology or the absence of the witness from the courtroom. Although the days are gone when witnesses are expected to feel any sense of intimidation as an aid to telling the truth, there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to give evidence on oath or affirmation in the (generally) solemn atmosphere of a courtroom in the presence of a judge, and to answer questions in cross-examination in the presence also of cross-examining counsel, has at least three potential benefits. It enhances the prospect that the witness will remain conscious of the nature and solemnity of the occasion and of his or her obligations. It affords the cross-examiner some reassurance that the gravity and immediacy of the moment, and of the supervising presence of the judge, are not lost on the witness and the cross-examination is not thereby rendered any less effective, to the possible prejudice of the cross-examining party. It provides the Court with a more satisfactory environment in which to assess the nature, quality and reliability of responses by a witness, both to questions and to the overall situation presented by the necessity to give evidence in court. To my mind there remains, even in the modern context, a certain "chemistry" in oral interchanges in a courtroom, whether between a judge and counsel (or other representative) or between cross-examiner and witness. I would not wish too lightly to deprive a cross-examiner of that traditional forensic element in the exchange although, as the cases universally make clear, the Court must now, if asked to do so, balance the interests of a cross-examining party against claimed inconvenience both in individual cases and with respect to individual witnesses.
27 These observations were cited with approval by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Mulherin v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 115 at [51].
28 The approach generally followed in this Court is that the discretion will not be exercised in favour of a video-link application where, as here, the relevant evidence is central to the case and is likely to involve significant credit issues, and the cross-examination is likely to be lengthy and there are a considerable number of documents involved: see Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 4) [2013] FCA 495 at [19] and the cases there cited.
29 More broadly, when one takes into account decisions in other jurisdictions there are authorities both for and against the use of video evidence. However, as Buchanan J restated in Campaign Masters at [76], referring with apparent approval to what had been said by Austin J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2004) 49 ACSR 578, any apparent tension between the two streams of authority is readily enough reconciled upon the facts of a particular case; see also Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v StoresOnline International Inc [2009] FCA 717 at [14]. I would add that it seems also to have depended to an extent upon the views of individual judges as to whether video evidence is or is not almost as good as evidence given viva voce.
Evidence
13.Ms Eberlein’s Affidavit (which was not challenged) is as follows:
a)Mr Rose-Cooper has not been in Australia since approximately August 2014 when he went to Angola for the purposes of employment;
b)Mr Rose-Cooper when contacted by the solicitors for the Tidewater indicated that he was prepared to give evidence by video call/link;
c)Angola is not a member of the relevant Hague service convention;
d)the solicitors for the applicant (“Mr Faulkner”) did not give consent when asked if Mr Rose-Cooper could give his evidence by video link or telephone in October 2016;
e)when enquiries were made on 8 December 2016 Mr Rose-Cooper indicated to Tidewater’s lawyers that he was still agreeable to providing evidence by skype or video link, and that he had the requisite technology available to facilitate a skype connection and had a quiet environment for him to do this;
f)Mr Rose-Cooper reiterated in December 2016 that he was not able to travel to Australia, and indeed does not appear to have a visa to enter the county, and were he to travel to Australia his current employment might be in jeopardy;
g)on 9 December 2016 Mr Rose-Cooper reconfirmed with the solicitors for Tidewater that he was not prepared to travel to Australia even if his flights and accommodation were paid for, and he also mentioned that his wife and teenage son were presently alone in Angola, and that as his wife travels for work, he is sometimes the sole carer for his teenage son who is at high school;
h)Mr Rose-Cooper’s professional responsibilities are as director operation for an oil and gas company in Angola for Tidewater’s biggest competitor, and he manages 75 to 126 vessels along with three shore basses off the coast of Angola;
i)Mr Rose-Cooper is only available to give evidence between 10.15am and 12.15am Perth time; and
j)although the Court has not done so, it would appear that it is technically feasible (at least in theory) for a skype to ASDN connection to be established for a remote witness, and for Mr Rose-Cooper be provided with any necessary documents for cross-examination prior to any hearing.
Consideration
14.By reason of the Court’s judgment in Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCCA 2918 (“Faulkner (No 3)”) the taking of evidence from Mr Rose-Cooper has become more difficult, because the documents in issue no longer comprise merely those documents annexed to affidavits, but also those copy documents which in Faulkner No 3 has now been ordered to be provided to Mr Faulkner. Tidewater endeavoured to justify its failure to make an early application to have remote evidence taken by video-link by indicating that it considered that it would have been very straightforward to cross-examine if it were only affidavits which were in issue. That is of course but one minor aspect of the matter, and assumes that cross-examination on affidavits is simple, which itself depends upon the nature and volume of the affidavits, and their contents. But, in any event, in this case there are now further documents likely to be in issue which are outside the scope of the affidavits which have been filed. Counsel for Tidewater on the hearing of the Application in a Case quite properly observed that this aspect of the argument for Tidewater was now “possibly untenable and certainly … cannot be argued in those terms”: transcript of the Application in a Case (“AIAC Transcript”) at p.3.
