Geyman and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation)

[2016] AATA 977

Geyman and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation) [2016] AATA 977 (1 December 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s)

2014/5241

2016/3424

Re

Michael Geyman

APPLICANT

And

Telstra Corporation Limited

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member
Date	1 December 2016
Place	Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

..................................[sgd]......................................

Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

COMPENSATION — claim for medical treatment and incapacity — claim for permanent impairment —complaint of back pain — whether injury which arose out of or in the course of work — inconsistency in Applicant’s evidence – need for corroboration of Applicant’s evidence to establish injury — no corroboration — no injury established – decisions affirmed

Legislation

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4(1), 4(9), 5A, 5B, 14.

Cases

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Bowden (2012) 229 ALR 61
Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1464

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

1 December 2016

Introduction

1. The Applicant seeks review of two decisions of the Respondent. The first reviewable decision, made on 2 October 2014, affirmed a determination made on 21 August 2014 that the Respondent was not liable to pay the Applicant compensation under section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) for medical treatment and incapacity in respect of acute low back strain sustained on 5 February 2013.

2. The second reviewable decision, made on 29 July 2016, affirmed a subsequent determination by the Respondent that it was not liable to pay compensation for permanent incapacity arising from the same injury under section 24 of the Act in respect of the same injury.

3. The Applicant has been employed by the Respondent in various roles since about 1990 (stated by the Applicant in evidence), or 1982 (according to the claim form completed by Telstra). He claims that he suffered lower back strain while lifting a computer cable in the course of his work on 5 February 2013. The Applicant’s claim in respect of such claimed injury was lodged on 14 March 2013.

4. The matter was heard by the Tribunal between 27 July 2016 and 29 July 2016. The Applicant was represented by Mr Simon Weir of Counsel, instructed by Angela Sdrinis Legal. The Respondent was represented by Mr John Wallace of Counsel, instructed by Clarke Legal.

5. At the hearing affirmed evidence was given by the Applicant and by Dr Boris Mezhov, the Applicant’s General Practitioner. The Respondent called Mr Ronald Haig, consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, who gave affirmed evidence.

6. In what follows, an outline of the evidence of the Applicant and these two witnesses is given.

   Outline of evidence

   Applicant  

7. The Applicant is aged 61 and was born on 31 March 1955. He is married with adult children. He has worked for the Respondent in various roles, including as a Field Technician and a Constructer Repairer since about 1990. Before that he worked as a storeman for Coles Myer. The Applicant is still working for the Respondent, but on light duties four days a week.

8. The Applicant confirmed in evidence that the contents of his witness Statement dated 16 April 2015 were true and correct. By that Statement and in oral evidence the Applicant maintains that he suffered an injury on 5 February 2013 when working on a job on his own at the Rialto Towers, 525 Collins Street, Melbourne.

9. The Applicant’s Statement says he was bending down to pick up a small computer cable when he felt a sharp pain in his lower back. He says the pain continued throughout the afternoon, increasing in intensity as he completed his work. He says he notified his superior (Mr Farrell) by telephone about the incident. He told him I am in trouble.

10. According to the Applicant’s statement, the following day he attended his General Practitioner, Dr Boris Mezhov, who sent him for x-rays. These x-rays revealed multilevel degenerative change. On 2 April 2013 the Respondent accepted liability for the condition of acute low back strain.

11. In his oral evidence the Applicant indicated he would take with him on his jobs a tool bag which could be full of equipment and was his mobile office. On jobs he would also carry with him cables and ladders. Prior to the incident on 5 February 2013 he said he regarded himself as invincible and suffered no pain in any area of [his] body.

12. On 5 February 2013, the Applicant had been called out to the Rialto Towers to attend to a faulty cable. When he bent down to pick up the cable, which was 1 metre or so in length, he suffered a very sharp pain in his back. He thought at the time that the pain would go away but it did not do so. He went across the road to a pharmacy and took some over the counter medication, but still the pain did not go away.

