H and B
[2003] FMCAfam 387
•21 August 2003
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| H & B | [2003] FMCAfam 387 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Residence – orders – best interests of children – shared care – children’s wishes. |
Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 65E, 68B, 68F
B & B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) 21 Fam LR 676; FLC 92-755
Harrison & Woollard (1995) 18 Fam LR 788; FLC 92-598
Brear & Corcoles-Alfaro (1997) 22 Fam LR 219; FLC 92-768
R & R: Children’s Wishes (2000) 25 Fam LR 712; FLC 93-000
R v R (Children’s Wishes) (2000) 29 Fam LR 230; FLC 93-108
Jurss (1976) 1 Fam LR 11,203; FLC 90-041
| Applicant: | G R H |
| Respondent: | L D B |
| File No: | NCM 4164 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 21 August 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Hearing date: | 19 August 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared on his own behalf. |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Ms Olsen |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Boyd Wooi Olsen |
ORDERS
The Orders made by the Local Court of NSW on 13 June 1995 and the Family Court of Australia at N on 7 March 1996 are discharged.
The children D P H born 13December 1987, A H H born 8 February 1990 and R A H born 28 August 1991 are to live with the Respondent mother.
The Applicant father is to have contact with the child R A H as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend during school term time from 5.00 pm on the Friday to 5.00 pm on the Sunday, extending to 5.00 pm on the Monday if the Monday is a public holiday, such contact to commence on Friday 22 August 2003;
(b)For the first half of the Spring, Autumn and Winter school holiday periods commencing at 9.00 am on the Saturday after school term ends and concluding at at 5.00 pm on the middle Saturday of the school holiday period;
(c)From 9.00 am on 2nd January to 5.00 pm on 16 January in each year;
(d)From 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on Father’s Day in each year if that day does not fall on a weekend where the father is normally entitled to exercise contact pursuant to Order 3(a); and
(e)From 2.00 pm on Christmas Day to 5.00 pm on Boxing Day in each year.
The mother is to do all things necessary to permit the child R to telephone the father between the hours of 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm each Tuesday and Thursday and on at least one other occasion in each week.
For the purpose of exercising contact with the child R the father is to collect the said child from outside the front gate of the mother’s residence and return the child to the mother at that same place at the conclusion of each contact period.
The father is restrained from:
(a)Entering inside the front gate of the mother’s premises at any time;
(b)Telephoning the mother’s premises for any reason except in case of a medical or other emergency affecting any of the children;
(c)Going or remaining within 100 metres of any soccer match in which the child A is playing or any soccer training activity involving the said child;
(d)Going or remaining within 100 metres of any soccer match in which the said child D is acting as referee or linesman except in the case of a match in which the child R is playing; or
(e)Attending any swimming carnival or swimming club activity involving the child A unless the child R is also involved in such activity.
All communication between the father and the mother, except where permitted by Order 6(b) is to be by Australia Post mail or by email.
The father is permitted to communicate with the child R by mail or by email.
The mother is to do all things necessary to authorise the Principal of any school attended by the said child R to forward to the father on a regular basis copies of all school reports concerning the said child, newsletters, bulletins, information about school photographs and other information normally provided to parents of children attending that school.
The father is permitted to arrange interviews for himself with the principal or any relevant teacher or school counsellor of the school attended by R to discuss issues relating to the said child.
The parties are to forward a copy of these orders to the principal of the school attended by the child R within 14 days.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NCM 4184 of 2002
| G R H |
Applicant
And
| L D B |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application by the father of three children aged 15, 13 and 11 years to discharge earlier orders for residence and contact made in the Local Court of New South Wales at C H on 13 June 1995. The orders that he now seeks are as follows:
a)that all previous consent orders regarding the three children, D, A and R be discharged;
b)that the children have contact with the father as agreed between the children and the father and then the father immediately informs the mother via email;
c)that the children have contact with the mother as agreed between the children and the mother and then the mother immediately informs the father via email;
d)that both parents are granted shared care of the children;
e)that the mother not relocate the children's place of residence away from their school and friends in the W area.
