GOODNER & JEPPESEN
[2012] FamCA 463
•30 May 2012
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GOODNER & JEPPESEN | [2012] FamCA 463 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – ORDERS – Variation – international relocation - parenting proceedings involving the parties’ two children aged twelve and nine - where father lives in Sydney and mother in Denmark – where previous family court orders made in 2009 provided that the children live in Australia for a period of two years then relocate to live with the mother in Denmark – children lived in Australia for the two year period and spent time with the mother in Denmark – where the applicant father seeks variation of the 2009 Orders that the children remain living in Australia – interim orders made in November 2011 suspending the operation of the 2009 Orders - Rice v Asplund considerations – changed circumstances – where the father asserted that the eldest child expressing a view in favour of living in Australia, the mother having another child and the mother not maximising on her time in Australia as was contemplated amounted to a change of circumstance – where the state of the evidence is that at no time did the father confirm to the children they would be going to Denmark – evidence of the emotional state of the eldest child having clearly deteriorated from the date of the Family Consultant Memorandum to the Court to the date of this hearing – held that it was entirely predictable that with greater age and maturity the children would begin to express opinions which was contemplated by the Family Consultant and the court in 2009 – held risk to the children’s relationship with each other and each of their parents is such that even if the expression of these views represents a change of circumstances it is insufficient to justify further hearing even on a limited basis – held to avoid further pressure on the children particularly the eldest child the matter should be determined as quickly as possible without a Family Report or further hearing – orders dismissing and discharging the relevant orders suspending the 2009 Orders |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 69ZN, 69ZR, 92Q |
| Miller v Harrington (2009) FLC 93-383 Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 DL & W (2012) FLC 93-496 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Goodner |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Jeppesen |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Legal Aid Sutherland |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 294 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 30 May 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACES HEARD: | Sydney and Newcastle |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Cleary J |
| HEARING DATES: | 8 March 2012 29 March 2012 20 April 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Tockar |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Hamish Cumming Family Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Boyd |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Fox O’Brien |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms O’Rourke Legal Aid Sutherland |
orders
That the Application of the Father filed on 25 November 2011 is dismissed.
That Orders 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 made on 28 November 2011 are discharged.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer explain the Orders and outcome of proceedings to the children and is thereafter discharged.
Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Goodner & Jeppesen has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 294 OF 2009
| Mr Goodner |
Applicant
And
| Ms Jeppesen |
Respondent
And
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings involve two children, M aged twelve and E aged nine. The parents of the children are the Applicant, Mr Goodner (the Father) and the Respondent Ms Jeppesen (the Mother). The father lives in a suburb of Sydney in Australia. The Mother lives in a town in Denmark.
There was a three day final hearing of the matter in September 2009 before His Honour Justice Warnick. Orders were made on 6 November 2009 (the 2009 Orders). The parties had agreed to equal shared parental responsibility so an order to that effect was made by consent. Otherwise all issues had been in dispute. The central issue was residence, whether the children should live in Australia with their father or in Denmark with their mother.
In summary, the final outcome was that the children continue to live in Australia for a period of two years then relocate to live with their mother in Denmark.
background to dispute
At the time of the 2009 hearing the parties had been separated for a little over a year. Justice Warnick set out the history of the parties[1] which I summarise as follows.
[1] Goodner & Jeppesen [2009] FamCA 1052, at [6]-[14]
The father was born in the United States of America and is now almost fifty. He has lived in Australia since he was six years old. The mother was born in Denmark and grew up there. She is now 46 years old.
The parties met in Europe and began living together in early 1993. After about two and a half years they moved to Australia. Both children were born here. The parties “had many discussions about returning from Australia to Europe”[2] but did not do so. By mid 2008 the marriage was at an end.
[2] Goodner & Jeppesen [2009] FamCA 1052, at [8]
The mother and children lived in Denmark for the second half of 2008. The stated intention of the mother was to remain living there with the children and her now husband Mr W.
In January 2009 the father instituted proceedings in Australia after returning with the children from Christmas in the USA. The children went onto the Airport Watch List.