13. He went on to another job he said. The pain increased dramatically and he found he couldn’t walk. By the time he saw Dr Mezhov the following day he says he was in an awful lot of pain. He said the pain was in his lower back, more to the right, and in his left lower leg. Dr Mezhov prescribed strong painkillers, including Feldine.

14. The Applicant had signed a claim form which was on file, but left undated. Although he can remember signing the form, he cannot remember completing it. He thought that Mr Farrell may have come to his residence to do so. Exactly why it was up to Mr Farrell to do this was left unclear.

15. The Applicant said that he thought the No answers to Questions 16, 17 and 18 on the undated claim form were correct at the time it was filled out. These questions had asked:

    16. Have you ever had a previous similar symptom, injury or illness; work-related or otherwise?

    17. Have you ever received medical treatment for a similar injury or illness?

    18. Have you ever claimed compensation for a similar injury or illness?

16. The Applicant said he now recalled previously making a claim for a back injury while working for the Respondent but it was a long, long time ago — perhaps in 1996. He had forgotten all about this matter.

17. The Applicant was only off work on that occasion for a week or so because the pain went away very quickly. In 2013, he was off work for three to four months, following which there was a gradual return to work. He has been told he will likely be on restricted work duties forever.

18. The Applicant currently suffers pain in his lower back. He states that the pain is constant but varying from time to time and is lessened if he is lying down. The pain is there all the time, but the level of the pain is difficult to state. He said the pain affects every step he takes and causes him to limp. It has turned [his] life upside down. He said he is stressed emotionally, cross, and feels depressed most of the time. He used to go out fishing and travelling, but does not do any of these activities any more. Further, he once played football and had injured his hip while doing so.

19. The Applicant’s pain, he indicated, has been continuously with him since 5 February 2013 at the same frequency. He states that with every step he takes he gets pain and that with every step he limps. The Applicant said he still takes strong prescription medicine for his condition.

20. Under cross-examination, the Applicant said he has a good recollection of his visit to the doctor on 6 February. He said it would be difficult to forget that day and he will remember it ‘till the day he dies. He also said he did not believe he had a history of back pain.

    Dr Boris Mezhov, General Practitioner

21. Dr Mezhov gave evidence that he was the Applicant’s General Practitioner. He also stated that he has not seen the Applicant for a little while now.

22. Dr Mezhov confirmed that he adopted the contents of his report, contained in a letter dated 19 March 2015. In that letter he says the Applicant attended him on 6 February 2013 in relation to acute spinal pain with radiation to his leg. The Applicant had reported the pain as caused by an incident at work the previous day.

23. In his report, Dr Mezhov says, in his words, it is beyond any doubt that his employment has caused a significant contribution to his spinal disease in general and to the incident on 05/02/2015 [sic] in particularly. He says that Mr Geyman will never be able to return to his pre-injury duties, will need long term physiotherapy and ongoing long term pharmacology.

24. Attached to that letter are some Progress Notes for Michael Geyman. Further Progress Notes of Dr Mezhov relating to the Applicant were tendered in evidence. The notes for 15 February 2013 read:

    In retrospect

    Case description:

    on 5/02/13 bended forward at his workplace to pick up a heavy box with instruments , developed acute debilitated low back pain with reference to his L leg, reportedly never had back related pain before.

25. The Notes also state on that date :

    Reason for contact:

    acute back pain on 6/2/13 at work place

    This is obviously an error if one reads it as a reference to a date of onset as 6 February 2013.

26. Relevantly, the notes for 6 February 2013 read:

    Reason for contact:

    back pain

    Actions:

    …

    Diagnostic Imaging requested: CT low back – Hx of Back pain – 20 years rcently [sic] much worse very severe…

27. In other evidence, Dr Mezhov said he referred the Applicant to Dr Neels du Toit at Metro Pain Clinics. In a Report dated 8 January 2014, Dr du Toit referred to the Applicant as having suffered a sudden onset of lower back pain following a minor bending and lifting event on 5 February 2013. He writes that in his opinion, the Applicant’s current back pain is mostly somatic in nature coming from disc, facet or sacroiliac joint origin.