The mother opposes those orders. The orders that she now seeks are set out a draft Minute of Orders handed up by her solicitor on the morning of the hearing. The mother seeks these orders:
i)that the application of the father and the application contained in the father's reply be dismissed;
ii)that all previous orders that the children have contact with the father be discharged;
iii)that the children have contact with the father as agreed between the father and the mother in consultation with the children;
iv)
that the father have contact with the child R A H each alternate weekend from 9 am on Saturday to
5 pm on Sunday;
v)
that the father be restrained from approaching within
150 metres of any sporting or other venue where the children D and A are playing or participating in any sporting or social or education or cultural activity, unless at the expressed written invitation of either child or the mother and for greater clarity participating in a sporting activity includes, but is not confined to refereeing or participating as an official at a game and attending at swimming classes;
vi)for the purpose of implementation of Order 3, any communication is to be in writing and delivered to the mother's home by post or by email;
vii)that for the purpose of the implementation of Order 4, the father collect the child R from outside the front gate of the mother's residence at the commencement of contact and returning to that place at the conclusion of contact.
Those are the orders that the mother seeks. The original consent orders provided, using the terminology in use at the time:
a)that the parties would retain joint guardianship of the three children and the wife would have custody of them;
b)that the father would have access to the three children each alternate weekend from 9 am on the Saturday to 5 pm on the Sunday and during school holidays.
There were some further orders made by consent in the Family Court of Australia at N on 7 March 1996 regarding:
a)the father being given the opportunity to attend the children's school functions;
b)provision of suitable clothing for the children on weekend access visits;
c)access by telephone.
Both sets of orders apparently remain in force.
The background of this matter is that the parties were married on
27 September 1986. They separated on 31 July 1993 and were divorced in April 1995. There are three children of the marriage, D was born on 13 December 1987, A was born on
8 February 1990 and R was born on 28 August 1991. They all reside with the mother.
Both parties have repartnered since their separation. The father has apparently married one W H who, according to the family report, has been with the father for 10 years. She has one child S from a previous relationship who is now aged 19 years. S lived with her mother and the applicant for nine years, but has now left that household.
The mother formed a relationship with one S S, but they no longer reside together. There is one child of that relationship, a little boy called L who lives with the mother and has contact with his father Mr S. The evidence before me indicates that the relationship between the mother and Mr S, although they do not live together, is an amicable one.
There has been a history of litigation between the parties in the Local Court, the Family Court and now the Federal Magistrates Court. The matters litigated relate to property and parenting orders, child support and currently an application by the mother for an apprehended violence order against the father. The mother asserts that the father has been the applicant in most of those proceedings, but she is the complainant in the apprehended violence proceedings.
The parties were living at W on the n c of New South Wales when they separated. The mother moved to W near T about three years ago and the father and his wife followed suit in 2002. At one stage, they were living 100 or 200 metres away from each other, but they are now living more than 2 kilometres apart. W is a small country town and the potential for accidental meetings between the parties is therefore reasonably high.
It is common ground that the two elder children are estranged from the father and currently have little or no contact with him. This estrangement appears to have arisen from an incident in April 2000 when the father did not return the eldest child D from school holiday contact, although he returned the other two children. After the proceedings in the Family Court, the father was ordered to return D to the care of his mother. From that time on, both D and his sister A refuse to go to the father for contact visits, although R has continued to go.
There was an incident in late 2002 when the child R spent some time at the father's home without the mother's knowledge or consent. The parties' affidavits differ as to the dates. The father says
25 September 2002 in his affidavit, but the mother says the date was
17 October 2002. In any event, the mother contacted the police who visited the father's home and subsequently returned the child to the mother.
These proceedings were commenced by the father by means of an application filed at this Court on 14 October 2002. A family report was ordered and the relevant parties were interviewed between
17 June and 24 July 2003. I turn now to the family report.
Most of the interviews for the family report were carried out on
17 June 2003. Neither D or A would participate in an observation session with the father. The report indicates that R was observed in the presence first of all with his mother and two siblings and then in the presence of the father. Both parties are adamant however that this did not happen.
