Findlay v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation); Mastoris v Dshe Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation)

[2019] NSWSC 394

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Findlay v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation); Mastoris v DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 394
Hearing dates:	4 April 2019
Decision date:	11 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Equity
Before:	Ball J
Decision:	The notices of motion filed on 25 March 2019 in each of proceedings 2017/294069 and 2018/52431 be dismissed.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Striking out – whether pleadings defective – whether claim pleaded with sufficient specificity
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq) v Bourne [2017] NSWSC 709 Smith v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1406
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Haliburton Charles David Findlay (First Plaintiff | 2017/294069) Marian Jennifer Denny Findlay (Second Plaintiff | 2017/294069) Epaminodas Mastoris (First Plaintiff | 2018/52431) Lena Mastoris (Second Plaintiff | 2018/52431) DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers & Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) (First Defendant) Nicholas Abboud (Second Defendant) Michael Thomas Potts (Third Defendant) David White and others listed in Annexure A t/as Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Fourth to Four Hundred & Fifty Seventh Defendants)
Representation:	Counsel: C Withers with K Lindeman (Plaintiffs) P Braham SC with A Shearer (Fourth to Four Hundred & Fifty Seventh Defendants)   Solicitors: Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Plaintiffs 2017/294069) Johnson Winter & Slattery (Plaintiffs 2018/52431) Clifford Chance (Fourth to Four Hundred & Fifty Seventh Defendants)
File Number(s):	2017/294069 & 2018/52431
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. By notices of motion filed on 25 March 2019 in each of proceedings 2017/294069 and 2018/52431 (together, the Representative Proceedings) the fourth to four hundred and fifty seventh defendants (Deloitte) seek to strike out those parts of the plaintiffs’ Amended Joint Statement of Claim (AJSC) that plead a claim against Deloitte.

2. The two proceedings are brought on behalf of investors in DSHE Holdings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed)(In Liquidation) (DSH). DSH traded as “Dick Smith”, a well-known electronics retailer. It was floated on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) in December 2013. It was placed into voluntary administration by its directors on 4 January 2016 and was placed into liquidation on 25 July 2016. Deloitte was retained by Dick Smith Sub-Holdings Pty Limited (DSSH), an intermediate holding company in the DSH Group, and later DSH to audit the financial statements of DSSH for the financial year ending 30 June 2013 (FY13) and the financial statements for DSH for the financial years ending 30 June 2014 (FY14) and 30 June 2015 (FY15).

3. In broad terms, the plaintiffs allege that the practices and decisions made by DSSH concerning the provisioning of inventory and by DSH concerning both rebates and the provision of inventory meant that the financial statements of DSSH for FY13 and the financial statements for DSH for FY14 and FY15 were not prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards. That led to the financial statements of DSSH for FY13 and of DSH for FY14 and FY15 not giving a true and fair view of DSH’s financial position and performance. It is alleged that Deloitte’s failure to identify those matters, and representations by Deloitte contained in its audit reports that the financial statements did present a true and fair view of DSSH’s and DSH’s financial position, meant that Deloitte failed to conduct its audits in accordance with applicable auditing standards, failed to exercise reasonable care and skill, and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of various statutory provisions.

4. Deloitte contends that the pleading against it is defective because it fails to plead the case against it with sufficient specificity. In making that submission, it relies heavily on the judgments given by Ward CJ in Eq in Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq) v Bourne [2017] NSWSC 709 and Smith v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1406, where her Honour set out in some detail what needed to be included in the pleadings considered in those cases.

5. In my opinion, the decisions in Hastie and Smith are not of great assistance in resolving the issues in this case, turning as they did on the particular facts and pleadings in those cases.

