Gulati and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] AATA 446

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 446

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2003/1343
  )          No N2003/1347

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SHALINI GULATI & NARESH GULATI

Applicants

And MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Michael Sassella
Senior Member

Date5 May 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review in each application is affirmed.

[sgd] M J Sassella

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for grant of certificate of Australian citizenship – applicant has not spent requisite time in Australia as permanent resident – discretion to regard time spent overseas as time spent in Australia if applicant engaged overseas in activities beneficial to interests of Australia – applicant engaged in marketing Australian tertiary study courses in India – applicant’s activities result in foreign income for Australia – applicant spends very little time in Australia – applicant’s residence is in India – applicant unable to show evidence of commitment to Australia – applicant pays very little Australian taxation – applicant’s primary reason for desiring citizenship is enhancement of own business – value of benefit to Australia from applicant’s activities miniscule

Australian Citizenship Act 1948 s 13(1)(d), (e), (1A), (4)(b)(i)

Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 113 ALR 151

Re Manbir Singh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] AATA 329

Re Hou and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 242

Re Fan and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] AATA 625

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 May 2004 Michael Sassella
Senior Member     

RESULT

The tribunal agrees with the Minister’s delegate.  Mr and Mrs Gulati should not be granted Australian citizenship at this time.  The particular reason is that their activities outside Australia between 1997 and 2002 were not relevantly beneficial to the interests of Australia.

BACKGROUND

1.      Naresh Gulati (“the first applicant”), born 29 November 1970, and Shalini Gulati (“the second applicant”), born 31 December 1970, came to Australia in 1995 and 1999, respectively.  They are permanent residents.  On 28 August 2002 the applicants lodged applications for grant of Australian citizenship with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the department”).  On 24 July 2003 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the respondent”, “the Minister”) decided to refuse the grants of citizenship.  The applicants have applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the tribunal”) for review of the decisions refusing citizenship.

ISSUES

2. Section 13 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (“the Act”)[1] sets out the criteria to be met if a grant of citizenship is to occur. In the cases of Mr and Mrs Gulati they were each vulnerable under s 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Act. These in combination require that an applicant must have been present in Australia as a permanent resident for not less than one year of the period of two years immediately preceding the date of application (s 13(1)(d)) and for a period, or periods, amounting in the aggregate to not less than two years of the five years immediately preceding the date of application (s 13(1)(e)).

[1] Mr and Mrs Gulati’s cases their times in Australia as at 28 August 2002 amounted to the following:

·     Mr Gulati had spent only 128 days of a possible 730 in the two years immediately preceding the application.  He had spent only 365 days of the required 730 days in the five years immediately preceding the application.

·     Mrs Gulati had spent only 37 days of a possible 730 in the two years immediately preceding the application.  She had spent only 240 days of the required 730 days in the five years immediately preceding the application.

4. I note also that s 13(1A) of the Act precludes the Minister from granting a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person under s 13(1) at a time when the person is not present in Australia unless the person is a permanent resident and the Minister considers that the person is engaged in activities outside Australia that are beneficial to the interests of Australia.

5. Section 13(4)(b) of the Act provides the Minister with a discretion to treat an applicant as having spent a period of time in Australia when, in fact, he or she was outside Australia at the time. This may result in the grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to an applicant despite the applicant’s failure to satisfy s 13(1)(d) and/or (e) provided certain other criteria are met. These criteria are:

·     The applicant must have engaged in activities that the Minister considers beneficial to the interests of Australia (s 13(4)(b)(i)(C)); and

·     The applicant was not present in Australia at the time (s 13(4)(b)(i)(B)); and

·     The applicant was a permanent resident when engaged in the activities beneficial to Australia’s interests (s 13(4)(b)(i)(A)).

6.      The issues in these matters before me therefore become:

(a)Were either or both of Mr and Mrs Gulati engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia at certain times between 1997 and 2002?

(b)If the answer to (a) is yes, were either or both of Mr and Mrs Gulati not present in Australia at those times?