A significant feature of the report was the hostility expressed by both D and A towards their father. D said that he had not had any contact with his father for two years, apart from incidental meetings in the street or at the swimming pool. D reports having been distressed at his father's refusal to return him to his mother after contact in April 2000. D reacted angrily to R having contact with the father.
A reported as not wanting to see her father from the time the father retained D after contact in April 2000. She complained of two instances where she said the father touched her inappropriately at the local swimming pool, both of which the father explained was no more than accidental physical contact. A expressed strong negative views about her father.
In paragraph 69 of the family report, the regulation 8 officer reports:
A also reported that she had chosen not to play soccer this year so that she could avoid having her father come to the soccer matches which she found uncomfortable and embarrassing.
Further, in paragraph 71 the reporter noted:
A was very definite that she did not wish to see her father and like D, asserted she would not participate in an observation session on the day of the interviews.
By comparison, R expressed a positive view of contact with his father. In paragraph 74 the reporter states:
R expressed he was quite happy to continue to have the current contact with his father.
The parents were critical of each other when interviewed and it is clear that there is a long-standing animosity between them. The father's current wife, W H, did not attend any interviews but was eventually interviewed over the telephone. The reason for her not attending physically was said to be for reasons of health. She was described as accepting the fact that D and A have chosen to avoid the conflict between their parents in their decision not to have contact with their father.
All three of the children were reported as describing Mrs H in positive terms and made no complaints about her. The same cannot be said about Mrs H's daughter S who has since left the home. Both D and A were critical of incidents that have taken place in the past.
The writer of the family report claims that the acrimony between the parties has continued for 10 years. The children are aware of their parents' negative views of each other. The report writer described D and A's objections to the father's behaviour as appropriate, but recommended a continuation of R's regular contact with his father. The father was critical of matters in the family report, but the writer of the family report was not called for
cross-examination.
The principles to be applied in parenting proceedings are these, the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 must bear certain matters in mind when dealing with residence and contact applications, s.60B of the Act states that the object of part 7 of the Act is:
To ensure the children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
Section 65E of the Act makes it clear that the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order. The consideration of factors in sub-section 68F(2) will help the Court to arrive at this decision. Sub-section 68F(2) provides for a number of matters that the Court should consider in order to ascertain what is in the children's best interests. Not all of them will be relevant in every case, but the Court must give consideration to them as I have done in this case.
In dealing with the best interests of the children, I note that
sub-section 68F(1) requires the Court, in determining what is in a child's best interests to consider the matters set out in sub-s 68F(2). The Full Court of the Family Court in the decision of B v B (Family Law Reform Act (1995)) reported in (1997) 21 Fam LR 676 and FLC 97-755 referred to the best interests of the children as the essential premise with which the Court must deal. It is the starting point and in due course it must be the end point.
Sub-section 68F(2)(a) requires the Court to consider any wishes expressed by the child and any factors such as the child's maturity or level of understanding that the Court things are relevant to the weight it must give to the wishes of each child.
In Harrison v Woollard (1995) 18 Fam LR 788, which is also reported as H vW (1995) FLC 92-598, it was made clear that the Court must not only consider the wishes of the children, but it must show that those wishes have been considered. This decision was affirmed in the later decision of Brear v Corcoles-Alfaro (1997) 22 Fam LR 219-233 and
FLC 92-768 at 84,460 where it was said:
The Court must consider any wishes expressed by the child and the weight to be given to those wishes. The section does not require the Court to be bound by the child's wishes.
This approach has been followed by the Full Court of the Family Court in R v R (Children's Wishes) (2000) 25 Fam LR 712, FLC 93-000 and R v R (Children's Wishes) (2002) 29 Fam LR 230, FLC 93-108. One matter that the Court must consider in dealing with the weight which it must give to the wishes of children, apart from obviously their degree of maturity, is the extent of any pressure that may have been placed on the child or children concerned.
Bearing those principles in mind, I note that D was born on
13 December 1987, he is aged 15 years and 8 months. A was born on 8 February 1990, she is aged 13 years and 6 months. Both children express a strong wish to have no contact with their father and they are old enough to my mind for their views to be given considerable weight. Whilst both children are aware of their mother's negative view of their father, their views also appear to be based on incidents in their own lives. The family report described their attitudes as appropriate. I am satisfied that I should give significant weight to their views.