28. In other evidence, Dr Mezhov also said he carried out no physical examination of the Applicant on the occasion of 6 February 2013 but he was unable to say whether this was because the Applicant did not want it, or for some other reason. Later however, in cross‑examination, he said he did not undertake an examination of the Applicant because the Applicant was in such a severe state of pain.

29. In cross-examination, Dr Mezhov was asked to comment on Mr Haig’s views. Dr Mezhov indicated he would accept the opinion of Mr Haig, as he could not argue with it. He considered he would have no right to question Mr Haig’s view.

30. Dr Mezhov confirmed that it was the Applicant who gave him the history about picking up the heavy box and injuring himself. This, Dr Mezhov says, he accurately recorded. In re‑examination, Dr Mezhov agreed that bending down to pick up a cable could produce symptoms in the back and left leg.

    Mr Ronald Haig, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

31. In affirmed evidence Mr Haig, a consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, confirmed the contents of reports prepared by him. These included reports dated 10 October 2013, 30 April 2014, 15 August 2014 and 29 April 2015.

32. In the report dated 10 October 2013, Mr Haig records the history given to him by the Applicant as being that he was injured on 5 February 2013 whilst simply bending down to pick up something exceedingly light, [the Applicant] experienced a sharp pain in the low back.

33. In that report Mr Haig says although there is no medical history of low back complaint, the CT scan of the Applicant taken shortly after the subject incident shows widespread spondylitic changes in the lumber [sic] spine. He comments therefore that Mr Geyman was presumably quite asymptomatic from those changes until the relatively minor incident at work.

34. Mr Haig says that such a spine could be rendered symptomatic with minimal trauma. However, it is quite likely in Mr Haig’s opinion that [the Applicant] may have developed symptoms as a natural progression of his pre-existing condition irrespective of employment. This would mean that the simple act of bending down could equally well have been at home [and] could equally have rendered him symptomatic.

35. The overall opinion he expresses is that the Applicant suffers from widespread lumbar spondylosis. His view is that given the Applicant’s condition it would be advisable for him to continue working, on light duties only, while he remains symptomatic.

36. In his later report dated 29 April 2015, Mr Haig says that Mr Geyman’s statement that there is no past history of back complaints, set out in Mr Haig’s Report of 10 April 2013, is clearly anything but the truth. He refers to Dr Mezhov’s typed note for 6 February 2013: reason for contact… back pain…. history of back pain — 20 years recently much worse very severe.

37. Consequently, Mr Haig concludes there is a long history of back complaints going back nearly 20 years and thus [Mr Geyman’s] statement to me that there was no past history of  back complaint was not the case.

38. Mr Haigh considers the incident on 5 February 2013, in the circumstances, was only the exacerbation of longstanding back pain. He considers that Mr Geyman has long since ceased to suffer any aggravation of his back and it is his underlying pathology that is clearly longstanding that is the cause of his continuing back complaint.

39. In oral evidence, Mr Haig made it clear that in his view that a minor incident such as a sneeze can cause back pain symptoms where the underlying pathology is sufficiently severe.

    Documentary medical evidence

40. It was decided not to call Dr David Kennedy, a Sports and Industrial physician, to give evidence, but to simply rely upon his report dated 23 May 2016. In his report, Dr Kennedy notes that the Applicant stated to him that he was injured when he bent over to pick up a computer cable that was extremely light [when] he developed a sharp pain in his lower back.

41. The overall opinion he expresses is that the Applicant sustained an injury to his lower back and developed problems in his left hip region following a bending incident at work on 5 February 2013. Until that incident, he said the Applicant may have had a pre-existing multilevel disc degeneration and involvement of the exiting foramina from L2 to L5 bilaterally but these problems were entirely asymptomatic.

42. It was decided also not to call Mr Peter Mangos, a General Surgeon, to give evidence but simply to place his Report dated 3 December 2014 into evidence.