The mother returned to live in Australia.
From March 2009 the children began living week about with each parent pursuant to interim orders made by consent. This pattern continued until October 2009. At that time the mother returned to Denmark. By agreement E went with her mother to Denmark and M stayed with his father in Australia.
In early November 2009 the outcome of the litigation became known to the parties.
the 2009 orders
The Orders provided for the children to remain living in Australia for two years with shared care by the parents. This was to be week about if the mother remained in Australia or through block periods if she returned to Denmark. Thereafter as from 1 January 2012 the mother was at liberty to establish a permanent residence for the children with her in Denmark.
There was no appeal from this decision.
In late 2009 the mother learned she was pregnant[3] to Mr W.
[3] Affidavit of Mother filed 23/11/2011
In mid December 2009 the father took M to Denmark as previously arranged.
The mother says the parties agreed to speak to the children together about the outcome of the proceedings. After the children were told of the two years in Australia before moving to Denmark, “[E] started crying and neither she nor [M] said anything”[4]. The father does not refer to this incident in his affidavit.
[4] Affidavit of Mother filed 23/11/2011, par 5
I am unable to make any finding about the significance of the reaction, or lack of reaction of the children to what they were told. However, I accept that they were told about the Orders. Therefore, from December 2009 both children knew they would go to live permanently in Denmark after two years had passed.
In January 2010 the mother returned both children to the father in Australia. Thereafter the parties agree that the children lived with the father and spent the following time with their mother:
·Three weeks in April 2010 in Australia
·Four weeks in June/July 2010 in Denmark
(In August 2010, the mother gave birth to a daughter A)
·Twelve days in September/October 2010 in Denmark
·Three weeks in January 2011 in Denmark
·From 29 January 2011 until December 2011 there was a return to week about care in Australia with some holiday time in Denmark.
The mother, her now husband and their baby rented accommodation in Sydney and lived in Australia during 2011.
Since the institution of these current proceedings in November 2011, the mother, her husband and their baby have returned to Denmark. Both children spent time there over Christmas.
background to current application
On 3 November 2011 an Application in a Case was filed by the father seeking a stay of eight of the Orders of 6 November 2009 (Orders 17 to 24 inclusive). These Orders related to the change of the children’s residence to Denmark. On 25 November 2011 the father filed an Amended Application in a Case and an Initiating Application.
On 28 November 2011 the matter came before His Honour Justice Le Poer Trench in a duty list.
current applications
The father asserts a change of circumstances since the 2009 Orders which would justify re-opening the issue of residence, and a further full hearing.
The mother opposes a further hearing and pressed for compliance with the 2009 Orders.
On 28 November 2011 orders relating to change of residence were suspended[5]. An Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed. A Child Inclusive Conference was ordered with a judicial request for a Short Report focussing on the views of the children on the move to Denmark with their mother. The children were placed on the Watch List with provision for a holiday in Denmark in December 2011/January 2012[6].
[5] Order 2, Orders 28/11/2011. Specifically Order 2 of the Orders made on 28 November 2011 states that ‘Pending further order, orders 17-24 inclusive made by the Court on 6 November 2011 (should read 2009) are suspended’.
[6] Orders 9-11, Orders 28/11/2011
On 23 January 2012 the matter was listed before a Docket Registrar for consideration of further listing.
The matter was listed before me on 8 March 2012 for the first day of a Less Adversarial Trial. By then:
·The Report of the Family Consultant had been released (19 December 2011),
·Both parties had given Undertakings not to discuss the relocation issue with the children,
·Both parties had filed Parenting Questionnaires,
·The child M had begun high school.
On 8 March 2012 the parties were unable to agree whether the issue of changed circumstances had been determined by His Honour Justice Le Poer Trench. The matter was adjourned to enable the transcript of the proceedings of 28 November 2011 to be obtained.
Thereafter the Court was advised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer that all parties agreed that the issue had not been determined by His Honour. A date was appointed for submissions on the issue and on the approach to be taken to the application of the father. All parties filed written submissions.