The youngest child R was born on 28 August 1991, his one week short of his 12th birthday. He has a positive view of contact, although he knows of the conflict between his parents. The father says that R wants more contact with him and the father makes it clear that he wants more contact with R. I am of a view that R is of an age and a state of maturity which would indicate that I would give weight to his views.
Paragraph (b) of s.68F(2) refers to the relationship of the child with parents and with other persons. The children live with their mother and half brother and all wish to remain so. Only R wishes to see his father at this stage. The children all have a positive view of W H. The status quo is that the children have resided with their mother since the parties separated, some 10 years ago. I am of the view that this is a matter that I would give some weight to, following on from the authority of the decision of Jurss v Jurss (1976) 1 Fam LR 11203, FLC 90-041.
The mother does not oppose the father having contact with R, notwithstanding her own hostility towards the father. D and A appear to have made their own minds up about the relationship.
In paragraph (c), the Court must look at the likely effect of any change in circumstances. D and A's hostility to their father would make any change in residence unworkable and to my mind any enforcement of existing contact orders would meet a similar fate. R would not like any reduction in contact, but does not seek to reside with his father.
In paragraph (d) I must look at the practical difficulties of a child having contact. The parties lives in the same small town. There is an interim apprehended violence order which places some restrictions on the father, but does not seriously affect contact to my mind. The mother does not wish the father on her premises. If the father exercises contact with R at soccer or swimming, he may see D or A, who do not wish to see him. If the father goes to see R at school, there is the difficulty as the other children may be there, too.
In sub-section 68F(2)(e) I look at the capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the children. Neither parent is in employment. The father makes no criticism of the mother's capacity as a mother, although he criticises her as a parent. The father suffers the criticism of D and A as showing a degree of insensitivity to their concerns.
I look at the children's maturity, sex and background as I am required to do by paragraph (f) of the sub-section. D is a boy aged 15 years and 8 months, A is a girl aged 13 years and 6 months, R is a boy aged almost 12 years. All are at apparently an appropriate state of maturity with their age. They all come from a European/Australian background, there are no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island or other issues.
I look now at the issues under three separate paragraphs of
sub-section 68F(2), which I bring under the heading of violence issues. The mother alleges that she is in fear of the father and accuses him of harassment over time. She is currently seeking an apprehended violence order. There is an interim apprehended violence order in force awaiting a hearing at the T Local Court on 19 September 2003. That order is in relatively standard terms. Apart from the usual orders about not intimidating or stalking, it contains the requirement:
The defendant father must not assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with the protected person, must not enter her premises where she resides or works and must not approach, contact or telephone here, except for the purpose of arranging or exercising access to children as agreed in writing or as otherwise authorised by an order.
As I said, that interim order which is in force, places some restrictions on the father, but does not to my mind seriously interfere with contact arrangements. It is a matter however that I would consider.
D is distressed by the father's refusal to return him from contact in April 2000, according to the family report. The mother says that D required treatment by a “specialist adolescent psychiatrist” following his time with his father.
A's complaints about inappropriate touching by her father on two occasions are unsubstantiated and apart from having been reported in these proceedings, do not appear to have been reported anywhere else. The father denies them, saying that they were accidental touchings. I am not able to take the matter further than that.
In Paragraph (h) of sub-section 68F(2) I look at the attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood shown by the parents. The mother says that the father is manipulative and insensitive. The mother is prepared to foster contact between R and the father, notwithstanding her own views of the father. The father for his part, accepts that D and A do not want to see him and he said rather poignantly,
“This is all about R.”
In sub-section 68F(2)(k) the Court must look at whether it is preferable to make an order least likely to lead to further proceedings. I note there has been a history of litigation between the parties and there is no immediate solution that this Court can bring that would bring the litigation between the parties to an end. I am of a view however that the mother's proposed orders are at times vague and perhaps ambiguous, containing the suggestion that contact with the two older children may be arranged in the future.