43. The history taken by Mr Mangos is to the effect that the Applicant was bending over to lift a product part when he felt a sudden sharp pain across the lower back. He felt no radiation into the legs at that stage, however. In Mr Mangos’ view the Applicant suffers from severe aggravated degenerative changes  of the lumbar spine with multilevel osteophyte formation and disc bulging

44. It is the view of Mr Mangos that the Applicant’s injuries are certainly related to long term working at Telstra considering the nature of his work but especially the sudden incident which occurred when bending and lifting at work on 05/02/2013. He expresses a view that the Applicant’s employment has certainly caused, aggravated and accelerated the underlying condition and that his injury is consistent with the stated cause.

    Contentions

45. The Applicant contends that he meets the criteria in section 14 of the Act as having suffered an injury in the course of his work resulting in his incapacity. This is put on two alternative bases. The first is that on 5 February 2013 he suffered an injury simpliciter. The second is that on that occasion he suffered an injury in the nature of a disease by way of an aggravation of his back complaint caused by such injury to a significant degree

46. On either basis, the Applicant asks for the reviewable decisions to be set aside because he is entitled to compensation under the Act. He also asks for his costs to be paid. The Respondent argues that the reviewable decisions should be affirmed because the Applicant is not entitled to compensation under the Act.

    Analysis

47. By section 14 of the Act, the Respondent must pay compensation in accordance with the Act in respect of any injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death incapacity for work, or impairment.

48. By section 4(9) of the Act an incapacity for work means an incapacity for work suffered by an employee as a result of an injury, being either an incapacity to engage in any work or an incapacity to engage in work at the same level [the employee] was engaged in immediately before the injury occurred.

49. An injury is defined in section 5A(1) as:

    (a)a disease suffered by an employee; or

    (b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee that is a physical or mental injury arising out of or in the course of such employee’s employment; or

    (c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment.

50. A disease is defined in section 5B(1) of the Act as an ailment suffered by an employee or an aggravation of such an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment.

51. An ailment is defined in section 4(1) of the Act as meaning any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).

52. An aggravation is defined in section 4(1) of the Act as including acceleration or recurrence.

53. A significant degree is defined in section 5B(3) of the Act as being a degree that is substantially more than material. Matters which may be taken into account by the Tribunal in determining whether this definition is satisfied are set out in section 5B(2) of the Act. They include the duration of an employee’s employment and the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, that employment (see sections 5B(2) (a) and (b)). Other matters may also be taken into account and section 5B places no limit on those.

54. The effect of section 14 of the Act is that the Tribunal must be satisfied that an injury has been suffered before compensation can be allowed for that injury. That means that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant suffered a physical or mental injury arising out of or in the course of his work.

55. I am satisfied that the Applicant suffers from a physical condition which is best described in Mr Haig’s words as widespread lumbar spondylosis. This condition I am not in any doubt causes, and has caused, him considerable pain and discomfort for which he must take prescribed medications.

56. I accept that the Applicant is taking prescribed medications at this point although I am unclear about who his prescribing doctor is. I am not in a position to say whether it is still Dr Mezhov. I was informed by Counsel that the Applicant may have a repeat prescription. In passing, I express concern that Dr Mezhov saw fit to prescribe strong painkillers to the Applicant on 6 February 2013 after speaking with him but without having examined him.

57. Although I am satisfied the Applicant suffers a medical condition, I am not satisfied that that condition is related to his work with the Respondent—to use a neutral term. That is to say I am not satisfied he has suffered an injury arising out of or in the course of work.

58. For an injury to arise out of work, there must be a causal connection between work that the Applicant was doing and the injury sustained (Telstra Corporation Ltd v Bowden (2012) 229 ALR 61). There is no question in this case that, if it can be established that it was the work the Applicant was undertaking which produced an injury simpliciter, or aggravated a pre-existing condition to a significant degree, then that would have arisen out of work. However, I must first be satisfied, as a question of fact, that an incident or event occurred at work producing the acute episode the Applicant claims occurred.

59. I am unable to be satisfied of that in this case. I cannot be confident I can reasonably make any findings about what happened to the Applicant on 5 February 2013 in terms of an injury suffered by him.

