Gordon & Webb
[2025] FedCFamC2F 916
•16 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gordon & Webb [2025] FedCFamC2F 916
File number(s): MLC 4323 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY Date of judgment: 16 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Final Parenting Orders – Warrnambool circuit sitting – undefended hearing – where the matter was listed for mention – where the Father did not participate – where the court raised whether to proceed on a final basis – where the court is satisfied the Father has been served in the Northern Territory – where it is in the best interests of the child to proceed on a final basis – where the child lives with the Mother – whether the child should spend time with the Father as agreed between the parents – whether the Mother should have sole parental responsibility for the child – final orders made as sought by the Mother. Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 10.13
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 54 Place: Warrnambool Date of hearing: 16 June 2025 Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Ray of HBH Legal The Respondent: No Appearance ORDERS
MLC 4323 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS GORDON
Applicant
AND: MR WEBB
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant Mother, Ms Gordon (‘the Mother’) have sole decision making responsibilities in relation to the child X born in 2021 (‘the child’).
2.The child live with the Mother.
3.The child spend time with the Respondent Father, Mr Webb (‘the Father’) as agreed between the parties in writing.
4.All extant applications are otherwise dismissed.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rule 2021, a Court may at any time vary or set aside an order if it was made in the absence of a party.
B.Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge O’Shannessy
These are the settled reasons of a judgment delivered ex tempore. These reasons were delivered orally. These settled reasons have been corrected from the transcript where appropriate to correct grammatical errors, to add citations, passages of authorities and evidence, and to attempt to make the orally delivered reasons easier to read. The substance is unchanged.
Background
The matter comes before me on the first return of an application for parenting orders regarding X (‘the child’), who is aged four years. The parties commenced to live together in January of 2016 and separated in February of 2022. These proceedings were issued on 10 April 2025 and, when issued, had the first return date listed as 11 June 2025. The day following issue, in the chambers of the Judicial Registrar, the first return date was changed from 11 April 2025 before a Judicial Registrar to 16 June 2025 before me.
I am satisfied that that order was not served upon the respondent, Mr Webb (‘the Father’), but I am satisfied that many other documents were brought to his attention. In this matter, I am going to deal with the matter in three steps:
(1)The first being whether I should proceed this day in the absence of the Father who is 44 years of age and lives in the Northern Territory.
(2)The second matter will be whether I should proceed undefended, that is, relying only on the evidence of the applicant, Ms Gordon this day; and
(3)The third matter will be, and only if I am satisfied the first 2 steps have been met, the merits of the application before me today.
It is clear that the Father pays pretty keen attention to emails from the solicitor who acts for the applicant Mother, Ms Gordon (‘the Mother’) and regularly accesses and reads emails sent to …@... and sends emails from that email address.
These proceedings were issued on 10 April 2025, but the parties exchanged text messages that are in evidence at page 14 of 31 of the Mother's first affidavit of 6 April 2024 and filed in these proceedings on 10 April 2025 (‘the first affidavit’),
Was the Father aware of the proceedings?
Annexed to the Mother’s first affidavit, it shows a history of correspondence that the Mother’s solicitors had sent to the Father. The letter sent by the Mother’s solicitors dated 11 July 2024 states:
We refer to our previous correspondence of 28 May 2024, in which we did not receive a response.
The letter of 11 July 2024 also does not seem to be responded to. On 6 March 2025, another solicitor's letter was sent alerting the Father to her intention to commence proceedings unless he engaged in mediation or some form of negotiation with the solicitors. It also outlines that the previous correspondence had not been responded too:
We refer to our previous correspondence dated 28 May 2024 and 11 July 2024 and not we did not receive a response to either of those letters.
There is also evidence, and I accept, that on 13 June 2024, there was a text message exchange between the parties that demonstrates an awareness of involvement with lawyers and potential involvement with Court.
Service of documents
On 29 April 2025, with the commendable caution and competence of the Mother's solicitors, documents were emailed to the Father at the address that it is clear he is able to access and use, but also arranged for personal service. Because of the place where the Father lived, personal service was affected by the local police. Hence, at that point, notwithstanding the potential embarrassment of personal service of Family Law Act documents in a small community, the Father had the advantage of a hard copy of the actual documents, in addition to an electronic copy (because the same documents had been emailed to him).