On 29 March 2012 the matter had to be adjourned. Costs of the father were reserved.
On 12 April 2012 the Independent Children’s Lawyer interviewed M. The interview was said to result from a request for interview on behalf of M through his father’s lawyers.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer reported that M was very distressed. He is said to have made further statements consistent with the Family Consultant Memorandum to Court of 19 December 2011.
The observations of M and reporting of his views expressed in December 2011 are set out here in full[7]:
·[M] presented as being anxious and upset when interviewed.
·[M] indicated that he has no preference regarding which parent he lives with.
·[M] indicated a slight preference for remaining in Australia for his schooling because he is concerned that it will be hard for him to learn in Danish and that he will miss his friends. He indicated that his mother had offered to obtain a tutor to assist him in Denmark and that he trusted his mother when she assured him that he will settle in, although he thinks it may take some time.
·[M] indicated that he would miss his father if he were to move to Denmark.
·[M] stated that, if [E] were to relocate to Denmark and he was to remain in Australia, he would be sad about being separated from her, but it would not have any influence on his views.
·[M] indicated that he is worried about his father being upset and alone if he and [E] were to relocate to Denmark.
[7] Family Consultant, Memorandum to Court 19/12/2011
Having conducted this interview on 12 April 2012, the position of the Independent Children's Lawyer changed somewhat. On 20 April 2012 before me the Independent Children's Lawyer stepped back from advocating for a determination of the matter without a Family Report. Further, in the event of a Family Report being ordered, it was submitted that cross-examination should be allowed.
Whilst conceding the wide discretion of the Court, it would be fair to say that the Independent Children's Lawyer was advocating for further exploration of the matter particularly the wishes of M and to a lesser extent, those of E.
On 20 April 2012 the hearing took place. Ultimately all parties agreed that there were four possibilities reasonably open to the Court in determining the question of sufficient change of circumstances:
i)Decision based on material filed to date of April hearing (including written and oral submissions), or
ii)A further hearing confined to material filed to date with cross-examination of deponents, or
iii)A further hearing confined to material filed to date, plus a report by a Family Consultant, or
iv)A further full hearing on all issues with change of circumstance to be one of the matters for determination.
Approach to the application of the father based on changed circumstances
The guiding principles for the determination of such an application arise from the decision in Rice v Asplund[8] and can be summarised as follows:
a)The Court should not lightly entertain an application to reverse an earlier custody order,
b)The applicant must satisfy the Court that there is some changed circumstance which would justify such a serious step;
-some new factor arising, OR
-some factor which was not disclosed at the previous hearing which would have been material,
c)These matters of change of circumstances, new factors or the coming to light of previously undisclosed material must be considered by a Judge in reasons for decision not necessarily in a preliminary hearing,
d)These are not necessarily matters for preliminary decisions.
[8] (1979) FLC 90-725
These principals in Rice v Asplund apply whether the original orders were by consent or determination.
Once the Court is satisfied there is a new factor or a change in circumstances, then the parenting issues should be determined in the ordinary way.
While the Court should give weight to any earlier decision and in particular, findings of fact, the Judge is not bound by
-the earlier Court’s assessment of the parties or views as to best interests of the child.
Subsequent decisions of this Court have elaborated on but not fundamentally changed those principles. Further the provisions of Division 12A of Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) must now be taken into account with particular reference to sections 69ZN, 69ZQ and 69ZR.
The decision in Miller v Harrington[9] is authority for the proposition that “summary dismissal” and “striking out” are not the appropriate expressions to describe the procedure when a Rice v Asplund issue is raised and considered at a preliminary stage.
[9] (2009) FLC 93-383, at [72]
The Court must fully take into account the bests interests of the children at whatever stage that issue is dealt with and section 60CC must be applied. Further the methods for procedure in child-related proceedings should be drawn on. For instance the principles enunciated in section 69ZN are as follows:
Application of the principles
(1) The court must give effect to the principles in this section:
(a) in performing duties and exercising powers (whether under this Division or otherwise) in relation to child‑related proceedings; and
(b) in making other decisions about the conduct of child‑related proceedings.