60. The Applicant’s evidence on oath was that he was picking up a small computer cable when he felt a sharp pain in his lower back. He later described this as a very sharp pain. Dr Mangos has it recorded as a sudden sharp pain. This history of picking up a cable is repeated by him to Mr Haig and Dr Kennedy, although the latter was not called to give evidence.

1. There is, however, another history in evidence before the Tribunal, in what Dr Mezhov’s Notes record what the Applicant said to him. This other version is that the Applicant bent down to pick up a heavy box with instruments. The note by Dr Mezhov is specified as being In retrospect. Dr Mezhov, however, said in evidence that the note is based on what Mr Geyman told him about what happened.

2. There is no reason why Dr Mezhov would note down an account of what was said to have happened to the Applicant if he was not told of it by the Applicant. That is, unless he was completely mistaken. But no error was evidenced in what he said to the Tribunal in evidence. Dr Mezhov was clear that this was the history he was given by the Applicant. None of his notes mention any computer cable.

3. Obviously a computer cable and a heavy box with instruments are quite different items. A person could not mistake one for the other. It is clear that the Applicant does carry with him to the various jobs a tool bag which he regards as his mobile office.

4. The position, therefore, is that there are two accounts of what the Applicant was doing on 5 February 2013 when he says he was injured. Neither account is strictly implausible in itself, but the two are inconsistent with one another. Either the Applicant was doing one or the other. No other account of the incident or event is given or available.

5. I consider I should accept Dr Mezhov’s evidence on this point. I accept that it is correct and that he was telling the truth. I have no grounds for saying he must be mistaken on this. It is curious, I observe, for a note to be generated In retrospect 10 days after a stated incident or event. But that does not mean the note is wrong.

6. The Tribunal is placed in a difficult position in such circumstances. In order to find that the Applicant has suffered an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, the Tribunal must be satisfied some incident or event — a workplace incident or event — took place on the occasion in question.  Yet it is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding that one did where the Applicant himself gives two opposing accounts of what took place.  

7. It is the Applicant himself giving these two accounts, albeit one to the Tribunal and the other in his statements to Dr Mezhov. This is not the case where the Applicant and another witness give conflicting evidence. There were no submissions made or evidence given to provide a cogent way in which the Tribunal could prefer one of his accounts over the other. Both cannot be correct because they are in opposition. The two accounts cannot be reconciled. This gravely affects how the Tribunal should view the Applicant’s evidence.

8. The question is especially important in a case like this where there are no other witnesses. The Applicant was working alone. The Tribunal in such circumstances is wholly dependent on what the Applicant says.

9. Further, this is not the case where the Applicant provides conflicting accounts or discrepancies in relation to a minor detail. The evidence in question is the only evidence of the event on which the Applicant’s entire claim turns. If the Applicant, being the only witness, cannot give consistent or reconcilable versions of incidents or events, it is impossible for the Tribunal make findings about what took place on the occasion in question.  

10. There are other difficulties in accepting the Applicant’s evidence in any event. These are such that the Tribunal has misgivings about the accuracy or truthfulness of his evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, would not be acting reasonably unless it only accepts evidence on any matter where that evidence is corroborated independently.

11. The Applicant, for example, gave evidence that the contents of his witness Statement were true and correct. In that Statement he said that [I] have medical certificates for all of the dates above -- referring to days off work he had taken. Yet when asked he said he had handed those certificates over and did not have them. This is not a mistake such as one might reasonably or excusably make. It is plainly wrong.

12. I am also satisfied also that the Applicant was not aware that his witness Statement specified in detail the nature of his medical condition. The Applicant gave evidence that before 5 February 2013 he regarded himself as invincible and suffered no pain in any area of [his] body. He said in cross-examination that he did not believe he had a history back pain. This is inconsistent with what his witness Statement indicates in some parts, although not in others.

13. In the Statement, the Applicant refers to a lower back injury in 1996 while working for the Respondent, for which he had five treatments in under a month. In another part of the Statement, however, the Applicant says he has not had past serious illness or previous accidents. It is hard to reconcile these differing accounts.

14. In Dr Mezhov’s Progress Notes for 6 February 2013, the day after the alleged incident or event, a history is given of Back pain — 20 years recently much worse very severe pain today.