15.Tidewater’s solicitors, on the evidence, did not contact any of the witnesses within 12 months of being told of the hearing date, as set in the Court’s order of 4 September 2015. When the Tidewater’s solicitors finally contacted those witnesses they found that a number of them had dispersed, including Mr Rose-Cooper. The Court also notes that the relevant witnesses had not, other than Mr Rose-Cooper who was in Angola, being subpoenaed to appear and whilst Mr Rose-Cooper’s affidavit did indicate that he had relocated from Australia, and desired to give his evidence by not having to return to Perth, no application to do so was made by Tidewater’s solicitors until 14 December 2016, and that application was not foreshadowed until the mid-afternoon of the final day of a three day hearing when Mr Rose-Cooper was due to be called.
16.The Court notes the importance of the evidence of the decision-maker being given in a case of this kind: Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical & Further Education v Barclay & Anor [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044; (2012) 220 IR 445; (2012) 290 ALR 647; (2012) 64 AILR 101-722 (“Barclay”) at [41]-[45] per French CJ and Crennan J.
17.It was held that it would be extremely difficult to displace the statutory presumption in s. 361 of the FW Act if no direct testimony is given by the decision maker acting on behalf of the employer: see also State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecutions) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184; (2014) 246 IR 441; (2014) 67 ALR 102-122 at [32] per Tracey and Buchanan JJ. In Barclay the High Court also observed that the purpose of s.361 of the FW Act was to place on the defendant employer the onus of proving that which lies peculiarly within the employers own knowledge: Barclay at [50] per French CJ and Crennan J, at [86] per Gummow and Haynes JJ, and at [149] per Haydon J. Given that it appears that Mr Rose-Cooper had a role, and arguably a significant role, in the decision-making process for Tidewater it is important if justice is to be done that his evidence be before the Court. While the Court is critical of the conduct of Tidewater, and perhaps more particularly its solicitors, in failing to inform the Court of the difficulties which might arise with respect to Mr Rose-Cooper’s evidence prior to the time for him to be called arriving on the final day of the hearing, it is nevertheless the case that it is evident from Ms Eberlein’s evidence (which was not challenged) that Mr Rose-Cooper would never have been available to give evidence in person, was not able to be summonsed in a manner which would have compelled him to attend, and that he is only available because of his professional responsibilities at a particular time of the day in Angola. Further, Mr Rose-Cooper does not wish to voluntarily attend the hearing in person because of his professional and personal responsibilities in Angola, including family responsibilities. It is nevertheless important that the Court sees Mr Rose-Cooper (or at the very least hears his evidence), and that Tidewater has an opportunity to cross-examine on his affidavit.
18.In all the circumstances, the Court will grant leave to Tidewater to call Mr Rose-Cooper’s evidence by video-link, if it can be established, and if it cannot, by telephone link. If neither of those links can be established on the day set down for the further hearing of this matter (in particular the further hearing of Mr Rose-Cooper’s evidence) Tidewater may make an application for Mr Rose-Cooper’s affidavit to be tendered under s.64 of the FCCA Act and the Court will hear submissions as to what weight ought to be attached, if any, to his evidence.
19.The Court will make orders with respect to the giving of Mr Rose-Cooper’s evidence by video link or telephone. The Court will also make an order that an agreed book of documents be provided in advance to Mr Rose-Cooper, and filed with the Court, in order to facilitate his cross-examination. The parties will obviously need to take a broad view as to what might be included in such a book of documents given the constraints in providing further documents to Mr Rose-Cooper at short notice, and the constraints upon his availability to give evidence. The Court will make an order for the book of documents to be provided to Mr Rose-Cooper and for it to be filed with the Court on or before 30 May 2020.
20.Given the limitations on Mr Rose-Cooper’s availability there will need to be limitations on the time of cross-examination and re-examination. In that regard, the Court will order that Mr Rose-Cooper’s cross-examination be no longer than one hour and a half and that any remaining time be available for re-examination.
21.The Court will reserve costs, noting that the lifting of the constraints that might usually apply under s.570 of the FW Act might ultimately be the subject of some argument in relation to is Application in a Case.
I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Antoni Lucev
Deputy Associate:
Date: 26 September 2019
0
11
3