Hancox and Repatriation Commission
[2008] AATA 623
•16 July 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 623
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W200600264
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re MARK SHANE HANCOX Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms L R Tovey, Member
Dr D Weerasooriya, Member
Date 16 July 2008
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Veterans' Review Board made on 27 June 2006 and substitutes a decision that:
1. the decision of the Respondent dated 7 November 2003, to reduce the rate of the Applicant's disability pension from the special rate to 100% of the general rate with effect from 13 February 2002, is affirmed;
2. the decision of the Respondent dated 29 June 2005 to continue the rate of the Applicant's disability pension at 100% of the general rate is set aside; and
3. it is determined that the Applicant is entitled to disability pension at the special rate with effect from 11 February 2005.
…(sgd) Ms L R Tovey............
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – whether applicant qualifies for special rate of pension
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 13(1), 15(1), 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24(1), 24(2), 24(4), 25, 28, 120(4).
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50
Re Readron and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 609
Sheehy v Repatriation Commission (1996) 137 ALR 223
REASONS FOR DECISION
16 July 2008 Ms LR Tovey, Member Dr D Weerasooriya, Member 1. This is an application by Mr Mark Shane Hancox for review of a decision of the Veterans' Review Board ("the Board") made on 27 June 2006. The Board decided to affirm two decisions of the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission") to the effect that Mr Hancox was not entitled to a disability pension at the special rate. The first decision of the Commission, dated 7 November 2003, determined to reduce the rate of Mr Hancox's pension from the special rate to 100% of the general rate with effect from 13 February 2002. The second decision of the Commission, dated 29 June 2005, was to continue payment of the pension at that rate.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
2. Provision for payment of Mr Hancox's pension is made by the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is not in dispute that Mr Hancox is entitled to a pension, by way of compensation, under s. 13(1)(b) and (d) of the Act on the basis that he is incapacitated from war-caused injury or disease, or both.
3. Section 15(1) of the Act provides that a veteran who is in receipt of a pension may apply for an increase in the rate of the pension on the ground that the incapacity of the veteran has increased since the rate of the pension was assessed or last assessed. Mr Hancox made such an application on 4 January 2005, following the decision to reduce his pension to 100% of the general rate.
4. Section 17 of the Act provides for an application to be investigated by the Secretary of the Department and submitted to the Commission. Section 18 of the Act provides for the duty of the Commission to deal with the application. Sections 19(1)(c), (4A), (5C) and (5D) of the Act require the Commission to determine:
(a)the rate or rates at which the pension would have been payable from time to time during the assessment period, which in this case is the period commencing on 4 January 2005 and ending on the date of this decision; and
(b)the date at which the pension is payable.
5. The Commission must then determine that a pension is payable at the rate assessed. A pension is payable from the date of effect of the determination. A determination takes effect from the date on which the determination is made or on such later or earlier date as is specified in the determination: see s. 19(5E) and (5F) of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides for the manner in which the Commission may specify a date on which a determination takes effect.
6. Section 22 of the Act provides for the general rate of pension.
7. Section 24 of the Act, which is the principal provision at issue in this case, deals with the circumstances in which a special rate of pension is payable to a veteran. Section 24 relevantly provides:
"24 Special rate of pension
(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa)the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab)the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a)either:
(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
(ii)the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving or entitled to receive a pension at the general rate; and
(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran’s incapacity from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and
(d)section 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2)For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a)a veteran who is incapacitated from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i)the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both; or
(ii)the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(b)where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking. …
(4)Subject to subsections (5) and (6), the rate at which pension is payable to a veteran to whom this section applies is $919.40 per fortnight."
8. Section 25 of the Act deals with payments to veterans who are temporarily incapacitated from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both.
9. Section 23 of the Act provides for the payment of the pension at an intermediate rate where the veteran has some capacity for work of, generally, less than 20 hours per week. In light of the conclusion we have reached in relation to s. 24 of the Act, it is unnecessary to address the effect of s. 23 of the Act in any further detail.
10. Section 19(6) of the Act provides:
"Where the Commission has, pursuant to subsection (5C), assessed that the pension was payable at some time during the assessment period at the rate provided by section 23 or 24 then, subject to section 24A, the rate at which the pension is payable shall not be lower than the rate provided by whichever of those sections applied, or applied most recently, during the assessment period."
11. Section 28 of the Act provides for the matters that the Commission is to have regard to when determining, for the purposes of s. 24(1)(b) of the Act, whether a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is incapable of undertaking remunerative work. It relevantly provides:
"(a) the vocational, trade and professional skills, qualifications and experience of the veteran;
(b) the kinds of remunerative work which a person with the skills, qualifications and experience referred to in paragraph (a) might reasonably undertake; and
(c) the degree to which the physical or mental impairment of the veteran as a result of the injury or disease, or both, has reduced his or her capacity to undertake the kinds of remunerative work referred to in paragraph (b)."
12. Section 120(4) of the Act required the Commission to determine the application to its reasonable satisfaction, and therefore also requires that we determine the application to our reasonable satisfaction.
BACKGROUND FACTS
13. The following background facts, which we find on the basis of Mr Hancox's evidence before us, the Section 37 Documents filed by the Commission, the report of Mr R McWilliam dated 1 February 2007 and the parties respective Statements of Facts and Contentions, are not in dispute.
14. Mr Hancox was born on 6 July 1955, and is currently 53 years old. He joined the Royal Australian Navy on 13 January 1976 and was discharged on 12 February 1986. Throughout his naval career he served in the seaman branch.
15. In 1978 Mr Hancox was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, involving a head-on collision which resulted in Mr Hancox being in a coma for 6 weeks. He stayed in hospital and a rehabilitation centre for an extensive period of time. He was able to return to two services of active duty as a special rehabilitee on naval vessels during the 1980's.
16. Mr Hancox's disabilities of osteoarthritis left ankle, scoliosis lumbar spine and head injury with post traumatic amnesia were accepted by a delegate of the Commission with effect from 23 March 1994. The Commission determined that Mr Hancox should be paid pension at 80% of the general rate with effect from 25 August 1993 and at the intermediate rate with effect from 15 May 1994. On 29 January 1997 a delegate of the Commission determined that Mr Hancox should be paid disability pension at the special rate with effect from 7 November 1996.
17. In 2002 an unknown person informed the Department of Veteran's affairs that Mr Hancox was working while receiving pension at the special rate. Statements from Mr Hancox's Credit Union account were obtained and showed that he had been receiving payments from the WA Trotting Association. The Department's contact with the Trotting Association in July 2002 revealed that Mr Hancox had not been an employee of the Association. At that time a Departmental officer decided that there was not enough information to justify further investigation.
18. However, in July 2003 the Department obtained statements of the Credit Union for the period July 2001 - June 2003. Those accounts disclosed payment of wages from the "Cat Haven". A Departmental Officer obtained employment records from the Cat Haven which, according to a Departmental file note, showed that Mr Hancox worked an average 28 hours per week from 13 February 2002 to 30 June 2002, 25 hours a week from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 and 50 hours a week from 1-31 July 2003.
19. On 7 November 2003 a delegate of the Commission decided to reduce Mr Hancox's rate of pension from the special rate to 100% of the general rate on the basis that he had been working at the Cat Haven for more than 20 hours per week.
20. On 17 December 2003 Mr Hancox sought a review of that decision by the Board. On 22 March 2004 the Board decided to adjourn the hearing of the matter to enable additional information in relation to cheque payments to be obtained from the police and Mr Hancox's credit union, and to enable his individual impairment ratings to be independently assessed.
21. On 4 January 2005 Mr Hancox claimed an increase in the rate of pension payable to him. Additional disabilities of lumbar spondylosis and cerebral ischaemia were accepted by a delegate of the Commission with effect from 29 June 2005. On 29 June 2005 a delegate of the Commission decided that pension remained payable only at 100% of the general rate. On 15 July 2005 Mr Hancox applied to the Board for a review of that decision.
22. The Board heard both applications for review on 27 June 2006 and affirmed both decisions of the Commission. Mr Hancox subsequently sought a review of that Board decision by this Tribunal.
ISSUES
23. In submissions before us Mr Hancox accepted the correctness of the Commission's decision of 7 November 2003 to reduce the rate of his pension from the special rate to 100% of the general rate with effect from 13 February 2002. Mr Hancox did so on the basis that he had been working for the Cat Haven at that time. However, he contended that the second decision of the Commission on 29 June 2005 ought to have reinstated the special rate of his pension.
24. The first question before us is whether Mr Hancox is entitled to be paid at the special rate of pension provided for by s. 24 of the Act in respect of his application lodged on 4 January 2005. For the reasons which follow we are of the view that this question should be answered in the affirmative, so that it is unnecessary to consider whether pension ought to be paid at the intermediate rate.
25. It is common ground between the parties, and we find on the evidence adduced before us, that the following elements of s. 24(1) of the Act were satisfied:
(a)Mr Hancox has made an application under s. 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he is receiving: s. 24(1)(aa);
(b)Mr Hancox has not turned 65: s. 24(1)(aab);
(c)The degree of incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, has been determined to be 100%: s. 24(1)(a);
(d)Section 25 of the Act does not apply to Mr Hancox, as his incapacity is not temporary.
26. The Commission identified the contentious issue as being whether the requirements of ss. 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Act were satisfied, that is whether:
(a)Mr Hancox is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say whether Mr Hancox's incapacity from his war-caused injury or disease, or both, is of such nature as, of itself alone, to render Mr Hancox incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week: s. 24(1)(b); and
(b)Mr Hancox is by reason of incapacity from that war‑caused injury or disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity: s. 24(1)(c).
Those are the issues which fall for our determination.
27. The representative of the Commission contended that, if we were to award pension at the special rate, then the decision should take effect from 11 February 2005. Mr Hancox did not take issue with that contention, which appeared to be common ground. Therefore, we approach the case on the basis that 11 February 2005 is the applicable date to apply any increase in Mr Hancox's rate of pension.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
Section 24(1)(b) of the Act
28. The Commission's contention that Mr Hancox did not satisfy this condition for the grant of pension at the special rate was based on Mr Hancox's work as an assistant at the Cat Haven. The Commission did not contend, and there is no evidence before us to demonstrate that, Mr Hancox was either undertaking or capable of undertaking remunerative work of any different kind.
29. Mr Hancox described the circumstances in which he came to work, and ceased working, at the Cat Haven. As the representative of the Commission conceded that Mr Hancox's evidence before us was frank and honest, we accept that account as an accurate statement of the position. That account was in essence as follows.
30. One of Mr Hancox's daughters had left him with 3 cats which all fell pregnant and had around 18 kittens. Mr Hancox took the kittens to the Cat Haven, and it was suggested to him that he should sterilise the cats. When he said that he could not afford to have the cats sterilised, he was told that the Cat Haven would sterilise them in return for his doing a day a week of voluntary work. He did this for a period of 14 weeks, and found that he got on well with the people at the Cat Haven. He found the work fairly easy, mainly involving washing plates and cleaning up litter trays.
31. After 14 weeks he continued working a day a week at the Cat Haven for which he was paid. He would come in to assist when other persons working at the Cat Haven didn’t show up for work, which was a fairly regular occurrence. Over a period of about 7 weeks he did 2-3 days a week. At that time Mr Hancox was finding things "a bit hard". He found that there was a lot of crouching and sweeping of an area of around 8 by 2 feet where the cats stayed. His tasks at that time involved cleaning up, picking up litter trays and putting cats on a trolley for them to be taken away and cleaned. He found that this work was getting too much for him and that "my back mainly started really hassling me". Mr Hancox told us that he thought those problems were caused by the bending over, as there was no lifting involved and he was able to sit down for a rest or go for a walk when required.
32. Subsequently, Mr Hancox was allowed to work in the boarding section of the Cat Haven, where he was only required to accept the cats that came in to board when their owners went away. That position involved less work, and this worked for a while. Mr Hancox would meet people boarding their cats at the door, and show them the pen in which their cat was staying. The customers would place the cats in their pen, and he would log the cats coming in and going out. He would keep an eye on the cats, but there was no physical work involved. He was able to sit down or walk around if he needed to. If Mr Hancox couldn't finish his work, there was a volunteer or someone to help him. He still found that the stress of the work was getting too much for his back.
33. Mr Hancox said that he was due to leave the Cat Haven when there was a change in management and a lot of people left at the one time. He offered to stay for a couple of months working in the boarding section. He was going to leave, and then his pension was reduced, so he stayed for a bit longer but at "more reduced hours". He said that he ended up doing just six hours a week and then told management that he just couldn't do it any more because he was in too much pain.
34. Mr Hancox stopped working at the Cat Haven in January or February 2005, having stayed until after Christmas when there was a big rush of kittens and the boarder section was full up. He told us that his medical condition was the only reason he stopped working. He said:
"I still liked working there but … my body was telling me … it couldn't handle the pace anymore, even though I wasn't doing much and I had reduced my hours down to 16 hours a week and I just felt that it wasn't worth the little bit of money I was getting. As much as I enjoyed it, my body was telling me that I needed more rest at home."
35. We note that the papers provided to us included a letter from the General Manager of the Cat Haven to the Board dated 10 March 2004. The letter stated:
"This letter is to advise that Mark Hancox has been working at the Cat Haven for approximately 18 months. Although he has been on light duties, Mark had been able to assist us through working several days per week when operational demands required.
We have now been able to source new staff members sufficient to take up the workload encountered in our busiest season. Accordingly, Mark's time working for the Cat Haven has been reduced to one day per week. In consideration of his condition we will not be offering Mark any additional working days."
36. The Board placed considerable reliance on this letter in reaching its decision, finding that "the reduction in the applicant's working hours at the Cat Haven is attributable to additional staff being employed and not in any way related to his medical conditions". However, we do not consider that this letter is inconsistent with Mr Hancox's evidence, or with his eligibility for pension at the special rate. The letter was written at least 10 moths prior to Mr Hancox ceasing to work at the Cat Haven, and so cannot address his reasons for ceasing that work. From Mr Hancox's evidence, it does not appear that the letter's prediction of not offering Mr Hancox further hours was realised. In referring to Mr Hancox taking on "light duties" and "consideration of his condition", the letter is consistent with Mr Hancox's evidence that he was struggling to cope but doing his best to assist given staff shortages. We find the letter to be somewhat ambiguous as to the extent to which staff availability and Mr Hancox's accepted disabilities were reasons for his being offered only one day a week. That ambiguity was not explained by any oral evidence adduced before us.
37. We would place greater weight on the form completed by the General Secretary of the Cat Haven, on 12 August 2005, to Mr Hancox's superannuation fund, which indicated that his reason for leaving was that he was "unable to physically continue work". That form was completed after Mr Hancox ceased work with the Cat Haven, and the evidence before us shows no reason to think that the General Secretary gave other than an honest and accurate account of the reason why Mr Hancox left the Cat Haven.
38. The most recent medical review of Mr Hancox's medical condition with which we were provided was the report of Mr McWilliam, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, dated 1 February 2007. Both parties accepted that Mr McWilliam's report contained an accurate summary of Mr Hancox's condition as it related to his osteoarthritis of the left subtalar joint and lumbar pain. He noted that Mr Hancox would be restricted in prolonged standing, sitting and walking, and described his incapacity to undertake employment as a fitter, marine construction trade person and security officer as large.
39. Mr McWilliam said of Mr Hancox's capacity to undertake employment as an "animal attendant":
"small incapacity, less than 30%. These duties would allow more flexibility without repeated bending and entails light duties including feeding animals and birds, inspecting cages, and positioning and restraining animals for veterinary treatment".
40. However, Mr McWilliam subsequently qualified this statement when he said:
"However, it is noted that Mr Hancox has not worked in this position since 2003 and he indicated that he was experiencing difficulty performing some duties required due to low back symptoms. The examination of his back has demonstrated a limitation of flexion, extension without neurological deficit"
While the date on which Mr McWilliam thought Mr Hancox stopped work at the Cat Haven is incorrect, neither party suggested that anything turned on that mistake.
41. Mr McWilliam then gave an assessment of Mr Hancox's overall incapacity for civil employment as "Moderate", which the question posed to him assigned a percentage incapacity of 30% or more but less than 60%.
42. The terms in which Mr McWilliam was asked to describe Mr Hancox's degree of incapacity do not relate to the criteria specified in the Act. In particular, Mr McWilliam does not expressly say that Mr Hancox had the capacity to undertake work as an animal attendant for more than 8 hours a week, and we are not able to infer from Mr McWilliam's report that this would have been his view.
43. We note that the work actually undertaken by Mr Hancox at the Cat Haven was less strenuous than the kind of duties described by Mr McWilliam as those ordinarily performed by an animal attendant, upon which he based his assessment. Mr Hancox's evidence, which is not challenged by the Commission, is that his back difficulties prevented him from properly performing even those lighter duties in a very accommodating and sheltered environment. That evidence appears to us to be consistent with Mr McWilliam's report. It shows that, at the time when he ceased working at the Cat Haven, Mr Hancox lacked the capacity to undertake even that kind work as an animal attendant in that environment.