The immediate information before me is that at this time and certainly over the last two years, the two children's wishes are firmly against contact. I am concerned that whilst the mother wishes to make clear that it is not her doing that the children are not exercising contact and that she would not oppose contact, the orders proposed and the way that they are drafted would be difficult to enforce if a dispute arose.
The father with some insight said that he would prefer that there were no orders about D and A. The father has largely accepted that D and A do not want contact with him at this stage and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. Whilst that is a matter that no doubt causes the father some heartache, the evidence indicates to me that the father has accepted that unpalatable fact and that must be to his credit.
Paragraph (l) of sub-section 68F(2) asks the Court to consider any other fact or circumstance that may be relevant. There are no health issues. Each parent is a natural parent. There is no evidence of any unusual sexual orientation or extreme religious belief. There have been differences over the payment of child support and they appear to have been an ongoing source of acrimony.
When I look at the conclusions that I must draw from this evidence, I note that in his final submission, the father withdrew his application for an order restraining the mother from relocating the children from out of the W area. There was no significant evidence which would have supported such an order and it was not argued as an issue in this case.
The orders sought, perhaps by both parties, seem to be vague. There is no doubt in my mind that the circumstances have changed so much since 1995 and 1996 that there is a need for the old orders to be changed. The father raises the issue of shared care, but what he seeks is a little hard to quantify.
The Full Court of the Family Court has emphasised in a number of cases that there should be no presumption of joint guardianship orders, to use the old terminology, that are either desirable or undesirable. The Family Law Act does not create a presumption of shared residence. The father, in his submission, expressed the wish that it did.
To my mind, any shared care arrangement must be subject to the requirements set out in s.65E that the children's best interests are the paramount consideration. In general, for a Court to be satisfied that a shared care arrangement is in a child's best interests, the following features must be present:
a)the parties must live in such close proximity to each other that the child's schooling, sporting and social activities can continue uninterrupted and the child is not subject to an excessive amount of travelling, and I refer to sub-section 68F(2)(d);
b)the arrangement must not be contrary to the children's wishes if the children's wishes are to be given any significant weight, and I refer to sub-section 68F(2)(a);
c)the parents must show a capacity and a willingness to discuss issues concerning the children's wishes, I refer to sub-s 68F(2)(h);
d)there must be an absence of family violence issues, and I refer to sub-section 68F(2)(g), (i) and (j).
In this case, whilst the parties live in the same small town of W, the strongly expressed wishes of D and A, the parents' ongoing acrimony and the existence of litigation concerning the making of an apprehended violence order, all combine to render any shared care arrangement inappropriate. I am satisfied that all three children should continue to live with the mother for these reasons:
a)the longstanding arrangement since the parties separated 10 years ago;
b)the clear wishes of all three children to do so;
c)the fact that their half brother L also resides with the mother.
I am satisfied that there should be no order for contact between the father and D and A for these reasons:
a)the expressed wishes of the two children and their refusal to have any contact with the father for a period of nearly three years;
b)
the ages of the two children, noting that D is 15 years and
8 months old and A is 13 years and 6 months old;
c)the absence of any indication that this attitude will change in the near future.
The evidence of inappropriate touching by the father of A is not sufficient for me to make any finding of abuse or that there is any real risk of abuse. It is however symptomatic of A's negative attitude to her father. I am satisfied that there should be orders defining the father's contact with R for these reasons:
a)R has expressed a positive view of contact with his father;
b)the mother has agreed that R's contact with the father is in his best interests;
c)the poor communication between the parties indicates a need for contact to be defined, rather than a flexible arrangement subject to negotiation.
I am satisfied that I should make orders restraining the father from attending D or A's sporting activities, except when they involve R. I am satisfied that I should make an order restraining the father from entering the mother's residence or the premises of that residence or from telephoning her. My reasons for making those orders are the expressed views of D and A, the ongoing litigation between the parties especially relating to an apprehended violence order and the continuing acrimony between them.
There are two other issues that I wish to refer to at this stage. First, the father has expressed the view that he would like an extension of the continuing contact with the child R and indeed the mother has indicated a consent to weekend contact during school term time commencing on the Friday afternoon or evening, rather than on the Saturday morning. It appears to me that this is an appropriate matter which would be a significant increase in the amount of time that R spends with his father and would impose little in the way of administrative difficulty to arrange.