6. The critical issue in cases such as the present one where a strike out application is brought is whether the pleading gives fair notice of the case to be made against the other party at trial so as to minimise the risk of injustice resulting from surprise. As Ward CJ in Eq pointed out in Smith at [73], the pleadings have a critical role to play in ensuring that that requirement is satisfied. However, it also needs to be borne in mind that these proceedings are being managed together with proceedings in the Commercial List and that other techniques are available and used by the Court to ensure that no party is caught by surprise. They include, where appropriate, orders for the provision of particulars, orders for the service of evidence in chief, including expert evidence well in advance of a hearing and orders for the exchange of lists of issues.

7. Against that background, it is possible to turn to the pleading in this case. The claim against Deloitte occupies approximately 100 pages of a pleading which in all comprises approximately 300 pages (including annexures). It is divided into eight Parts. Part F.1 sets out some background. Part F.2 pleads the relevant accounting and auditing framework, including the obligation on Deloitte under s 307A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the CA) to conduct its audits in accordance with the Auditing Standards in force under s 336 of the CA. It also identifies the relevant Auditing Standards. Part F.3 pleads the contents of the relevant Auditing Standards and the obligations imposed on Deloitte by those standards in undertaking the audits for FY13, FY14 and FY15. Part F.4 provides a definition of the term “Reasonable Auditor” used in the pleading. Part F.5 pleads the representations said to have been made by Deloitte in its audit reports. Part F.6 pleads Deloitte’s conduct in relation to the audit in each relevant year. Part F.7 pleads the various contraventions said to arise from that conduct. Part F.8 pleads causation, loss and damage. In essence, it is pleaded that but for Deloitte’s conduct the relevant financial statements would either have been corrected or Deloitte would have issued qualified audit opinions in respect of them. It is pleaded that had the FY13 financial statements been corrected or a qualified audit opinion issued in respect of them, DSH would not have floated and been listed on the ASX and Group Members in the Representative Proceedings would not have acquired their shares.

8. Deloitte’s attack on the pleading is primarily focussed on Parts F.6 and F.8. It contends that both Parts fail to identify with sufficient particularity what Deloitte ought to have done but did not do. It is sufficient to consider the pleading in relation to FY13. The pleading in respect of other years raises similar issues. It is also convenient to start with Part F.6.

9. The plaintiffs allege that Deloitte failed to act as a “Reasonable Auditor” (as defined in the pleading) in three respects. First, it failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the assumptions and methodology applied by management in determining inventory provisions. Second, it failed to properly determine materiality. Third, it failed to adjust the warranty sign on liability to zero. It is pleaded in para 444 of the AJSC that each of those failures meant that Deloitte:

(a)   did not conduct the FY13 Audit in accordance with the Auditing Standards;

(b)   did not conduct the FY13 Audit in accordance with Deloitte’s auditing obligations as pleaded above at Part F.2;

(c)   did not exercise reasonable care and skill in performing the FY13 Audit;

(d)   did not have reasonable grounds for believing that the audit evidence Deloitte obtained to carry out the FY13 Audit was sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for its audit opinion;

(e)   did not have reasonable grounds for the opinion that the FY13 Financial Statements were in accordance with the CA, including:

(i)   giving a true and fair view of the Group’s financial position as at 30 June 2013 and of its performance for the period ended on that date; and

(ii) complying with the Australian Accounting Standards and the Corporations Regulations 2001.

10. Deloitte’s criticism of the pleading focuses on the pleading in relation to inventory.

11. In para 427 of the AJSC, the plaintiffs plead that Deloitte knew or ought to have known of DSH’s failure to write down or to make a provision against the carrying value of inventory and of DSSH’s inventory management and accounting policies. Paragraphs 427(a), (b) and (c) give particulars of why it is said Deloitte knew the relevant facts. Paragraph 427(d) pleads why it is alleged that Deloitte ought to have known the relevant facts. In substance that paragraph pleads that a Reasonable Auditor:

1. Would have recognised inventory as a high area of risk;

2. Would have designed appropriate testing and sought further information to ascertain the inventory practices adopted by management;

3. Would have evaluated whether DSSH’s assumptions and methodology with respect to inventory provisioning were appropriate; and

4. As a result, would have ascertained the inventory practices adopted by management.

The plaintiffs give some additional particulars of those allegations, although it is doubtful that those particulars advance matters substantially.