Failure to do so does not invalidate the proceedings or any order made in them.
(2) Regard is to be had to the principles in interpreting this Division.
Principle 1
(3) The first principle is that the court is to consider the needs of the child concerned and the impact that the conduct of the proceedings may have on the child in determining the conduct of the proceedings.
Principle 2
(4) The second principle is that the court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings.
Principle 3
(5) The third principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted in a way that will safeguard:
(a) the child concerned against family violence, child abuse and child neglect; and,
(b) the parties to the proceedings against family violence.
Principle 4
(6) The fourth principle is that the proceedings are, as far as possible, to be conducted in a way that will promote cooperative and child‑focused parenting by the parties.
Principle 5
(7) The fifth principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality, and legal technicality and form, as possible.
That father has strongly submitted for the preparation of a full Family Report in anticipation of a further final hearing, but also for use in any less extensive hearing.
The decision in DL & W[10] is authority to the extent that it was needed for the proposition that the ordering of a Family Report and the method in which that Report is used, is part of the discretion to be exercised. The facts of that case reveal a much less significant issue for consideration than this one. The issue was of time for one parent changing from five nights per fortnight in a dispersed pattern of time to six nights in a block. In contrast this is a decision relating to the country in which the children live until they are young adults. I accept the submission that the consequences for the children are life long.
[10] (2012) FLC 93-496
However, the significance of the authority is as to the exercise of the discretion in relation to the particular facts of a particular case. There is no mandatory pathway in determining applications of this sort.
The question in this matter is whether there has been a sufficient change of circumstances to re-visit the issue of residence in Denmark or Australia before the 2009 Orders have been fully implemented. In that respect the matter is unusual. Orders were made which provided for a two year period of delay before new residence arrangements began.
The 2009 Orders and Reasons for Judgment require careful consideration, together with material both filed and submitted to identify what was contemplated and what, if anything, constitutes a new factor arising.
Material Taken into account
The following material was taken into account:
1)Applications:
i) Application in a Case filed by the father on 3 November 2011;
ii)Amended Initiating Application and Amended Application in a Case filed by the father on 25 November 2011; &
iii)Response to an Application in a Case filed by the mother on 23 November 2011.
2)Affidavits and Parenting Questionnaires:
i)Mr Goodner sworn 1 November 2011 (the father);
ii)Ms P sworn 28 October 2011 (the former nanny in the father’s home);
iii)Ms Jeppesen sworn 22 November 2011 (the mother); &
iv)Ms L sworn 17 November 2011 (family friend).
3)Judgments:
i) Justice Warnick delivered 6 November 2009; &
ii)Justice Le Poer Trench delivered 28 November 2011.
4)Report by Family Consultant Ms N dated 21 April 2009.
5)Memorandum to Court of Ms R Family Consultant dated 19 December 2011.
6)Exhibits:
i) E1, Documents pertaining to [M’s] enrolment at [C] High School, Hearing before Justice Le Poer Trench 28 November 2011;
ii)E2, Independent Children's Lawyer Submissions, Hearing before Justice Cleary 20 April 2011;
iii)E3, Father’s Case Outline, Hearing before Justice Cleary 20 April 2011; &
iv)E4, Mother’s Case Outline, Hearing before Justice Cleary 20 April 2011.
7)Undertakings:
i)Mr Goodner (father);
ii)Ms K (current nanny in the father’s home); &
iii)Ms Jeppesen (mother).
2009 Decision (justice warnick)
The mother was given liberty to move the children to live with her in Denmark as and from 1 January 2012[11]. For the two years prior to that date, alternative arrangements for shared care were put in place to cover both the mother staying in Australia or returning to Denmark. Block periods of time for the children with their father both in Denmark and Australia were provided for together with arrangements for communication.
[11] Order 17, Orders 6/11/2009
His Honour considered that parenting capacity was not an issue and that the arrangements for care in each country proposed by each parent were adequate.