The mother also indicated through her solicitor that she would not raise an objection to the weekend contact with R being extended to include a Monday if the weekend was a long weekend and the Monday was a public holiday. It would seem to me that this is again in the child's best interests and would be of relatively little difficulty to arrange.
The father expressed the view that if contact is to commence on a Friday during school term time, it would be a good arrangement if he could collect R from school and perhaps even return him to school on the Monday morning. This, he said, would remove from the parties the need to meet and so that his dealings would be more with R. The mother was reluctant to agree with that and raised administrative difficulties relating to the question of R's clothes and equipment for school and for the weekend.
I have considered those matters. I am not prepared at this stage to make an order that weekend contact should commence straight after school. I am persuaded that it should most certainly commence at
5 o'clock on the Friday afternoon and I am satisfied that such an arrangement would represent a significant increase in contact and would be in the child's best interests.
If the mother has the opportunity to arrange R's clothing and possessions for the weekend without feeling the pressure that she perceives would be placed on her if the father collected R straight from school, this would to my mind, encourage the mother to continue to express a positive view towards R's contact with his father. R is in a somewhat difficult position in his home due to the fact that his two elder siblings, his brother and sister, express a negative view of contact with the father and D is reported losing his temper with R for wanting to continue that relationship.
To my mind, if the mother has to deal with a contact arrangement with which she feels comfortable, it will assist her in supporting R in his wish to have a continued regular peaceful contact with his father. The father expresses the view that he has difficulty telephoning to speak to R. When he does telephone, if D answers the phone, he is able to engage in a civilised conversation with him. A however has taken a more negative view and apparently hangs up the phone.
The mother's attitude to the father ringing is not a comfortable one.
I am of a view that R should be given the opportunity to telephone his father, that there should be some guarantees that there are days when it can be done and there should be some additional time built in. The father attends a TAFE course on Mondays and Wednesdays. I am of a view that the father should be in the position to expect a telephone call from R on Tuesdays and Thursdays and on other occasions and that there should be some flexibility in this. What I propose to do however is build in a minimum requirement for telephone contact and those orders are just as necessary for the older children to indicate to them that this is an obligation on R and the mother and that if they do not like R speaking to his father on the telephone, then they can perhaps go to another room and not have to listen.
The father raised some concerns about the difficulty of orders that he not go within 150 metres of swimming when A is involved or soccer when D is involved as a referee and indeed D has indicated a reluctance to continue refereeing if his father was going to come along and watch him and make him uncomfortable. A has indicated a reluctance to play soccer according to the evidence before me if the father was going to come along and watch. The father offered another view as to why A was reluctant in that he said that she had said that it was too physical.
It is regrettable that the children would feel constrained from involving themselves in sporting activities if they perceived an attendance by the father which would cause them embarrassment and discomfort. The father however makes the point that he does have an ongoing relationship with R and that R involves himself with swimming and with soccer and he could be placed in a difficult position if D were to referee or be the linesman on a game where R was actually involved as a player.
Does it mean that the father must not watch R play soccer for fear of upsetting D? I have given a considerable amount of attention to this point. D and A need to realise that W is a small country town. The potential for the parties to meet accidentally or at certain activities is always going to be there. The children need to realise that their father, like any other citizen of this country, has a right to live in the town of W. He does not have a right to enter their home and he may have other restrictions placed on him if an apprehended violence order is made on a final basis. I will leave that decision to the Local Court at T.
D and A must also realise that R wishes to have contact with his father and, where it is in his best interests under s.60B of the Family Law Act, has a right to do so. This means that D and A may have to accept the fact that they are going to have to observe their father from time to time, even if they do not wish to speak to him, because of his involvement in R's life. They cannot expect the father to disappear off the face of the earth.
I am of a view that if there is a clash in sporting activities so that one or other of the elder children is involved in something where R is involved, the father should still be permitted to observe those activities because R may wish him to do so.
These are the matters to which I have given a great deal of consideration over the last couple of days and for those reasons, I propose to make the following orders set out at the beginning of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S. Polley
Date: 26 August 2003
0
0
0