15. In my view, it is simply not true for the Applicant to say in evidence that before 5 February 2013 he suffered no pain in any part of [his] body. It also seems unlikely that the Applicant could rationally believe he does not have a history of back pain. The statements that before 5 February the Applicant suffered no pain in any part of [his] body yet report a history of 20 years of increasingly worse back pain. One must be plainly wrong. In light of the evidence Mr Haig confirming a long history of back complaints going back nearly 20 years I consider the Applicant’s oral evidence to be wrong. I note the concerns of Mr Haig expressed in this regard.

16. I therefore have great doubts about the accuracy or honesty of the Applicant’s evidence, such that the proper course is to require the corroboration of it as I have mentioned.

17. The difficulty for the Applicant, however, is that there is no witness who is able to corroborate what may have happened to him at the Rialto Towers while on work duties for the Respondent when he says his back became suddenly painful.

18. It follows in the absence of corroborating evidence that I am not able to find that any workplace incident or event took place there which caused or contributed to the Applicant’s condition. This is not to say that an incident or event of some kind did not occur, but it is not possible for me to conclude with sufficient certainty any details regarding the nature of that incident or event.

19. Without such detail, it is not possible to conclude that the Applicant suffered an injury that arose out of or in the course of his work (in the case of an injury simplicter), or in the nature of any aggravation of an ailment  that may have occurred (in the case of an aggravation of a pre-existing injury or disease).

20. This means that the Applicant cannot establish that he has an injury, disease or aggravation of an injury or disease within the meaning of ss 5A or 5B of the Act. There is therefore no scope for compensation within the meaning of section 14 of the Act at the outset.

21. I should add that, even if the Tribunal was presented with enough evidence to characterise the incident in question as an act which may have aggravated a pre-existing ailment, I could not be satisfied that there was actual aggravation of a pre-existing ailment in this case.

22. The word aggravation includes and acceleration or recurrence (section 4(1) of the Act). In Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1464 at [21] von Doussa J said: I do not think there is any material distinction to be drawn between an exacerbation of an ailment and an aggravation of an ailment. The construction of the word exacerbation by the High Court as requiring that a disease be made worse as opposed to merely becoming worse in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626 is therefore useful. Windeyer J in that case, interpreting the words in the statute under consideration(aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration) said:

    The question that each [word] poses is, it seems to me, whether the disease has been made worse in the sense of more grave, more grievous or more serious in its effects upon the patient.

23. Even if the incident could be appropriately characterised in these circumstances, I could not be satisfied that the Applicant’s condition was made worse, as opposed to merely becoming worse, by reason of his work. He has an overwhelmingly long history of back complaints, despite his belief to different effect. The medical evidence does not suggest that any incident taking place on 5 February 2013 made an ailment suffered worse in the sense of more grave, more grievous or more serious in its effects.

24. I should add, had I been satisfied the Applicant did suffer an aggravation of a pre-existing ailment arising out of or in the course of his work in some fashion, I could not be satisfied that his employment would have contributed to it to a significant degree. This is based, again, on the lack of evidence presented by the Applicant. It is also based on Mr Haig’s opinion that it is quite likely that [the Applicant] may have developed symptoms as a natural progression of his pre-existing condition irrespective of employment.

25. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it has enough consistent evidence before it to characterize the incident or event that the Applicant claims occurred on 5 February 2013. It is therefore unable to conclude that the Applicant suffered an injury simpliciter, or a disease in the form of the aggravation of a pre-existing ailment, within the meaning of the Act. As the Tribunal is unable to reach such a conclusion, there is no scope for compensation under the Act in respect of either of the Applicant’s claims.

26. The reviewable decisions are therefore affirmed.

87.     I certify that the preceding 86 (eighty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

..............................[sgd].............................

Associate

Dated   1 December 2016

Date of hearing	27 July 2016 – 29 July 2016
Counsel for the Applicant	Mr Simon Weir
Solicitors for the Applicant	Angela Sdrinis Legal
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr John Wallace
Solicitors for the Respondent	Clarke Legal