In my view parenting capacity is still not an issue. This was conceded by all parties. These are good parents who love their children and have provided well for their needs. That has not changed.
His Honour noted the oral evidence of the mother to the effect that if she was not permitted to take the children from Australia to live she would return to Denmark alone. His Honour considered it likely she would stay especially if it was for a defined period. His Honour expressly stated that if the mother did return to Denmark she would be able to maximise her time in Australia[12]. In my view the mother did maximise her time in Australia during the period she lived in Denmark (October 2009 to January 2011).
[12] Goodner & Jeppesen [2009] FamCA 1052, at 21, [110]
The Family Consultant Ms N expressed a view in her report that “neither of them (the parents) should live a long distance away from their children”[13]. In generating options Ms N suggested:
·Relocation of the father to Europe[14]; OR
·The family remaining in Australia with “frequent and lengthy visits to Denmark, as well as a future date for a move to Europe”[15].
[13] Family Report 21/4/09, par 44
[14] Family Report 21/4/09, par 45
[15] Family Report 21/4/09, par 46
His Honour drew on the recommendation in the second option, generated by Ms N. The parties were given the opportunity to cross-examine and make submissions about a proposal formulated by His Honour for two years in Australia prior to a move. In fact this was the Order made. The reasoning behind it and consideration of the parent’s opposition to it, is set out in the Reasons[16], in considerable detail. Significantly the Family Consultant expressed a view on the option of two year period before relocation. She is reported to have seen “some advantages” qualified by a concern that “a move for [M] could be harder in some ways if delayed until his adolescence and, in short, some factors likely to be relevant then…cannot be determined now”[17].
[16]Goodner & Jeppesen [2009] FamCA 1052, at [30]-[48]
[17]Goodner & Jeppesen [2009] FamCA 1052, at [48]
It is clear that the heightened difficulty of a move in adolescence at least in the professional opinion of Ms N was a matter His Honour took into account.
Has there been a change of circumstances?
On behalf of the father the changes asserted are:
1.That M is now expressing a view in favour of living in Australia whereas in the previous proceedings neither child stated a preference.
2. The mother has had another child.
3. The mother did not maximise her time in Australia as was contemplated.
Noting that this submission was not based on any alleged lack of interest or commitment by the mother.
Of these three matters Counsel did not strenuously press the second and third grounds. This was a sensible course. In relation to the birth of A, there is no contest that the children love the new baby and enjoy spending time with her. In relation to the mother having maximised her time in Australia with the children, she did so consistently with the birth of her child in August 2010. To the credit of both parents the children spent time in Denmark in block periods in the early stages of A’s life.
What remains is Ground one - that M is now expressing a view in favour of staying in Australia. I accept that this is the case. I accept that E has given
a fairly clear indication that she wants to relocate to Denmark with her mother.[18]
[18] Family Consultant, Memorandum to Court 19/12/2011, page 2
The polarisation of the children even to this limited extent is a matter which I take into account.
I note one of the comments of the family consultant who saw the children in December 2011[19]:
Currently, the children are again being placed in a situation where they are uncertain of their future and feeling stressed by their perception that they must choose between their parents. It is important that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible.
[19] Family Consultant, Memorandum to Court 19/12/2011, page 2
I note this concern and endorse the need to provide certainty for the children.
On behalf of the mother it was submitted that:
·the children should leave for Denmark as soon as possible
·and in response to the father:
·that M was enrolled at high school in Australia for 2012 without reference to the mother, and by inference was not encouraged to understand that he would start school in Denmark in 2012.
There is some force in this submission.
An expression of interest for placement in high school in Australia for M was signed by the father on 15 March 2011[20]. On 1 September 2011 an application dated 28 June 2011 by the father for enrolment of M was accepted. The letter of acceptance included details of an Orientation Day in early December 2011. Nowhere in the correspondence or application was there a reference to the fact that Court Orders provided for M to live in Denmark from 1 January 2012. That is not to say that the father did not make that information available to the school. However, there is no evidence before me of any such communication.