12. Paragraphs 428 of the AJSC pleads in effect the FY13 audit report did not express the opinion that the inventory practices adopted by management needed to be disclosed in the FY13 financial statements or that those practices caused the FY13 financial statements to be materially misstated. Paragraph 429 pleads that the practices needed to be disclosed, and that adoption of the practices meant that the FY13 financial statements did not give a true and fair view of the financial position and performance of DSSH and the DSH Group, were not prepared in accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards and were materially misstated.

13. Paragraph 430 pleads that Deloitte failed to take various steps it should have taken. Those steps include:

(a)   failed to obtain a sufficient understanding of the assumptions and methodology applied by DSSH management in determining inventory provisions, including by failing to apply an adequate level of professional scepticism to the information produced by DSSH, and the assumptions and methodology applied by management in determining inventory provisions in the FY13 Financial Statements (ASA 200, paragraphs 7, 15, A18-A22; ASA 540, paragraphs 8, 18);

(b)   having determined that there was a significant risk of material misstatement in respect of inventory provisions in the FY13 Financial Statements, failed to perform substantive procedures that are specifically responsive to that risk, including for the purpose of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the assumptions and methodology applied by management in determining inventory provisions in the FY13 Financial Statements (ASA 330 paragraphs 21, A1, A4, A19; ASA 500 paragraphs 6, A1-A3, A10, A14-A15);

(c)   failed to design and implement adequate testing of the age of stock and the appropriateness of the obsolescence percentages by reference to stock turnover, volume of stock on hand, and broader industry factors in order to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the inventory Practices and Effects complied with Australian Accounting Standards (ASA 300 paragraph 21, A1, A4, A19);

(d)   by reason of the failures pleaded in sub-paragraphs (a)-(c) above, failed to gather sufficient appropriate audit evidence in order to enable Deloitte to express an opinion on whether the assumptions and methodology applied by management in determining the provision in respect of inventory in the FY13 Financial Statements complied with AASB 102 …

The references at the end of each of those paragraphs are references to the Auditing Standards that it is alleged Deloitte failed to comply with in committing the pleaded failures.

14. A number of other failings are pleaded in para 430 to be derivative from the failings pleaded in paras (a) to (d). They include:

(h)   failed to perform adequate audit procedures to evaluate whether the overall presentation of the financial report was in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework (ASA 330 paragraph 24) and to evaluate whether the assessments of risks of material misstatement at the assertion level remained appropriate (ASA 330 paragraph 25).

(i)   failed to require management to account for the carrying value of inventory in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards;

(j)   failed to quantify or estimate the extent of the misstatement in the FY13 Financial Statements as a result of the Inventory Practices and Effects [that is, the inventory practices adopted by management] …

15. Paragraph 431 pleads that:

In the premises, Deloitte failed to act as a Reasonable Auditor.

16. I accept that the pleading is not entirely satisfactory. The difficulty with it is that the pleading of knowledge and constructive knowledge are confused with the pleading of conduct that is said to involve a breach of duty. The case against Deloitte has as its starting point the allegation that the FY13 financial statements did not comply with the Australian Accounting Standards because of the failure to write down or make provision against the carrying value of inventory. Details of why that is said to be so are set out in Section C of the pleading. No issue is taken with the pleading of that Section. The case against Deloitte is then put in two ways.

17. First, it is alleged that Deloitte knew of the practices adopted by management. If that is right and if those practices did not comply with Australian Accounting Standards and if that non-compliance was material (which is pleaded to be the case in para 429), it seems to follow that Deloitte breached its duties as auditor either by failing to require the financial statements to be corrected or by qualifying its audit opinion.