(c)If the answer to (b) is yes, were either or both of Mr and Mrs Gulati permanent residents of Australia at those times?

FINDINGS ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THOSE FINDINGS

(a) Were either or both of Mr and Mrs Gulati engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia at certain times between 1997 and 2002?

7.      Mr and Mrs Gulati arrived in Australia on 23 July 1999 and began business immediately.  At first they ran a hostel in Melbourne for Indian students studying in Australia.  Mr Gulati then became a migration agent in 2000 specialising in facilitating the entry of foreign Indian students into Australia.  As a vehicle for this work Mr and Mrs Gulati created Oceanic Consultants Australia Pty Ltd in January 2001 and an Indian affiliate, Oceanic Consultants.  The Australian company has two employees. 

8.      The applicants promote Australian educational services as their main business.  Mr Gulati spends 80% of his time in India recruiting potential students for Australian study.  They place advertisements in Indian newspapers, run a helpdesk and have a physical office in Chandigarh, Punjab.  In India, he employs between eight and 10 staff.  Examples of newspaper advertisements, etc placed by Oceanic Consultants in India were provided.  He described his business as based in Australia, but with its market in India.  The Australian academic institutions who accept students from India pay commissions to the Australian company.  Oceanic Consultants Australia pays its Indian corporate cousin from these commissions for services on a fee for service basis.  The Indian company receives 30% plus the cost of its disbursements. 

9.      Mr Gulati described his modus operandi.  He deals directly in India with students considering study in Australia.  He markets himself as an Australian graduate.  He finds that the “personal touch” he offers gives him a competitive advantage over another provider, IDP, which deals in India on behalf of all Australian universities.  Mr Gulati represents certain defined academic institutions.  Mr Gulati times his visits to Australia to coincide with periods when the students whose travel he has facilitated will most need his assistance. 

10.     Mrs Gulati works in the Indian office.  She is a director of the companies.  She was last in Australia in August 2002.  Before that she was here in March 2000. 

11.     Mr Gulati said that he must spend at least 80% of his time in India or he will lose his Indian business.  Mr Gulati told me during the hearing that the grant of Australian citizenship would add to his credibility in India in selling the advantages of study in Australia.  At present a potential client can ask him why, if Australia is so good, he has not taken out citizenship. 

12.     Mr Gulati has no property or substantial similar investments in Australia.  He lives with his brother in Melbourne when he is in Australia.  In their citizenship applications they wrote that they migrated to Australia intending to make Australia their home, to offer a good living standard and high quality life for their two infant children and to do their best for Australia.  They wrote that they were working steadily towards achieving their aims and had been doing so since they migrated.  They said they had transferred substantial funds here.  They wrote that they had as at August 2002 $A90,000 on deposit with the Commonwealth Bank.  These and other funds to be transferred were “earmarked for the purchase of a home for the family in Australia”.  They said they had been actively engaged in searching for a home but nothing suitable had been found. 

13.     In the citizenship applications mention was made of their paying tax in Australia.  Their 2002 Australian tax liability was $A7,000.  I note, however, that the bulk of tax documents relating to Oceanic Consultants and the applicants as individuals at pages 154 to 280 disclose negative income in the particular years. 

14.     Mr Gulati claims that his work in India is worth $A5.75m a year to Australia.  This comes from Indian students in Australia converting their Indian currency into Australian dollars.  This calculation is based on a number of assumptions.  One is that each foreign student generates income of $A12,000 a year, this based on an estimate from the department. 

15.     Second, the RMIT University, Melbourne, wrote on 21 August 2002 that the RMIT University had generated more than $A1.3m revenue in two years from the Gulatis’ business recruitment efforts in India. 

16.     Third, a firm of certified public accountants wrote on 21 August 2002 that the foreign fee contributions made to Australian academic institutions through the Gulatis’ efforts are in excess of $A4m.  In addition, the letter said, the students spent about $A1.75m in living expenses.  These appear cumulative estimates covering several years.