44. It is also necessary to consider the ongoing effects of the head trauma which Mr Hancox suffered in the accident in 1978. It was serious enough to place him in a induced coma for six weeks at the time, followed by an extensive period of hospitalisation and rehabilitation. It currently manifests in memory loss and difficulty in concentration which is referred to both in Mr Hancox's evidence and medical reports forming part of the Section 37 Documents.
45. The concept of "undertaking remunerative work" involves that the work must have been "performed" or "successfully undertaken" or "effectively undertaken": Sheehy v Repatriation Commission (1996) 137 ALR 223 at 228-9. Mr Hancox lacked the capacity to successfully or effectively undertake the kind of work offered to him at the animal shelter by the time he ceased working there.
46. The assessment period with which we are concerned begins when the application for an increase in the rate of his pension on 4 January 2005 and ends when we make our determination. As we have noted, Mr Hancox ceased work at the Cat Haven in January or February 2005. For at least some times in the assessment period Mr Hancox, in our view, lacked the capacity to undertake the work which he had previously been performing with difficulty at the Cat Haven. If, at those times, the requirements of s. 24(1)(c) of the Act were also satisfied, Mr Hancox would be qualified for the pension at the special rate.
Section 24(1)(c) of the Act
47. As Nicholson J noted in Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50 at 52-3, [14]-[15], s. 24(1)(c) of the Act is best understood by dividing it into its two limbs and relating those limbs to what follows in s. 24(2) of the Act.
48. The first limb of s. 24(1)(c) is that:
"the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking …"
That limb must be read subject to the application of s. 24(2)(b) of the Act.
49.The second limb of s. 24(1)(c) is that the veteran:
"… is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity".
That second limb is to be read in conjunction with s. 24(2)(a) of the Act.
50. In the present case it is clear that the first limb of s. 24(1)(c) of the Act was satisfied, and the Commission did not contend to the contrary. We have recently discussed the operation of this provision in Re Reardon and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 609, and it is unnecessary to repeat that discussion here. In the present case there were clearly kinds of remunerative work, including marine construction and security work, which Mr Hancox had undertaken and was, by reason of his accepted disabilities alone, prevented from continuing to undertake. That is established by the report of Mr McWilliam to which we have already referred.
51. We are also satisfied, subject to the operation of s. 24(2)(a) of the Act, that Mr Hancox has been suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his own account, that he would not be suffering if he were free of the incapacity resulting from his accepted disabilities. Since February 2005 he has not been receiving any income, and we are satisfied that but for his accepted disabilities he would have been engaged in remunerative work during that period. Again, the Commission did not contend to the contrary.
52. It remains to consider whether Mr Hancox is deemed, by s. 24(2)(a) of the Act, not to have suffered that loss.
53. Section 24(2)(a)(i) of the Act deems that to be the case where:
"the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both."
54. As we have found, the accepted disabilities were the only reason Mr Hancox ceased remunerative work at the Cat Haven in January or February 2005. It follows that s. 24(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not activated.
55. Section 24(2)(a)(ii) of the Act deems the loss referred to in the second limb of s. 24(1)(c) not to have occurred where the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason. As we have found, that is not the case here.
Conclusion
56. For the above reasons we are satisfied that the conditions of eligibility for the special rate of pension were satisfied, at least during substantial parts of the relevant assessment period. Therefore the special rate applies, pursuant to s. 19(6) of the Act, throughout the assessment period. While the rate of Mr Hancox's pension was correctly reduced by the Commission in November 2003, it ought to have been restored to the special rate when the Commission determined the application for an increase in the rate of pension in June 2005.
DECISION
57.The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Board made on 27 June 2006 and substitutes a decision that:
(a)the decision of the Commission dated 7 November 2003, to reduce the rate of Mr Hancox's disability pension from the special rate to 100% of the general rate with effect from 13 February 2002, is affirmed;
(b)the decision of the Commission dated 29 June 2005 to continue the rate of Mr Hancox's disability pension at 100% of the general rate is set aside; and
(c)it is determined that Mr Hancox is entitled to disability pension at the special rate with effect from 11 February 2005.
I certify that the 57 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms LR Tovey, Member and Dr D Weerasooriya, Member
Signed: ..(sgd) T Freeman.......
AssociateDate of Hearing: 8 April 2008
Date of Decision 16 July 2008
Representative for the Applicant Mr P Lofdahl
Representative for the Respondent Mr C Ponnuthurai
0
4
0