The documents emailed and served personally on him were the suite of documents required to be served in regard to a parenting orders application, which is a lot of documents. There can be no mistaking as to the nature of the documents and what was sought. An applicant for parenting orders, even where the other side refused to participate, is required to serve at least the following documents:
(1)an application for final orders;
(2)an affidavit in support of the application for final orders;
(3)a genuine steps certificate;
(4)a notice of child abuse, family violence or risk; and
(5)a family dispute resolution certificate.
In addition to that suite of documents that I am satisfied was served on 29 April by personal service and by email, a letter was handed to Mr Webb by the police officer, that letter being exhibit M7, 16 June 2025. That letter was the first occasion where Mr Webb received actual notice that the matter was next listed in the Warrnambool Circuit of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in the week commencing 16 June 2025.
It is also quite clear that Mr Webb received those documents because of his email response. Having been served with the documents twice, with the advantage of a hard copy, Mr Webb emailed the Mother on 29 April 2025 at 4.40pm, directly, in a discourteous and abusive email, and then again at 5.08 pm[1] on a question that relates to an allegation that was made in the documents.
[1] Both emails are annexed to the Mother’s affidavit of 12 June 2025.
The second notice that Mr Webb had of the hearing on 16 June 2025 was on 12 June at 1.49pm, when a courteous letter was sent to him by email (to the address that he had used to respond on 29 April), that again notified him of the matter being listed for an in-person hearing on 16 June 2025 and set out the substance of the orders that would be sought that day.
The email referred to a hearing "in person" on 16 June 2025. That email attached a document which was orders pressed at that time, which are exhibit M1.
Orders sought
The orders pressed were simply that X would live with the Mother, that X would spend time with the Father as agreed between the parties in writing, that there be liberty to serve documents upon Mr Webb by email and, significantly, order number 4, "that [the Father] file and serve your responding material within 28 days of the date of these orders". Order number 5 also set out that "[the Father] will appear at the next court date for matter".
The Father has not filed
It is clear that Mr Webb had not filed or served any documents. The Mother, in compliance with the Court directions, also emailed Mr Webb via her solicitor with a cost notice, and the cost notice itself referred to a hearing on 16 June 2025. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr Webb has received formal notice that this hearing, being the first return, was fixed for 16 June 2025.
Father’s communication
I also take into account the nature and tone of Mr Webb's email, or emails, where, as at 20 March 2025 (in response to the 6 March solicitor's letter) he showed some inclination to take legal advice where he responded on 21 March 2025 and stated, "So how's this for a laugh. Legal Aid has gotten back to me and said in a couple of months, a lawyer will help me... A lot of good that will do, hey." That email followed emails on 20 March, one at 7.57 am and one at 6.42 pm, where Mr Webb sort of responded in substance to matters that had been raised by the solicitor's letters.
Further, back in 2024, Mr Webb had been invited to participate in mediation. I take into account, in deciding whether it is appropriate to proceed this day in the absence of Mr Webb, that back on 13 June 2024, Mr Webb sent a text message, and I quote:
What's the … point of trying achieve anything to do with family law. You have really no … idea what you have done, do you. I'm never going to be anything in regard to [X], you made sure of that. You and your family have done nothing but run me down and treat me like s…
Back on 29 April 2025, after being served with the documents, pretty promptly (at 4.40 pm), Mr Webb responded to the effect, in substance, that he did not intend to participate in the proceedings, where he said:
I will not jump through hoops for you. Don't make out that you want me to be part of [X]'s life after reading the … you put in this affidavit.
…
Hey, so [X] will grow up without me. Then hate me. So seeing as you're intent on going down this road stop any contact with my family and … off right out of our lives.
…
I am sick of your fake crap.
I am satisfied that email, though demonstrating some disinhibition on Mr Webb's part in his communications, does not demonstrate any intent to participate in the proceedings or participate in X's life.
On 31 May 2025, again after service of the material, Mr Webb again emailed the applicant Mother, again in crude and discourteous terms and again demonstrating some emotional lability and disinhibition, concluded with:
How about you stay out of my family affairs.
Hence, I then have two emails from Mr Webb in evidence after he is served with the documents that demonstrate no intention to participate in the proceedings or play a part in X's life. In all of those circumstances, notwithstanding that this is the first return, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed today.
Proceed undefended?