18. Second, if Deloitte did not know the actual position, it is alleged that that is because it failed to carry out appropriate audit enquiries. Some particulars of what enquiries Deloitte ought to have carried out are to be found in the pleading of constructive knowledge (para 427(d)) and the particulars to that paragraph. However, the principal allegations are to be found in para 430. The critical paragraphs appear to be paras 430(b) and (c). What is alleged is that:

1. Deloitte ought to have “recognised that inventory provisioning was an area of high risk for DSSH, given that the nature of the consumer electronics market is such that there is an ongoing risk of inventory obsolescence” (to quote from para 427(d)(i));

2. Having come to that appreciation, Deloitte failed to perform appropriate procedures that were specifically responsive to that risk and failed to design and implement adequate testing of the age of stock and the appropriateness of the obsolescence percentages by references to stock turnover and the other matters identified in para 430(c).

19. As I have said, a number of plainly derivative breaches are pleaded. The only exception is the breach pleaded in para 430(h). The failure to perform “adequate audit procedures” referred to in that paragraph appears to be a reference back to the failures previously pleaded. But that is not plain from what is said in the paragraph. On its face, the reference to a failure “to perform adequate audit procedures to evaluate whether the overall presentation of the financial report was in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework” could be a reference to any type of failure unconnected with provisioning in respect of inventory. However, that cannot be what is intended; and it seems to me that any lingering ambiguity could be resolved by an appropriate request for particulars.

20. Deloitte’s complaint with this pleading is that it does not identify what it is Deloitte ought to have done. For example, it does not identify the type of testing Deloitte should have undertaken. Nor, for example, does it identify the extent of the misstatement in the accounts that Deloitte ought to have identified.

21. I do not accept that criticism. In my opinion, the case that Deloitte must meet emerges sufficiently from the pleading so that it will not be caught by surprise. To take the examples just referred to, Deloitte knows that it needs to consider the requirements of the Auditing Standards that have been identified by the plaintiffs and consider the question whether any testing it did in relation to provisioning met those standards. Similarly, for the purposes of understanding the case it must meet, it is not necessary for Deloitte to know what provision the plaintiffs say ought to have been made. It is sufficient that they know (which is obvious from the pleading) that the provision would have been sufficiently large to cause the accounts to be corrected or qualified because the misstatement was material.

22. The likelihood is that, assuming that the plaintiffs are correct and the Auditing Standards required Deloitte to make enquiries or conduct testing concerning DSSH’s policies in relation to provisioning to determine whether those policies were appropriate, there were a number of different types of enquiry or testing that Deloitte could have undertaken. In my opinion, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to specify precisely what enquiries and testing Deloitte ought to have undertaken; and indeed such a requirement runs the risk of unreasonably narrowing the plaintiffs’ case. It would be sufficient for the plaintiffs to prove that Deloitte did not undertake any enquiries or testing of the type required by the Auditing Standards. In those circumstances, their case should not fail because they were required to identify the precise enquiries and testing that Deloitte should have undertaken, but were unable to prove that enquiries and testing of those specific types were necessary to comply with the relevant Auditing Standards.

23. The timetable in the case makes provision for both the plaintiffs and Deloitte to serve expert evidence in relation to the claims against Deloitte, and there is every reason to think that both will do so. Following the service of expert evidence, the experts will be required to meet to attempt to narrow the issues between them. They will be required to prepare a joint report setting out the matters on which they agree and disagree and brief reasons for their disagreement. The likelihood is that the experts will give evidence concurrently and that for the purpose of their concurrent evidence the parties will be required to prepare an agenda for their evidence. Through that process, the issues between the parties will be narrowed further. That is not to suggest that that process is a substitute for adequate pleadings. However, it needs to be borne in mind in determining what is required of the pleading.

24. As I have said, Deloitte also takes issue with the pleading of causation because it is said not to contain a proper articulation of what Deloitte would have done in the counterfactual. I do not accept that submission. The claim is that the matter would have been raised with management, that either the accounts would have been corrected or Deloitte would have qualified its audit report, and that in either case DSH would not have been floated. In my opinion, it is not necessary for the pleading to be more precise than that. Deloitte is put on notice clearly that the case it must meet is that it would have raised the matter in a way with management that would either have led to changes in the accounts or a qualified audit report. I do not see why the pleading needs to be any more precise than that.

19. As I have said, it is not suggested that different issues are raised by the pleading in respect of other years. The pleading perhaps is not as clear as it might be. But, for the reasons I have given, I have concluded that the case that Deloitte must meet emerges sufficiently from it, and for that reason I do not think that it should be struck out.

20. It follows that the notices of motion filed on 25 March 2019 in each of proceedings 2017/294069 and 2018/52431 should be dismissed.

21. I will hear any application for costs at a time fixed with my Associate.

**********

ANNEXURE A (FIFTH TO FOUR HUNDRED & FIFTY SEVENTH DEFENDANTS)

5. Brett Douglas Streatfeild

6. Sneza Pelusi

7. James Patrick Hickey

8. Alastair Banks

9. Tara Cathy Hili

10. Paul Jeremy Klein

11. Frank Scott Farrali

12. Christopher Donald Noble

13. Alec Paul Bash Insky

14. George Nicholas Kyriakacis

15. Roan Rolles Fryer

16. Stuart Johnston

17. Kaylene O'Brien

18. Craig Patrick O'Hagan

19. Leanne Karamfiles

20. Neil Graham Smith

21. Demostanies Krailis

22. David John Lombe

23. Christian John Biermann

24. Jonathan Paul

25. Michael James Clarke

26. Roger Jeffrey

27. Rachel Andrea Foley-Lewis

28. Franco Claudio Santucci

29. Michelle Robyn Hartman

30. Matthew Christopher Saines

31. Francis Thomas

32. Robert Basker

33. Alan Eckstein

34. Donal Graham

35. Andrew Raymond Hill

36. Patrick McLay

37. Paul Bernal Liggins

38. David Ocello

39. Paul Scott Holman

40. Paul Robert Wiebusch

41. Murray Peck

42. Julie Michelle Stanley

43. John Bland

44. Timothy Carberry

45. Alvaro Ramos

46. Graeme John Adams

47. Suzanne Archbold

48. Tim Richards

49. Timothy Geoffrey Maddock

50. Xenia Delaney

51. Reuben Saayman

52. Ronaldus Lambertus Van Beek

53. Liesbet Ann Juliette Spanjaard

54. Christopher John Richardson

55. Martin Harry Read

56. Mark Reuter

57. Stuart Thomas Ciocarelli

58. Paul Wayne Hockridge

59. Vikas Khanna

60. Paul Thomas Carr

61. Weng Yen Ching

62. Rodger Stewart Muir

63. Mark Cover

64. Robert Hillard

65. Michael John Lynn

66. Gaile Anthea Pearce

67. Isabelle Emilienne Lefrevre

68. Phillip Andrew Roberts

69. Stuart Alexander Rodger

70. Paul Leonard Wensor

71. Claudio Cimetta

72. Simon Tarte

73. Stephen Charles Gustafson

74. Geoffrey William Cowen

75. Geoffrey Gill

76. Steven John Simionato

77. Jason John Handel

78. Declan O'Callaghan

79. Michael Andrew Kissane

80. Kurt Proctor-Parker

81. Richard Davies Wanstall

82. Johan Simon Duivenvoorde

83. Benjamin John Shields

84. John Meacock

85. Ian Michael Turner

86. David Harradine

87. Muhunthan Kanagaratnam

88. Marc Philipp

89. Kamlee Anne Coorey

90. Hugh William Mosley

91. Paul Masters

92. David Shane Egan

93. Alison Margaret Brown

94. Stavroula Papadatos

95. Damien Tampling

96. Alexandra Jane Spark

97. Monica Ellen Campigli

98. Craig Peter Mitchell

99. Robert John McConnel

100. Alyson Rodi

101. Andrew Charles Price

102. Mark Hadassin

103. Anthony James Robinson

104. Garry Ian Millhouse

105. Ashley Graham Miller

106. Craig Stephen Smith

107. Margaret Lynne Pezzullo

108. Adam Barringer

109. Campbell James Jackson

110. Jason Charles Crawford

111. Kevin Michael Russo

112. Adele Christine Watson

113. Neil Anthony Brown

114. Gordon James Thring

115. Brett William Greig

116. Steven James Shirtliff

117. Robert Donald Collie

118. Spyros Kotsopoulos

119. Austin John Scott

120. Jenny Lyn Wilson

121. Peter John Bars

122. Elizma Bolt

123. Stephen Thomas Harvey

124. Fiona Lea Cahill

125. Jonathan Mark Schneider

126. Michael McNulty

127. Katherine Louise Howard

128. Juliet Elizabeth Bourke

129. Peter Gerard Forrester

130. Carl Jonathan Gerrard

131. Jody Michelle Burton

132. Rachel Frances Smith

133. Peter Martin Rupp

134. Helen Elena Fisher

135. Geoffrey Ronald Sincock

136. Nicholas Harwood

137. John Clement Malcom Randall

138. Todd Kayle Fielding

139. Geoffrey Bruce Stalley

140. Russell Bradley Norman Mason

141. Paul Leon Rubinstein

142. Andrew Ignatius Muir

143. Lisa Barry

144. Alfred Alan Nehama

145. Michael Paul Stibbard

146. Paul Childers

147. Angelo Karelis

148. Sarah Caroline Woodhouse

149. Richard John Hughes

150. Christopher Robert Masterman

151. Robin Poison

152. Megan Joy Field

153. Christopher Guy Nunns

154. Clare Helen Harding

155. Simon Cook

156. Stephen Carl Tarling

157. Leslie Coleman

158. Samuel James Vorwerg

159. Helen Hamilton-James

160. Coert Grobbeiaar Du Plessis

161. Stephen George Stavrou

162. Steven Christopher Cunico

163. Mark Ekkel

164. Soulla McFall

165. Leigh Matthew Pieroni

166. Mark Colin Woodley

167. Stephen James Healey

168. Sandeep Chadha

169. Margaret Clare Bower

170. Anna Victoria Crawford

171. Robert Howard Dowling

172. Greg Janes

173. Colin Mckay Methven Scott

174. Richard Mark Simes

175. Dharmalingum Shunmugam Chithiray

176. Nicole Marie Vignaroli

177. John Giannakopoulos

178. Vaughan Neil Strawbridge

179. Judith Anne Donovan

180. Nicole Wakefield

181. Paula Teresa Capaldo

182. Michael Rath

183. Karen Rachel Stein

184. Brett Todd

185. Julian Craig Dolby

186. Robert Kim Arvai

187. Catherine Jane Hill

188. Richard Michael Thomas

189. Timothy John Gullifer

190. Peter James Pagonis

191. Michael Damon Cantwell

192. Joseph Frank Galea

193. Nicolette Louise Ivory

194. John Leotta

195. Darren James Hall

196. Stephen Huppert

197. Elma Von Vielligh-Louw

198. Michael Anthony Kennedy

199. Stuart James Alexander

200. Yi Mei Tsang

201. Christopher Wilson

202. Joshua David Tanchel

203. Tendal Sitenisiyo Mkwananzi