17.     Fourth, the Holmesglen Institute of TAFE wrote on 23 August 2003 that, thanks to the Gulatis’ efforts, Holmesglen had earned more than $A750,000 in foreign exchange “in the last few years”. 

18.     Fifth, the Regency Institute of TAFE wrote on 21 August 2002 that over four years the Gulatis had assisted the institute to earn about $A550,000 in foreign exchange. 

19.     Sixth, the business trend was described as “rocketing upwards”.  A spreadsheet was presented at the hearing showing the names of students studying in Australian institutions in the 2003 July semester who were introduced by the Gulatis.  The document gave the duration in Australia for each student and the fees and living costs expenditures of each.  A figure of some $A7.8m constituted the total. 

20.     In Mr Gulati’s witness statement dated 18 February 2004 he listed at paragraph 8 Oceanic’s 10% commissions from the total income generated for Australia from his student clients.  The figures were:

2001	$55,534
2002	$91,591
2003	$262,931
2004 to date	$138,674.50
2004 estimated	$500,000+

As these represent commissions, the money earned by the institutions was 10 times the figure for commissions.

21.     Mr Gulati said that a foreign student pays an average of $A15,000 a year in fees in an Australian academic institution. 

22.     In the applicants’ applications for citizenship they referred to the importance to Australia of income from foreign students.  At page 81 of the T documents they quote the Australian Bureau of Statistics (“the ABS”) which in Australian Social Trends 2000 said that in 2000 there were 153,400 foreign students studying in Australia, 47% in higher education.  In 2000 overseas students generated $A3.7b for the Australian economy.  The ABS saw this as playing a major role in forging links with other countries, especially in Asia, the origin of most students.  The ABS said that Australia had achieved recognition as a safe, friendly study destination with high quality courses.  The ABS referred also to the cultural and political advantages.  Agreements about educational exchange were seen as an important element in Australia’s foreign relations policies with countries such as China, India and Indonesia.  Some overseas students were seen as adding to Australia’s cultural diversity and skilled labour supply by becoming permanent residents after finishing their studies. 

23.     In the recent book, Off Course: from public place to marketplace at Melbourne University (John Caine and John Hewitt, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, Carlton, Australia, 2004) (“Caine and Hewitt”), at page117, the authors say that higher education is one of Australia’s leading export industries and is worth some $A3.7b.  In 2001 there were over 95,000 international students in Australian universities, 46,252 studying business, administration and economics courses.  At page 223 Caine and Hewitt compared figures for 1992 and 1999:

“In 1992 the institution with the highest number of overseas students proportionate to its total student body was RMIT, with 9.9 per cent studying in Australia and a further 5.6 per cent offshore.  The University of New South Wales was next, with 12.2 per cent in Australia and 2.5 per cent offshore.  At Melbourne in 1992, overseas students made up just 5.3 per cent of the student body, all of them studying in Australia.  By 1999 the respective numbers were RMIT 14.8 per cent in Australia and 11.4 per cent offshore; Monash 11.6 per cent in Australia and 7.2 per cent offshore.  … Melbourne’s share of overseas students as a percentage of its total number of students was 11.6 per cent in Australia and 0.6 per cent offshore.”

24.     A number of references or testimonials were presented as part of the applicants’ documents seeking a grant of citizenship.  These are at pages 136 to 151 of the T documents.  I have read these but they do not add to the direct evidence from Mr Gulati. 

25.     The respondent’s difficulties with Mr Gulati’s case were as follows:

(a)Ms Howey, appearing for the respondent, said at the hearing that a grant of citizenship to the applicants would be contrary to policy and that the law relating to recruitment of overseas students and the value of the work of migration agents, as activities beneficial to the interests of Australia is unclear.

(b)The Minister’s statement of facts and contentions suggests that the primary purpose of Mr Gulati’s activities is personal profit.

(c)The statement of facts and contentions also suggests that the applicants’ activities fall far short of achieving recognition of Australia or of Australian achievements or commercial advantage for Australia or increasing the international respect and goodwill for Australia as is required for application of s 13(4)(b)(i)(C). The Gulatis’ contribution to overall activity in Australia is so miniscule that it cannot be labelled as beneficial.