I will now turn to the next question of whether it is appropriate to proceed undefended. The notice of orders sought that was served on Mr Webb last week, as recited earlier at orders 4 and 5, on their face, indicated that the Father would have a further opportunity to participate in the proceedings and pursue a relationship with X. I raised with the applicant Mother's solicitors of why should the Court and the Mother and the solicitor be put to the trouble and expense of giving Mr Webb yet another opportunity, and even commanding him, to participate in the proceedings, when he has made it very clear that he does not wish to participate in the proceedings, and he does not wish to play a role in X's life, at least at this time?
I also take into account that, though this is the first return of an application for parenting orders, the parties separated back in February of 2022, and the Mother's solicitors had attempted to engage the Father in a process of information or negotiation in regard to X's welfare since at least 28 May 2024. The phrase or saying of, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" comes to mind.
I am also conscious, or take into account, of the apparent distress that communications with the Court, with the Mother's solicitor and with the Mother that those matters cause to Mr Webb. I infer from the nature of his communications that formal communications that in any way touch on his relationship with the applicant Mother, his relationship with his child X and/or his family's relationship with X are matters that cause him some distress.
I raised with the solicitor that I could not see the point in ordering Mr Webb to undertake the obligations of filing documents that by the rules of Court he had already been required to file but had chosen not to or, being as generous as I can, had been unable to organise that and/or lacked the personal resources to be able to organise the filing of material.
I refer to and take into account the matters I have referred to at the first part of these reasons, being why I should proceed this day.
Proceeding undefended
The major reason that I am satisfied it is appropriate to proceed undefended is that Mr Webb has had every opportunity to participate or engage in the legal process of Court orders in regard to X.
I simply cannot see the point in either giving him a further opportunity to participate, or in attempting to compel him to participate and appear. Hence, in all of those circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed undefended.
Merits of the application before me
I will now turn to the issue of the merits of the application. In determining final orders in regard to X, that is, parenting orders, I must take into account X's best interests as the paramount consideration.
I must also take into account section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’):
Section 60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
Determining child’s best interests
(1)Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must:
(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and
(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child--also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).
General considerations
(2)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:
(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i) the child; and
(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b) any views expressed by the child;
(c)the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs ;
(e)the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
(2A)In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:
(a)any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(b)any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
…
The history of X's life has been that his parents commenced cohabitation in 2016, and they moved to the Northern Territory in pursuit of that relationship and resided for a time in Town B, in a home owned by the applicant Mother.
The parties separated in February 2022. The relationship between X's parents was a troubled one. I refer to and repeat the relevant paragraphs of the Mother’s first affidavit that set out the history the relationship:
7. Throughout the relationship [Mr Webb] perpetrated family violence against me, which included physical violence, sexual violence, verbal abuse and financial abuse. I never reported any of the family violence to Police, as in my role working in [public service] I had a close relationship with Police and this would have been embarrassing if they found out about my situation. [Mr Webb]’s anger would be uncontrollable and there were occasions I was scared he would kill me. [Mr Webb] also kept unregistered firearms in the home. Examples of the family violence included the following:
(a)Physical Violence - [Mr Webb] would often throw things in anger including an occasion where he broke the kitchen drawers and threw them around. There was also occasions where he would drive aggressively with myself and [X] in the car.
(b)Verbal Abuse - [Mr Webb] would often call me r[…], he would scream at me and [X] and tell me I did not support him and that I never listened.
(c) Financial Abuse - During our relationship [Mr Webb] did not work except for a total of six months over the course of our relationship. I was left to be responsible for all the finances and would have to hide money so that he would not spend it. Once we started living together [Mr Webb] was not eligible for centrelink and I was the sole income earner . [Mr Webb] was an alcoholic and I would estimate that he would drink a bottle of rum a day, which amounted to about $700 worth of alcohol a fortnight. If I did not give [Mr Webb] money for alcohol or if there was no alcohol in the house [Mr Webb] would become angry and take it out on me .
(d)Sexual Violence - There were times where I would feel coerced into having sex with [Mr Webb], because if I did not he would get angry at me. This has included times when we would be having sex and I would be crying because I did not want to and he would tell me to stop crying or to f[…] off.
8. When [X] was born there was a learning curve, as we were both first time parents. However this seemed to affect [Mr Webb] significantly as he would often get frustrated with [X]. In particular he was frustrated that having a child was impacting his social life.
9. Prior to meeting [Mr Webb] he had been diagnosed with depression and Attention Defecit Disorder. [Mr Webb] advised me he was meant to be medicated for both. [Mr Webb] told me he did not want to take the medication as he didn't like the side-effects. On multiple occasions I requested he see a doctor for his mental health and one occasion attended with him, we were asked to leave as [Mr Webb] was being aggressive towards the doctor, yelling at her and leaning over her.
10. I would describe myself as the primary carer for [X] throughout the time we remained in the relationship. This is despite [Mr Webb] not working and caring for [X] when I went back to work […] after [X] was born. As such [Mr Webb] only cared for [X] during the day when I was at work between September and December 2021.
The relationship ended on what I infer was hoped to be a pleasant holiday or grand road trip around northern Australia, but that was not to be, as set out in the Mother’s affidavit.
14. In December 2021 I went on leave from work, so that we could go on an extended holiday. We were meant to travel from [Town B] to [Town C] in Queensland (where [Mr Webb]’s family resides) and then to Victoria (specifically the [Region D] Victoria) to spend time with my family and then we were going to retrace the path back to [Town B].
…
17. The day following this, I was cleaning [X]'s pram after a plumbing incident caused it to be covered in grey water. I was in the backyard of the property we were staying at, hosing it off when [Mr Webb] again started an argument, as he did not believe I had cleaned the pram appropriately. He threw the pram across the yard and verbally berated me in front of his family. I removed myself from that argument and went in side and a couple of hours later, [Mr Webb] came and spoke to me and told me to "f[…] off back to [Town B] ".
18.As such I believed that [Mr Webb] wanted to end our relationship and the next morning, I left with [X] to head back to [Town B]. Whilst traveling back to [Town B] I advised [Mr Webb] each night where [X] and I were and that we were safe.
…
24.As my Mother ([Ms F]) was staying with us, she did offer for us to return with her to [Town E], so that she could support us in the short term. I agreed to do this and initially did not intend for that to be a long term relocation and I advised [Mr Webb] via text that I was intending to return to the [Town E] area in Victoria with my Mother.
25.Consequently around the 7th or 8th of February I returned to … Victoria, with my Mother and [X]. I also took an extended leave of absence from work, whilst I was staying with my Mother.
26.After this time I offered to facilitate contact between [X] and [Mr Webb], including offering Facetimes, which occurred once (after which [Mr Webb] refused to call) and otherwise I offered to facilitate contact by driving [X] to Melbourne or Adelaide to meet [Mr Webb]. I also offered to pay for flights for him to come and visit [X], but [Mr Webb] refused. I also offered for [Mr Webb] to record himself reading stories to [X] and I would play it to [X] regularly, but again he refused.
27ln around May 2022,1 decided to remain living in [Town E] and I advised [Mr Webb] of this through text message. [Mr Webb]’s response to this was that he hated me and I had broken the law…
28.Consequently I have never been contacted by any lawyer acting on behalf of [Mr Webb] in relation to Family Law Matters.
29.Since our separation in February 2022, [Mr Webb] has not seen [X], despite my numerous offers to facilitate contact.
30.There have been occasions when I have taken [X] to the Paternal family events in Queensland and offered for [Mr Webb] to see [X] there. Again [Mr Webb] has refused to have any contact with [X].
31.There has been minimal face time contact which I believe has amounted to about three times since separation; two of these occurred on Christmas and one on [X]'s second birthday. On one of the Christmas calls, [Mr Webb] was drunk.
32.When we first separated, I was sending photos and videos of [X] to [Mr Webb], but he asked me to stop, but later asked me to send them again. He has asked me to stop sending him photos and then to start again on multiple occasions.
33.Shortly after we separated [Mr Webb] did offer to sign papers to relinquish his parental rights and on four occasions [Mr Webb] has asked me to change [X]'s surname from [Webb].
34.[Mr Webb] and I have had limited contact about [X] since separation. We have had ongoing communication about property, and I would describe that [Mr Webb] has had contacted me significantly more about property matters than he has about [X]. When [Mr Webb] does communicate with me he can become aggressive and threatening…
An example of the troubled communication between the parties following separation is Mr Webb's text message of 11 May 2022:
You have made me a little […] angry with your crap comments.
You can’t even talk to me. Yet want to set rules. Yeah […] off with all of that ... If I can’t even be acknowledged or even spoken to why would I ever feel good enough to ever have any correspondence with my son.
…
At one point, it appears that Mr Webb had some interest in a formal role in X's life, as demonstrated by text messages in April of 2024. I note that there was significant communication in relation to the applicant Mother's home that she owned in Town B but left available for Mr Webb to reside in for some considerable time, provided he paid the mortgage. Ultimately, he moved out, and the home has been sold. But in a text message communication, (page 14 of 31 of the first affidavit) the Mother sent texts the Father, "What are your plans for rent" which included, with some sarcasm, "Oh, you'd like to see [the child]?! What's your suggestion for visits?" Mr Webb would respond “Always wanted to see him. Just was made to feel not even worthy of the fact. Equal Custody. 6 months.”
I am not convinced that that text message communication was made seriously by Mr Webb but, rather, sarcastically as putting up a proposal that would be impossible for Ms Gordon to agree with.
Nonetheless that is as close as the evidence indicates any intention to participate in X's life. In terms of the serious matters that the applicant Mother has deposed to, I do not make findings of fact simply because those matters are alleged.
Standard of proof
I apply section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Evidence Act’) which states as follows:
(1)In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.
(2)Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:
(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and
(b) the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and
(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.
The allegations of significant violence within the relationship in many different ways are very serious allegations, and I would need to have very cogent evidence.
I am satisfied that the allegations and the detail of them of Ms Gordon's affidavit is cogent evidence. Mr Webb does not dispute those allegations in these proceedings. Sadly, I am driven to the view that I must find on the balance of probabilities that those serious matters occurred.
There also appears to be at least an emotional lability and at times, disinhibition, on Mr Webb's part. It is not possible in these proceedings to come to grips with whatever the emotional and psychological burdens that Mr Webb labours under.
He has chosen not to participate in the formal process at all.
Section 60CC factors
Applying those facts then to section 60CC.
What arrangements would promote the safety of the child…
I must consider what arrangements would promote the safety, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm, of the child and each person who has the care of the child, that is, Ms Gordon. The orders that leave the responsibility for any time to be as agreed between the parents in writing are sufficient to promote the safety of X and Ms Gordon. I am not satisfied there is any risk to Mr Webb's safety from Ms Gordon.
X is too young to have any weight placed on his expressed views, and I do not have any evidence of them. In the circumstances where it is clear that X has had no face-to-face or physical contact with his Father since February of 2022, and that his Father has never requested or arranged for such time but has had some limited communication by video link when he was a baby, I am of the view that X's views do not inform the matter.
The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child.
The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X will be entirely the responsibility of Ms Gordon, and I am satisfied that all of those matters will be attended to satisfactorily.
Capacity to provide for developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
On the evidence I have, I must consider the capacity of each person who was or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child and for the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. I am satisfied Ms Gordon has a significant and appropriate capacity to provide for X's developmental, psychological and emotional needs.
Benefit of a relationship with the child’s parents & other (significant) people (if) safe
I must consider the benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with both of his parents and other people who are significant to him where it is safe to do so. In the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient benefit to X of having a relationship with both his parents, to somehow try and compel Mr Webb to have that relationship with all the stress and grief that that would be on everyone, including him. I am satisfied that Ms Gordon will be able to assess, in a mature way, the benefit to X of a relationship or time with his Father as and when any such opportunity arises.
Family Violence
I must take into account any history of family violence, abuse or neglect of X. Sadly, I am satisfied of the fact that X's Mother has been raising X whilst the parties were together under a significant burden of being the victim of family violence. The communications from Mr Webb since separation demonstrate only an abusive nature.
Conclusion
It is in X’s interest that I make the orders sought by the Mother, and I will.
I otherwise dismiss all extant applications. I will make the notice in the not infrequent terms of Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, which states:
Rule 10.13 Varying or setting aside orders
(1) The court may at any time vary or set aside an order , if:
(a) it was made in the absence of a party;
…
That does not mean Mr Webb just gets a second go by just turning up and there are many matters that would need to be satisfied before I could vary or set aside these orders. Nonetheless, I propose to bring that rule to Mr Webb's attention by a notation in the orders.
Those are my reasons.
I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy. Associate:
Dated: 3 July 2025
0
0
3