204. Richard Nigel Raphael

205. Jacqueline Ann Clarke

206. Rodney James Whitehead

207. Heather Park

208. John Lethbridge Greig

209. Adrian Charles O'Dea

210. Grant Cameron

211. Gregory Couttas

212. Steven Allan Hernyl

213. Gary John McLean

214. Jonathan Ma

215. SuzieGough

216. Mark Douglas Ian Allsop

217. Jennifer Anne Exner

218. Ryan Quintin Hansen

219. Jamie Brian Hamilton

220. David Mark Hill

221. Jason Bruce Dunnachie

222. John Christopher McCourt

223. Gerhard Vorster

224. David John Boyd

225. Andrew Kingsley Johnstone-Burt

226. Dwayne Barrie Sleep

227. David Black

228. Gerard Michael Meade

229. Francis Patrick O’Toole

230. Tony Garrett

231. Danny Rezek

232. Mark Goldsmith

233. David Watkins

234. Patrick Broughan

235. Jeremy Drumm

236. Michael John Whyte

237. Mark Andrew Stretton

238. Weng Wee Ching

239. Robert Malcolm Spittle

240. Marisa Orbea

241. Frances Rita Borg

242. David Barrie Brown

243. David Sherwin McCloskey

244. Philip Walter Teale

245. Jan Hein Alexander Alperts

246. Katherine Anne Milesi

247. Kevin Kiazim Nevrous

248. Andrew Paul Annand

249. Carl Richard Harris

250. Philip Malcolm Moore Hardy

251. Derek Rodney Bryan

252. Gregory Gyorgy Janky

253. David John Redhill

254. Guillaume Johannes Swiegers

255. Peter Ronald Ryan

256. Brennan Ursula

257. Fiona Dawn Craig

258. Sarah Lane

259. George Stathos

260. Richard Adam Young

261. Marc Hofmann

262. Brad Joel Pollock

263. Mark Justin Kuzma

264. Warren Green

265. Stuart Osborne

266. Garry Lance Bourke

267. Andrew Vaughn Griffiths

268. Adam Powick

269. Margaret Dreyer

270. Timothy Bryce Norman

271. David McCarthy

272. Neil Pereira

273. Michael Robert Gastevich

274. Elizabeth Ann Brown

275. Lakshman Kumar Gunaratnam

276. Monish Paul

277. Alexander Collinson

278. Bruce John Williamson

279. Luke Bramwell Houghton

280. Aldrin Anthony De Zilva

281. Neil McLeod

282. Gerard Lucien Belleville

283. Michael Kaplan

284. Mark David Irving

285. Alison Lorna White

286. Haiderali Hussein Hussein

287. Martyn Charles Barrett Strickland

288. Caroline Jane Bennet

289. Christopher Robert Campbell

290. Gary Peter Doran

291. Mark Steven Wright

292. Peter Matruglio

293. John Koutsogiannis

294. Selwyn Peter D'Souza

295. Keith William Skinner

296. Clive Charles Alan Mottershead

297. Karen Lynette Green

298. Jason Mark Thome

299. Andrew Stuart Christopher Reid

300. Mark Richard Weaver

301. Matthew Robert Broadfoot

302. Michael Mauro De Palo

303. Peter Arthur Caldwell

304. Tracey Con Dous

305. Shelley Rae Nolan

306. Ian Grant Levi

307. Grant Arthur Hyde

308. Timothy Francis Nugent

309. Andrea Csontos

310. Geoffrey Colin Lamont

311. Christopher John Nicoloff

312. Craig Maxwell Bryan

313. Peter Madden

314. Jeremy Jurriaan Walton Cooper

315. Neil Robert Cussen

316. Robert Southern

317. Andy Peck

318. Colin Radford

319. Hendri Mentz

320. Robert Nguyen

321. Shinji Tsutsui

322. Philippa Simone Dexter

323. Timothy Fleming

324. Cynthia Hook

325. James Campbell Down

326. Kate McDonald

327. Stephen John Coakley

328. Keith Francis Jones

329. Serg Duchini

330. Stephen James Reid

331. Max Andreas Persson

332. Graham Mott