(d)The statement of facts and contentions suggest that the nexus between the Gulatis’ overseas activities and any benefit to Australia is too remote since it is not the Gulatis who provide income or financial benefit to Australia but the students whom they recruit.  Indeed, it is argued, the Gulatis actually take commissions from academic institutions rather than contribute to their funding.

(e)In the respondent’s decision record dated 18 July 2003 the Ministerial policy instructions, the Australian Citizenship Instructions (“the ACIs”), are quoted as part of the reasons for rejecting the Gulatis’ applications. Citing instruction 4.3.19 the writer says that the discretion under s 13(4)(b)(i) will only usually be exercised if the applicant is in Australia or, if overseas, fits within certain limited categories. The writer finishes with, “If the applicant is overseas, the discretion will normally not be exercised”.

26.     The respondent claims support from several decided cases for these views.  The first of these is Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 113 ALR 151, 156-7 in which Einfeld J in the Federal Court of Australia laid down certain general principles in a case where the facts were quite different from here. The applicant for citizenship in Roberts worked overseas as a rigger for a United Kingdom company.  His Honour found against Mr Roberts saying that oil rig construction could be regarded as a benefit to Australia where the rig is in Australia.  However, where the construction is in the United Kingdom and Brunei, without more it would be difficult to find such benefit.  He said some evidence of the benefits would be required.  Examples of possible benefits to Australia were: if the applicant was studying or using new techniques or materials with a view to their introduction in Australia, or if he was taking Australian technology to these places, or if this work increased the applicant’s chances for remunerative work and advancement in the industry in Australia, or if the applicant paid Australian taxes on the foreign income.  Einfeld J said that “something in the nature of activities which provide some advantage to Australia, whether commercial or otherwise [is required].  The concept necessarily connotes some public interest of Australia, even if of a general or non-specific character, and means more than the private interests of the [applicant].  The section requires some objective benefit to Australia …”

27.     In Re Manbir Singh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] AATA 329 Deputy President McDonald dealt with the case of a citizen of the Republic of India who was a permanent resident of Australia. Although he had spent from 1987 to 1993 in Australia, thereafter he was in Hong Kong. In August 1996 he applied for Australian citizenship, having paid only a visit here in 1996. The applicant worked in the finance industry. He worked in Hong Kong specialising in providing financial services of use to Australian expatriates in Hong Kong, although 40 % of the company’s clients were not Australian. There were subsidiary activities: he attended social functions in Hong Kong associated with the visits of Australian sports teams or with Australian art exhibitions in Hong Kong and the company sub-let space at a concessional rent to an Australian International School Foundation run for Australian children in Hong Kong.

28.     Deputy President McDonald considered (paragraph 11) that, while the applicant’s business in Hong Kong no doubt filled a niche market for Australian expatriates working and living in Hong Kong and provided a service to those Australians, its overriding purpose was to return a profit to the applicant and the business’s other equity holders.  He said, “There is little activity which arises from the business that the Tribunal can, with any confidence, identify as fulfilling a ‘public interest’ benefit to Australia of the sort contemplated by Einfeld J in Robert’s case.”

29.     In Re Hou and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 242 Senior Member (now Deputy President) Handley considered the case of an Australian permanent resident who was also a registered migration agent. In 1996 he returned to the People’s Republic of China to set up a migration consultancy business in Guangzhou where he assisted Chinese citizens to prepare and submit applications for visas to enable them to live and work in Australia. The business expanded to several other cities. From 1997 Mrs Hou and their son, both of whom were Australian citizens, had left Australia and were in China. In the two years before applying for citizenship Mr Hou had spent very little time in Australia. In his evidence Mr Hou described the success of his Chinese migration agency. He referred to seminars he held there to persuade potential applicants that Australia was a good destination. He had assisted over 100 skilled migrants into Australia and had another 300 whose applications were being processed. He had no evidence regarding what these migrants did after arriving in Australia.