[20] Exhibit 1, documents from C High School
Accordingly M believed two inconsistent things: that he was going to live in Denmark in January 2012 and that he was going to attend C High School commencing in January 2012.
The affidavit of the father is consistent with this finding about M’s state of mind. In those paragraphs where the father refers to the expression of M’s views there is no reference to the father referring to the relocation to Denmark[21]. For example M is said to have attended an Open Day at the High School with the rest of his class. He is reported as saying to his father[22]:
I liked the school – that is where I will be going next year.
[21] Father’s Affidavit filed 3/11/11, pars 68-71
[22] Father’s Affidavit filed 3/11/11, par 69
At that time, there was no fresh Application by the father before the Court, and no agreement between the parents to vary the Orders. M was apparently not reassured by his father that he would be at school in Denmark and that his father accepted that situation.
In September 2011 the mother advised the father of the bookings she had made for herself and the children for December 2011. At that point the father began making enquiries about mediation.
However, by 26 October 2011, it was abundantly clear that the mother did not wish to mediate. She changed her first proposal to leave with the children in mid-December 2011 and proposed exact compliance by re-booking on 1 January 2012[23].
[23] Father’s Affidavit filed 3/11/11,pars 85-99 & Annex “M”
The state of the evidence is that at no time did the father confirm to the children that they would be going to Denmark. The uncertainty of their position is obvious on the material before me.
Now M is intensely distressed. Between 19 December 2011 and 12 April 2012 his emotional state has clearly deteriorated. I give weight to the submissions of the Independent Children's Lawyer in that regard. I note with concern the observation of the Family Consultant that in December 2011:
[M] indicated that he is worried about his father being upset and alone if he and [E] were to relocate to Denmark[24].
What is in the best interests of the children in the determination of the issue of changed circumstances?
[24] Family Consultant, Memorandum to Court 19/12/2011, page 2
Relevant matters pursuant to s 60CC are:
(a) Views of the Children:
The children have begun to express polarised views. Further M is concerned about his father. E is expressing a wish to go to Denmark as she has anticipated doing for two years. M is expressing a wish to remain in Australia.
M is twelve, a clever boy at school, engaged in sporting and cultural activities. E is nine, also doing well at school with other interests. They are both conscious of the difference between their parent’s wishes.
The matter being unresolved after the expiry of the two year period has the potential to be destructive for the children in a way that they could not predict. They have not had the experience of living separately from each other.
However well and sensitively it is done, further interviews for a Family Report would inevitably focus on their wishes and the strength of them. They are old enough to know they will be choosing between their parents. Neither child should have that responsibility.
(b) Relationships of Children with Others:
The children have their most important relationships with each of their parents and each other. Their relationships with their sister A, their step-father and their paternal grandmother are significant.
(c) Capacity of Parents:
Each of the parents has been found to have impressive capacity as a parent. His Honour Justice Warnick contemplated that the mother might live in Australia for up to two years and that the father might move to the Northern Hemisphere. However, His Honour’s ultimate view was that the children should live with their mother.
The father has the capacity to support the children in making the contemplated transition, despite the distress of losing them, aggravated by his own childhood experience of losing a parent[25].
(d) Characteristics of the Children:
The children are both Australian and Danish. They will likely retain their connections to both countries. They speak both English and Danish and have travelled extensively. They are currently learning French. The parents are well educated people with a commitment to the education of their children.
[25] Family Report 21/4/09, pars 14-18.
Conclusion
For all these reasons I consider that to avoid further pressure on the children, particularly M, the matter should be determined as quickly as possible. That is without a Family Report or further hearing.
In my view it was entirely predictable that with greater age and maturity the children would begin to express opinions. That was contemplated by the Family Consultant and His Honour in 2009.
However, the risk to their relationship with each other and each of their parents is such that even if the expression of these views represents a change of circumstance, it is insufficient to justify further hearing even on a limited basis.
Accordingly, I dismiss the application and discharge the relevant Orders suspending the 2009 Orders.
I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 30 May 2012.
Associate:
Date: 30 May 2012
2