333. Anthony John Viel

334. David Joseph Murray

335. Richard Antony Jamieson

336. Bradley James Burt

337. Anthony Goroslav Buntic

338. Paul Gerard Fogarty

339. Jamie Christopher Gatt

340. Geoffrey Ian Roberts

341. Melissa Jayne Cabban

342. Matthew Fraser

343. Thomas Fredrick Viljoen

344. Julie Christine Crisp

345. Paul Bernard Riley

346. Salvatore Algeri

347. Ross Ian Jerrard

348. Avi Sharabi

349. Ian Geoffrey Sanders

350. Dale McCaauley

351. lain Maxwell Gerrard

352. David Hobbis

353. Scott Conrad Bailey

354. Stephen Gregory Brown

355. Ian Ross Harper

356. Shashi Vicknekumeran Sivayoganathan

357. Jowita Gartlan

358. Mark Ingham

359. Viswa Phani Kumar Padisetti

360. Ian Charles Thatcher

361. Ian Andrew Trevorah

362. Dennis Leslie Moth

363. Jacques Louis Van Rhyn

364. Paul Swinhoe

365. Greg Fitzgerald

366. Steven Alexander Hallam

367. Stuart Lynn Black

368. Stephen Woosnam

369. Andrew John Culley

370. Stephen James Ferris

371. Timothy Arbuckie

372. David Amis Rumbens

373. Matthew James Williams

374. Jason Frederick Bender

375. Patrick Lane

376. Martin Paul Langridge

377. Caithlin Mary McCabe

378. Simon Alexander Wallace-Smith

379. Adrian Clyde Batty

380. Tapan Parekh

381. Masaaki Mark Nakamura

382. Roger Geoffrey McBain

383. Graeme John Hodge

384. Rick Shaw

385. Marina Ruth Stuart

386. Tom Christopher Imbesi

387. Eric Angelucci

388. Harvey Christophers

389. John Kingsley Rawson

390. Mark Richard Sercombe

391. Phillip Kravaritis

392. Gary Christie

393. Wayne Edward Walker

394. John Womack

395. Peter Grainger

396. Samantha Louise Lewis

397. Ashley Jonathon King

398. Peter Francis Williams

399. Alexander Aitken

400. Timothy Gordon Biggs

401. Ian McCall

402. Johannes Laubscher Venter

403. Roberto Dimonte

404. Alan Gordon Weeks

405. Ian John Breedon

406. Peter Michael Roberson

407. Michael David Nelson

408. Lindsay James Stanton

409. Craig Paul Johnson

410. Timothy Riordan

411. Anthony James Cipriano

412. Phil Hopwood

413. Dai-Trang Le Duncanson

414. David Jonathan Graham

415. Andre Spnovic

416. William Harold Wardrop

417. David Erskine Thompson

418. David Kyffin Willington

419. Stephen Mark Holdstock

420. Dean John Grandy

421. Harold Scott Payne

422. Jean-Marie Abi-Ghanem

423. Fraser Ross

424. Roberto Krizman

425. Caroline McGlashan

426. William Robert McAinsh

427. Osamu Uchimura

428. Glendon Moss Sanford

429. Simon James Lester

430. Stephen James Jones

431. Kristen Jay Wydell

432. John Guthrie Hood

433. Paul Martin Radici

434. Frank Klasic

435. Mark John Pittorino

436. David Anthony Cooper

437. Matthew Sheerin

438. Tony Brain

439. Henry John Kidd

440. Matt Gerald Tengu Whitesky Kuperholz

441. Gordon Pattison

442. Branko Panich

443. Julian Christopher Cheng

444. David William Pring

445. Peter Andre Jovic

446. Craig Goldberg

447. Bruce Robert Dungey

448. Dean Robert Edward Kingsley

449. David Alan Watson

450. Bernard Spencer Gild

451. Graham John Newton

452. Dwight Murray Hooper

453. Michael Rosendorfer

454. Richard Roy Porter

455. John George Azarias

456. Donna Maree Carey

457. Christopher Paul Cass

Decision last updated: 11 April 2019