30.     Deputy President Handley in paragraph 31 referred to several of the ACIs.  Instruction 4.5.14(b) requires that the applicant show his or her commitment to Australia such as substantial assets or close ties with the business community or family members established in the country.  Instruction 4.5.14(c) requires that an applicant should be in Australia in stating, “If the applicant is overseas the discretion will normally not be exercised.”  Instruction 4.5.15 requires that regard be had to the applicant’s physical and emotional ties with Australia when weighed against his or her ties in any other country. 

31.     Deputy President Handley found against Mr Hou.  The considerations leading to that result were:

·     While Mr Hou’s business contributed to skilled migration, his motive in running the business was primarily the promotion of his own business interests.

·     While skilled migration is to the benefit of Australia, the nexus between Mr Hou’s activities and a direct and tangible benefit was too remote for exercise of the discretion.

·     While Mr Hou had said he and his family proposed to return to settle in Australia in the following year his then current financial commitment to Australia was relatively small, a bank balance totalling some $18,000, some Commonwealth Bank shares owned by Mrs Hou and an investment in a lanolin importing company in China that had imported lanolin from Australia. 

·     The Hou family were residing in China, Mr Hou’s home was there as were the source of most of his income and most of his financial resources. 

Deputy President Handley said in paragraph 38 that, weighing up all these matters, it was not appropriate to exercise the Minister’s discretion under s 13(4)(b).

32.     Finally, there is Re Fan and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] AATA 625 in which Ms Fan applied for citizenship on 1 July 2002. She had arrived in Australia on 3 April 1999 from the People’s Republic of China. On 20 April 1999 she was granted permanent residence but left Australia on that day. In 2001 she spent about five months in Australia and a month in 1996 prior to seeking citizenship. Ms Fan sought to benefit from s 13(4)(b)(i) of the Act. She was in the People’s Republic when out of Australia working for the China office of an Australian company. More particularly she described this work as “Marketing Manager in charge of marketing Australian tourist attractions and organising tourist in-bound groups to Australia as well as marketing Australian schools and universities for overseas students recruitment which are both for education export and tourism export for Australia”.

33.     Ms Fan’s connections with Australia included the fact of her husband’s parents’ residence here, her second child having been born here, she and her husband visiting his parents here frequently and an intention that she, her husband and their children would reside in Australia when the second child starts school.  They held $1m in Australian banks and owned real estate and some shares and managed funds in Australia.  Ms Fan had recruited 50 students for Australia in three years.  Her methods of operation were somewhat like Mr Gulati’s. 

34.     The tribunal found against Ms Fan.  The considerations were:

·     Lack of satisfaction that the persons sourced to travel to Australia established any beneficial interest to Australia.  While Ms Fan had skills enabling her to organise tours to Australia, her value as an employee to the company in China was less than she had asserted.  She had ceased to work for that company in June 2002 and had been replaced by a part-time employee.

·     Ms Fan had overstated the number of group tours she had organised from China to Australia. 

·     Ms Fan appeared to have overstated the number of students she had recruited for study in Australia. 

·     Any benefit obtained by Ms Fan’s activities had been enjoyed by her privately or by her employer.

·     There was nothing that pointed to her activity as having been widely recognised by the Australian community or by prominent persons associated with her field of endeavour (as suggested in the ACIs at 4.3.19).

·     In the context of the overall economic activity of Australia Ms Fan’s contribution was so miniscule that it could not be labelled as beneficial. 

·     Ms Fan did not undertake activities in China that were of a social, cultural, economic or political nature (as suggested in the ACIs at 4.3.19).

At paragraph 35 the tribunal summarised by saying, “We cannot find that Ms Fan was engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia because of the absence of commercial or other advantage to the public of Australia”. 

