Haskins & anor v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[1996] FCA 849
•23 September 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Nos VG 194 of 1996
VG 238 of 1996
VG 400 of 1996
B E T W E E N
DAVID HASKINS AND CONNIE CASSAR
Appellants
- and -
THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
(as Trustee of the Bankrupt estates of
David Haskins and Connie Cassar)
Respondent
JUDGE: North J
PLACE: Melbourne
DATE: 23 September 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins, the appellants, became bankrupt on 8 January 1996 and the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (“the Official Trustee”), the respondent, is the trustee of their estates. In the course of the administration of their estates, orders have been made by various judges of this Court. Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins have instituted appeals against these orders and the Court has allocated the numbers VG 194 of 1996, VG 238 of 1996 and VG 400 of 1996 to these appeals. Presently before me are four motions, one in each of VG 194, VG 238 and VG 400
brought by the Official Trustee and one in VG 400 brought by Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins. Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins appeared in person. It is convenient to deal with the motions in VG 194 and VG 238 together, and then with the motions in VG 400.
VG 194 and VG 238 of 1996 - SECURITY FOR COSTS
The appeal numbered VG 194 arose out of an application filed on 29 February 1996 by Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins under s.178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (“the Act”). In this application, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins challenged the decision of the Official Trustee not to pursue a number of cases which had been commenced by Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins in the Supreme Court of Victoria prior to their bankruptcy. On 10 April 1996, Sundberg J dismissed the application and, on 12 April 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of appeal against the decision of Sundberg J.
By a motion, notice of which was filed on 20 August 1996, the Official Trustee seeks an order that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins provide security for the costs of the appeal.
The appeal numbered VG 238 arose out of an application filed on 10 April 1996 by Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins under s.179 of the Act. In this application, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins sought the removal of the Official Trustee as trustee of their estates. Much of this case was based on the same events which were the subject of the proceedings before Sundberg J. On 24 April 1996, Heerey J dismissed the application and,
on 26 April 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of appeal against the decision of Heerey J.
By a motion, notice of which was filed on 20 August 1996, the Official Trustee seeks an order that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins provide security for the costs of this appeal.
The discretion to grant security for the costs of an appeal is a very wide discretion. Ms Kennedy, who appeared as counsel for the Official Trustee, argued strongly that an order should be made because, first, the impecuniosity of Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins made it almost certain that they would not be able to pay the Official Trustee’s costs of the appeals if the appeals failed, second, there was a very high likelihood that the appeals would fail, and, third, there was no public importance in the issues raised by the appeals. There is much force in the submissions made on behalf of the Official Trustee and I have given careful consideration to them. However, in the result, the delay in bringing the application is determinative against awarding security for costs of the appeals.
The notice of appeal in VG 194 was filed on 12 April 1996, and the notice of appeal in VG 238 was filed on 26 April 1996. On 28 May 1996, the parties attended before the Registrar for the settlement of the index to the appeal books. Although the appeal books have not yet been received, Ms Cassar told me from the Bar table that at least one set of appeal books had been prepared and the process of preparation was well advanced. The notice of motion seeking security for costs was filed in each proceeding on 20 August 1996, and was heard on 16 and 17 September 1996. The
appeals are listed for hearing before the Full Court on 30 September 1996. In these circumstances, the delay in bringing the application for security for costs makes it unreasonable now to require Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins to provide security for costs. Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins live on disability pensions and have no other sources of income. The practical result of orders for security for costs at this stage will be that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins will not be able to prosecute the appeals, and will have been denied a fair opportunity to do so. They could not raise the necessary funds within approximately the next week. Had the application been made earlier, there would have been a much greater amount of time, and hence, opportunity, for Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins to make arrangements to raise the amounts of the security. Further, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins have expended considerable emotional and physical resources in preparation of the appeals. It would be most unfair to Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins if their preparation of the appeals, in the expectation that the appeals would proceed because no security for costs had been ordered, were to be, in a practical sense, rendered useless.
In relation to the question of delay, Ms Kennedy raised a number of considerations in reply. She contended that the Official Trustee was dealing with a continuing barrage of applications and appeals from Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins and could not reasonably be expected to have brought the application for security for costs before 20 August 1996. I see little force in this submission. If applications for security for costs were to have been made, they could reasonably have been made earlier rather than four months later. She then contended that the Official Trustee had delayed in the applications in response to remarks made by Ryan J, at a hearing on 19 June 1996, to the effect that it was
inappropriate at that time to bring the applications. The transcript of his Honour’s remarks was not put into evidence. The very short description of the remarks contained in the affidavit of Gavin Patrick Carroll, sworn on 17 September 1996, does not allow me to say that they gave the Official Trustee a basis upon which to delay the making of the applications until 20 August 1996. Finally, Ms Kennedy submitted that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins were put on notice by letters from the Official Trustee dated 20 and 24 May 1996 that the applications for security for costs would be made. The letters make the requests for security which usually precede an application for security for costs, and they indicate that applications may be made at a later date. At the settling of the index to the appeal books, Ms Cassar asked the representative of the Official Trustee whether an application for security for costs was to be made. He replied that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins would be advised in writing if such applications were to be made. Until that further notification, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins were entitled to proceed on the basis that security for costs was not sought. The fact that the Official Trustee sent the letters dated 20 and 24 May 1996 does not reduce the disadvantages to Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins of the Trustee’s delay in making the applications.
For these reasons, the applications for security for costs in VG 194 and VG 238 are dismissed. I now turn to the two motions in VG 400.
VG 400 OF 1996
The proceedings presently before the Court arise out of the following events. On 8 May 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of motion which claimed:
“1. The trustee is to stop procrastinating with the Appellants’ property at 66 St Bernard Drive, Tawonga South, and is to sell it forthwith, giving the Appellants notice of when it is to be sold, and proceeds from the sale to be put into an interest bearing account.
2. If proceeds are to come from any Insurance claim on the above property, then this money is also to be put in the interest bearing account.
3. The Appellants also seek that any other funds that could be owed to them from claims against any of their creditors, to also go into the interest bearing account, if so obtained.
4. Apart from item 1, the Appellants seek that the trustee takes no further action in the administration of the Appellants estate pending the outcome of their Appeal Nos. VG194 of 1996, and VG238 of 1996.”
On 19 June 1996, Ryan J made the following orders in relation to the motion:
“1. That the motion on notice dated 8 May 1996 be adjourned to 24 July 1996.
2. That the Official Receiver file and serve by 28 June 1996 any application which he may be advised, such application to be returnable on 24 July 1996.
3. That the Official Receiver file and serve by 28 June 1996 any affidavit or affidavits on which he intends to rely in support of the application referred to in paragraph 2 of this order or on the hearing of the motion on notice dated 8 May 1996 which by order of Ryan J of 16 May 1996 is to be treated as an application for directions in the administration of the bankrupt estates of David Haskins and Connie Cassar.
4. That David Haskins and Connie Cassar file and serve by 12 July 1996 any affidavit or affidavits in [sic] which they intend to rely in answer to any affidavits referred to in paragraph 3 of this order, and file and serve also by 12 July 1996 any notice requiring the deponent of any such affidavit to attend for cross-examination on 24 July 1996.
5. That the time for preparation of appeal books in matters numbered VG 194 and VG 238 of 1996 be extended to 18 August 1996 or as may be otherwise ordered on 24 July 1996.
6. That the Official receiver’s costs of this day be reserved.”
On 28 June 1996, the Official Trustee filed an application under s.135 of the Act for leave to enter into terms of settlement with the major creditor of the estates, and ancillary orders.
On 11 July 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of appeal against the orders made by Ryan J on 19 June 1996. This document is six pages long and on page two, under the heading “Grounds”, begin 3½ pages of general complaints which range over a wide area of the wrongs which Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins allege against numerous parties whom they hold responsible for the overall situation in which they presently find themselves. I set out below a small extract, for the purpose of giving some impression of the style of the document:
“e) The orders made by His Honour Justice Ryan, which are only the orders that Mr Carroll sought, is a ploy by Mr Carroll (AGS), and Mr Willoughby (ITSA), to stall this case for another month, which will enable them to get a decision against us and in favour of the builder, in doing a deal with the builder by allowing him to remove the house off our land. We ask this Honourable Court, how can this be allowed when the house is a fixture on the land making it property under the Torrens Title as a fixture, and not separable, eg: in our case with the builder, the contract signed was a Uniform Housing Contract, and not a Transportable Homes Contract, which would have been more favourable to us, yet now that it suits the builder, the house is being claimed as a Transportable Home. We draw the courts’ attention to the Conspiracy and Denial of Natural Justice, between the builder, his solicitor, ITSA and their solicitor, Victoria Police, and the New South Wales Police, and it’s a fact that there’s been communication
between all of them. The bankrupts estate was damaged by fire in August, 1994. The Victoria Police spent eleven (11) months investigating, and decided that they wouldn’t lay charges against the Appellants, but the builder and his solicitor then convinced the Victoria Police to hand over the file to the New South Wales Police to see if they could lay charges against Mr Haskins, one of the named Appellants. After many months the Summons issued upon Mr Haskins, was that he made the builders’ solicitor in fear that Mr Haskins would damage the property, namely 66 St Bernard Drive, Tawonga South, belonging to the builder. We draw the courts’ attention that this Summons is still current, and if ITSA and the builder get their way, to allow the builder to remove the house off the land, then this would be used as proof against Mr Haskins that the house belonged to the builder, leaving Mr Haskins looking at being charged on a maximum of five (5) years imprisonment, if found guilty. The house is not the builders’, it’s on our land, and the Appellants are still the registered proprietors. Mr Willoughby (ITSA) informed the Appellants as early as the first or second meeting with him, that the house and land would vest into the Trustee, which to date still hasn’t happened, and all that he’s done is put a charge on the title. What the Appellants have found out is that the builder put one (1) illegal ‘Warrant of Seizure’, in November, 1995, and attempted to put a second illegal ‘Warrant of Seizure’ on 24th January, 1996, which all parties knew was an illegal move to do as the Appellants had already been declared bankrupt.”
On 24 and 29 July 1996, Jenkinson J made the following orders in relation to the application by the Official Trustee under s.135 and in relation to the motion, notice of which was filed on 8 May 1996. The orders made on 24 July were:
“1. Each of the motions of which notice is specified in the Notice of Motion filed 8 May 1996 be dismissed.
2. The Trustee of the Bankrupt’s estate have leave to make the compromise which is expressed in the Terms of Settlement of which a copy is set out in the schedule to this order.”
Those made on 29 July were:
“1. That the orders made on 24 July 1996 giving leave to the Trustee of the bankrupts’ estate to make the compromise specified in the said order be stayed until 1.00pm on 30 July 1996.
2. That further proceedings under the said order and under the said compromise be stayed until 1.00pm 30 July 1996.
3. That the bankrupts have leave to move on 30 July 1996 for a further stay of the said order upon filing and serving a Notice of Appeal against the said order and filing and serving Notice of the said Motion.”
On 30 July 1996 Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a document headed ”Amendment by Supplementary Notice”, which provided:
“1. TAKE NOTICE that the appellants appeal from the whole of the orders of Justice Jenkinson given on the 24th July, 1996, at Melbourne.
2. The Appellants seek to have this amendment combined with their current Appeal No VG 400 of 1996. His Honour Justice Jenkinsons’ orders are part of the hearing heard in front of His Honour Justice Ryan.
3. The Appellants also seek to include in the amendment all the documentation produced by the Respondent and its’ solicitor, Mr Gavin Carroll of the Australian Government Solicitors on the 24th July, 1996, in front of His Honour Justice Jenkinson, and for these documents to be included in the Draft Index of Appeal Papers.
4. The Appellants seek to have all the file, including personal notes, and all correspondence concerning the major creditor held by the Official Trustee, and for certain of its’ employees to be required to give evidence, and be cross examined on oath. This is also required of the Australian Government Solicitors, and certain of its’ employees, and the files to be included in the above Draft Index.”
On the same day, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of motion in the original application which sought orders that:
“1. The court grants a stay on His Honour Justice Jenkinsons’ orders made on the 24th July, 1996, unlimited as to time in Bankruptcy proceedings because there is an appeal pending in this Honourable Court.
2. The Appellants seek the stay on the grounds that it would deprive them the means of prosecuting the appeal, also filed and served on the 30th July, 1996.
3. The Appellants also seek the court to make an order upon the Australian Government Solicitors, and the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (Official Trustee of the bankrupts’ estate), to be stopped from having any further dealings with the estate pending the outcome of the appeal.”
On that day also, Merkel J made the following orders in relation to the motion, notice of which was filed by Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins on 30 July 1996:
“1. Extend stay granted on operation of order of Jenkinson J till 4.15pm today or further order.
2. Grant leave to respondent to file affidavit.
3. Adjourn till 2.15pm today.
4. That the Notice of Motion dated 30 July 1996 of the two bankrupts be dismissed.
5. That the costs are reserved.
6. That the order extending the stay be vacated.”
On 6 August 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a document headed “Amendment by Supplementary Notice”, which provided:
“1. TAKE NOTICE that the appellants appeal from the whole of the orders of Justice Merkel given on the 30th July, 1996, at Melbourne.
2. The Appellants seek to have this amendment combined with their current Appeal No VG 400 of 1996. His Honour Justice Merkels’ orders are in reference to the orders made by His Honour Justice Jenkinson, dated 29th July, 1996.
3. The Appellants also seek to include in the amendment all the documentation produced by the Respondent and its’ solicitor, Mr Gavin Carroll of the Australian Government Solicitors on the 30th July, 1996, in front of His Honour Justice Merkel, and for these documents to be included in the Draft Index of Appeal Papers.
4. The Appellants seek to have all the file, including personal notes, and all correspondence concerning the major creditor held by the Official Trustee, and for certain of its’ employees to be required to give evidence, and be cross examined on oath. This is also required of the Australian Government Solicitors, and certain of its’ employees, and the files to be included in the above Draft Index.”
On 15 August 1996, Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins filed a notice of motion (“Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins’ motion”), which claimed:
“1. The Appellants sought to have an emergency hearing for the following orders to be made by this Honourable Court. By the court ordering that we have to file and serve on all parties, and have the matter set down for the following week, defeats the purpose of its’ urgency, so we will take it the normal way.
2. The Appellants seek the Federal Court to make orders on the following people, namely Mr Rodney Willoughby, and Mr Eng employees of the Official Trustee, Mr Gavin Carroll, Mr O’Brien, and Mr Giacco of the Australian Government Solicitors, Mr Uniacke, and Mr Summons of Fleming Muntz Summons, Albury, Mr William of Dick & William solicitors, Albury, for the major creditor, and the major creditor, the builder himself Gavin Brain of Lavington, NSW, to produce to the court all their files and documentations, which have transpired through dealings made by
these parties relating to our bankruptcy estate, Bankruptcy No VB 35/1996.3. The Appellants also seek an order from the court for some or all of the above parties to be orally cross examined on oath at the Appeals, or any criminal actions that the Bankrupts may bring against some or all of the above parties.
4. The Appellants also seek the court to make an order for all creditors’ claims claimed against the bankrupts estate, plus all costs that the Official Trustee and the Australian Government Solicitors are claiming against the estate to be produced to the bankrupts.
5. The appellants seek for the court to order a stay on the Official Trustee from doing any further dealings in the estate, and also from takinfg [sic] any legal actions against us. Also the major creditor Gavin Brain from taking action, including legal actions against us ‘The Bankrupts’, until the appeals are heard, and this is because of the secret dealings that have gone on between the Official Trustee and Gain Brain, where it is stated that we can take no action against the builder, Gavin Brain, but on the other hand, the Official Trustee has allowed Gavin Brain to take action against us, and this in turn is ‘Denying us Natural Justice’.
6. The Appellants seek these orders under the powers of the Federal Court bankruptcy Division 1966.”
And on 26 August 1996, the Official Trustee filed a notice of motion (“the Official Trustee’s motion”), which claimed:
“1.That the Notice of Appeal dated and filed 11 June [sic] 1996 be dismissed as incompetent.
2.In the alternative, that the said Notice be struck out as embarrassing and scandalous.
3.That the Notice entitled ‘Amendment by Supplementary Notice’ dated 30 July 1996 and filed on that date be struck out as embarrassing.
4.That the Notice entitled ‘Amendment by Supplementary Notice’ dated 6 August 1996 and filed in these proceedings be struck out as embarrassing.
5.In the alternative, that the appellants give security in a sum nominated by the Court in addition to any security ordered in Appeals numbered VG 194 of 1996 and VG 238 of 1996, such security to be given by way of bank guarantee or cash deposit to be lodged with the Registrar in a form to be approved by the Registrar.
6.Costs.
7.Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court deems appropriate.”
I will first deal with the Official Trustee’s motion.
Official Trustee’s motion
Objection to competency
The appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court is, subject to irrelevant exceptions, exercised by the Full Court (s.25(1) Federal Court Act 1976). The power to dismiss an appeal as incompetent under Order 52 Rule 18 of the Federal Court Rules is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In my view, a single judge of the Court does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal as incompetent. Therefore, I am not able to determine the objection to competency raised in paragraph one of the Official Trustee’s motion.
Strike out notice of appeal
The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal against the orders made by Ryan J are incorporated by the reference in the amendments by supplementary notice to the orders made by Jenkinson J and Ryan J. The grounds are not properly directed to the orders under challenge but encompass wide ranging complaints of Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins. The Official Trustee asks the Court to strike out the notice of appeal. Again, I doubt that a single judge has power to strike out a notice of appeal. But even if I had that power, I would not exercise it in this case. Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins are not lawyers and allowances must be made for this fact. With the background in the case which the Official Trustee must have acquired, I expect that the Official Trustee is able to discern the bases of Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins’ challenges to the orders. However, I expect that Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins could make the bases of their challenges clearer by shortly stating the specific complaints against each order under challenge. In my view, they should do this. Under s.25(2B)(c) of the Federal Court Act, a single judge has power to give directions about the conduct of an appeal. In exercise of that power, I will direct Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins to prepare and serve a document of no more than one page in respect of each of the challenges to the orders of Ryan J, Jenkinson J and Merkel J, setting out in very short summary the reasons why they say each specific order is wrong.
Security for costs
I have already rejected the applications for security for costs in relation to VG 194 and VG 238. The issues to be raised in the appeal in VG 400 will not be substantially different from the issues to be raised in VG 194 and VG 238. Further, although the delay in filing the Official Trustee’s notice of motion was not as great as that in VG 194 and VG 238, nonetheless the detriment to Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins arising from such an order at this very late stage outweighs the Official Trustee’s interest in having its costs of the appeal protected by an order for security. In all these circumstances, it is not appropriate to order security for costs in VG 400. I now deal with Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins’ motion.
Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins’ motion
Ms Cassar, on her behalf and on behalf of Mr Haskins, told me that there were two concerns they wanted addressed by this motion. They wanted the Official Trustee to produce the file of the administration of their estates, and they wanted to cross examine certain persons and wanted those persons to produce documents, partly for the purpose of challenging the orders made by Ryan J, Jenkinson J and Merkel J, and partly to prove such wider complaints as conspiracy against them. I now deal with each of those matters.
Production of the Official Trustee’s file
This matter was determined by Sundberg J on 10 April 1996 (David Haskins and Connie Cassar v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, Federal Court, 10 April 1996, unreported, pp. 9-10). The matter was referred to by Heerey J in his decision delivered on 24 April 1996 (David Haskins and Connie Cassar v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, Federal Court, 24 April 1996, unreported, p.3). In both instances, the claim of Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins was rejected. For the same reasons, I also reject the claim.
Further evidence on appeal
The only proceedings which are on foot in VG 400 are the challenges to the orders of Ryan J, Jenkinson J and Merkel J. I do not have jurisdiction to allow further evidence to be called on the hearing of those challenges. That power resides in the Full Court under s.27 of the Federal Court Act.
Other evidence
There is no basis for the making of orders for cross examination or production of documents which do not relate to the existing proceedings.
For these reasons I will dismiss Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins’ motion.
I certify that this and the preceding fourteen (14) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Justice North.
Associate:
Dated: 23 September 1996
Appellants in person: D. Haskins and C. Cassar
Counsel for the respondent: M. Kennedy
Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing: 16-17 September 1996
Date of judgment: 23 September 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Nos VG 194 of 1996
VG 238 of 1996
VG 400 of 1996
B E T W E E N
DAVID HASKINS AND CONNIE CASSAR
Appellants
- and -
THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
(as Trustee of the Bankrupt estates of
David Haskins and Connie Cassar)
Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGE: North J
PLACE: Melbourne
DATE: 23 September 1996
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
In VG 194 of 1996, the motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 20 August 1996, is dismissed.
In VG 238 of 1996, the motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 20 August 1996, is dismissed.
In relation to the motion, notice of which was filed by the respondent on 26 August 1996 in VG 400 of 1996:
(a)Ms Cassar and Mr Haskins file and serve by 4.00 pm on Thursday 26 September 1996 a document not exceeding one page in length setting out in short summary form the reasons they say the orders made by Ryan J on 19 June 1996 are wrong, a second document not exceeding one page in length setting out in short summary form the reasons they say the orders made by Jenkinson J on 24 July 1996 are wrong, and a third document not exceeding one page in length setting out in short summary form the reasons they say the orders made by Merkel J on 30 July 1996 are wrong;
(b)the motion is otherwise dismissed.
In VG 400 of 1996, the motion, notice of which was filed by the appellants on 15 August 1996, is dismissed.
The question of costs of the motions is adjourned until 11.30 am today.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
C A T C H W O R D S
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL - BANKRUPTCY - Security for costs - Delay in filing application determinative against order for security - Objection to competency - No jurisdiction to dismiss appeal as incompetent - Application to strike out - Litigants in person - Direction to provide short summary of reasons that each specific order appealed from is wrong - Production of documents - Whether bankrupt entitled to trustee’s complete file - Further evidence - No jurisdiction to allow further evidence on appeal - No basis to allow cross examination or order production of documents not relevant to existing proceedings
Federal Court Act 1976, ss 25, 27
Federal Court Rules, O.52, r.18
HASKINS and CASSAR -v- THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY (as Trustee of the Bankrupt estates of
David Haskins and Connie Cassar)
Nos VG 194 of 1996
VG 238 of 1996
VG 400 of 1996
Before: North J
Place: Melbourne
Date: 23 September 1996
0
0
0