35.     Ms Howey was correct in seeing the relevance of these authorities to the case before me.  As I see it they raise a number of difficulties for Mr and Mrs Gulati.  These are:

·     That Mr Gulati spends, on his own evidence, 80% of his time in India.  Mrs Gulati’s visits to Australia appear few and far between.  They clearly regard India as their residence and have few significant ties in Australia.  I found the documentary evidence suggesting that, even as at August 2002 they had been unsuccessful in locating a suitable house to buy in Australia, unconvincing.  The Australian property market has been notorious in recent years for the rate at which housing is coming onto the market.  The Gulatis are a family of two adults and two children.  There has been a plethora of property suitable for such a nuclear family on the Australian market up to 2002 and since.  Yet, as at the date of the hearing, the Gulatis had not invested in Australian property. 

·     The amount of tax paid to the Australian Taxation Office by the Gulatis is quite low, reflecting a combined taxable income in 2001-2002 of only some $31,000.  This sits oddly with Mr Gulati’s evidence regarding the success their business has enjoyed.

·     Mr Gulati’s said in his oral evidence that he desired Australian citizenship primarily to enhance his business prospects.  I am more accustomed in these cases to find an applicant declaring his or her strong commitment to Australia supported by various reasons.

·     Mr Gulati’s evidence suggested at one point that the business the Gulatis bring to Australia is worth $A5.75m a year.  Elsewhere the figure suggested was $A7.8m.  However, the evidence is that the export of Australian educational services is worth some $A3.7b a year.  Even allowing a figure of $A7.8m as the value of the Gulatis’ efforts that is what has been described as a “miniscule” share of the total in the terminology used in some of the decided cases. 

36.     On the other hand the decided cases are not totally against Mr and Mrs Gulati.  This should not cause surprise, of course, because these cases always rely on their individual facts and it is rare to find any two cases exactly alike.  However, as regards the decided cases I offer these comments:

·     I consider that there are arguments that the Gulatis satisfy the Roberts [26] tests. Their efforts have provided some commercial benefit to Australia and that has been something more than the benefits accruing to Mr and Mrs Gulati. My problem is, however, that the total value of education exports would be little affected if the value attributable to Mr and Mrs Gulati’s efforts were absent.

·     The Gulatis are paying Australian taxes and are thereby engaging in an activity Einfeld J thought might be significant.  However, again the problem is the low value of those taxation payments.

37.     The Manbir Singh case [27] is distinguishable as there are in the present case certain activities that can be said to provide a public interest benefit to Australia.  However, I have already said why I see these as inadequate.

38.     Re Hou [29] emphasised the value of an evident commitment to Australia and a presence in Australia.  As explained earlier I do not see Mr and Mrs Gulati as having shown such a commitment.  The tribunal in that case was also unimpressed by the primary focus on increasing the applicant’s profits in business.  I see this as a major point in the present case also.

39.     Re Fan [32] can be distinguished.  Ms Fan was able to show better evidence of a commitment to Australia than Mr and Mrs Gulati but she still failed in her application.  Unlike Ms Fan, I believe, Mr Gulati was able to produce testimonials indicating the value of his activities to several academic institutions in Australia.  However, in the aggregate, that value was too low. 

40. It is my considered view that neither Mr nor Mrs Gulati were engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia, as intended by the Act, at certain times between 1997 and 2002. This means that it is unnecessary to consider issues (b) and (c) and that it would be inappropriate to exercise the Minister’s discretion in this case primarily for the reasons above in [35].

CONCLUSION

41. The tribunal has decided that the delegate of the Minister in this case made the correct decision in refusing to exercise the Minister’s discretion and grant a certificate of citizenship to the applicants. This is because the activities of the applicants between 1997 and 2002 were not beneficial to the interests of Australia in the sense meant in s 13(4)(b)(i) of the Act.

DECISION

42.     The decision under review in each application is affirmed.

I certify that the 42 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Michael Sassella, Senior Member

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  19 February 2004 
Date of Decision  5 May 2004
Counsel for the Applicant         Mr Christopher Levingston
Solicitor for the Applicant          Christopher Levingston & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent     Ms Kirsty Howey   
Solicitor for the Respondent     Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers