Hayes and Comcare
[2003] AATA 478
•27 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 478
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2000/1029
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re GARY SCOTT HAYES Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr K L Beddoe, Senior Member
Dr K P Kennedy OBE, MemberDate27 May 2003
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(Sgd) KL Beddoe
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – entitlement – psychiatric condition – liability - whether applicant’s psychiatric condition caused by his employment with the Army or whether applicant has suffered an aggravation of an existing condition - whether applicant has a vulnerable personality which predates his entry into the Army
Safety Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988
REASONS FOR DECISION
27 May 2003 Mr K L Beddoe, Senior Member
Dr K P Kennedy OBE, Member1. This is an application for review of a decision of the respondent which, on 18 October 2000, had affirmed the decision of a delegate dated 10 July 2000 which did not accept liability for Mr Hayes’s psychiatric condition (depressive disorder).
2. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T documents) and a number of exhibits, which included medical notes, medical reports and various defence force documents, as well as statements prepared by the applicant, his brother and his mother .The applicant was represented by Mr Harding of counsel and the respondent by Mr Clark of counsel.
Legislative Framework
3. Pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (the Act) the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to an employee in respect of an injury suffered by the employee which results in death, incapacity for work or impairment. Section 4 of the Act contains a definition of the term “injury”:
“injury means:
(a)a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
4. The issue before the Tribunal in this matter is whether the applicant has suffered an injury (or an aggravation of a pre-existing injury) during the course of his employment for which he should be compensated.
Evidence Before the Tribunal
5. The applicant first joined the Army in 1979 and served in the infantry. He resigned in 1982 but served in the Reserve from 1987 to 1989. He re-enlisted in 1989 and was posted to the Royal Australian Ordinance Corps. He was discharged on 12 July 1992.
6. At the commencement of his evidence in chief, the applicant stated that he had first noticed severe pain in his legs during PT one morning when he was required to do a log carry while running. This occurred during his initial training. After a period of time there was no improvement. It was not until some time later that a diagnosis of anterior compartment syndrome was made. At that time an x-ray had also revealed the sacralisation of the lower lumbar spine.
7. Following the diagnosis of anterior compartment syndrome, a bilateral fasciotomy was performed by a Dr McCullough at Bendigo Private Hospital. The applicant developed an haematoma postoperatively and when discharged from hospital he was given a chit stating that he was only to do office duties. He had expected to have been given convalescent leave after leaving hospital but when he queried this with the doctor, the doctor responded that he could go back to work. The applicant claimed that when he returned to the Unit and showed the chit he was sent to the stores area. After one week he went to the RAP and informed the medical officer. He was then transferred to the control office.
8. He said that at the control office he was required to walk to various buildings to do the mail run. He said these duties caused severe pain and he did not cope well. When he was reviewed by Dr McCullough he told the doctor of the discomfort but Dr McCullough told him that he would have to persist with it to try and break up the scarring within the legs. He was subsequently placed on medical restriction and, in about July 1990, he was medically downgraded.
9. When he was medically downgraded he was restricted to no prolonged standing, no drill, no running, no marching and so forth. He said that he was then told that because of the medical downgrading he would not be able to have a career in the Army. That had upset him greatly.
10. The applicant had then submitted a redress of grievance in which he alleged that he had suffered a form of discrimination as a result of injuries received and that he had been advised that his career would not progress. He had submitted his redress of grievance to Lt Buckley but when the applicant submitted his discharge to Lt Buckley, the redress of grievance was given back to him without any action having been taken even though he had lodged it six weeks earlier.
11. During that time he said he was getting a hard time from his peers. He had been sent a letter saying that he “stunk” and that he could not do his job properly and Corporal Robinson had told him that he should not be in the Army. He claimed that a Sergeant Donnelly was forever making threats to him because of his medical restrictions When he told her that he was not happy with what was happening to him and that he wanted to have the issues addressed, she had not wanted to know about it. When he told the Padre of his problems, the Padre allegedly said that he would just have “to soldier on”.
12. During cross-examination the applicant confirmed that he had originally joined the Army in 1979 and that he had been discharged in 1982 after going AWOL for some months because of a relationship with a woman.
13. He agreed that determinations had been made earlier which had effectively ceased liability in relation to his back and legs. He agreed that he had not sought to challenge those determinations at the time. He agreed also that he had not made any claim in respect of any psychiatric condition soon after leaving the Army. He said that he did not know then what was wrong with him but he admitted that he had been under periodical review by a general medical practitioner since the time of his discharge. He had not made the claim for the psychiatric condition until 19 November 1998.
14. It was put to the applicant that the real reason for him being upset when in the Army was that he had lost the prospect of an infantry career. The applicant denied that this was so and said that it was because he had been told that his career was over and that he could never be promoted. He would not get any courses to better himself and they did not want him in the Army any more. He was “a broken piece of equipment“.
15. Mr Clark directed the applicant to a reference written by a Major Wilson (Exhibit A) in April 1992:
“I have known Gary Hayes for five months and during this time he has worked for me I have always found him to be diligent, courteous, and able to assimilate new information with ease. During this period he has worked on general clerical duties such as registering, filing, information research, both on computer and microfiche and interviewing members being processed for discharge. He has a pleasant disposition and works well within the team environment. I would have no hesitation in recommending him for employment in an administrative appointment.”
16. The applicant agreed that this was a good reference.
17. When asked if he would agree that he was working pretty well at that time in administrative tasks in the Army his reply was “Yes and No”. On further questioning as to what that could mean he agreed that he could do the administrative duties but that those duties were not the full duties of a soldier.
18. The applicant agreed that in August 1990 he had sought re-employment as a clerk administration after being downgraded to CZE and that in his application at that time he had said that he could carry out the duties of a clerk fully. His request had been strongly supported by his Commanding Officer (Lt Col Whiting). He agreed also that he had been working to a high standard then and that likewise in April 1992 he had been working to a high standard.
19. When asked why he had not told the three psychiatrists Dr Lawford, Dr Rees and Dr Reddan that he had seen a psychiatrist, Dr Chaplow, in 1984 and 1985, he replied that he had forgotten about that. He agreed however that the event which precipitated the visits to Dr Chaplow had been a very significant event in his life. After the drowning of a colleague he had been harassed, threatened and accused by the wife of the deceased and made to feel that he had done something wrong. He said that he had seen Dr Chaplow as a counsellor. He agreed that the three psychiatrists had all asked him if he had seen a psychiatrist previously. Dr Chaplow had made a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with secondary depression.
20. He also agreed that he had not told of his visits to another psychiatrist in 1995. At that time he had seen a Dr Davison. He said that he was having problems because of what had happened in the Army and he was also in a relationship that was not working out because he was drinking too much. She had told him that he should go out and work. He said that he had not told them about Dr Davison because he was an absolute mess when he saw Dr Reddan and when he saw Dr Lawford he had a complete breakdown. He had seen Dr Davison on about four occasions.
21. The applicant was referred to a medical attendance and treatment report (Exhibit 11) recorded in July 1989 in which the medical officer had observed that the applicant was depressed following the break-up with his girlfriend and had recommended counselling. The applicant said that he did not agree with the report of the medical officer.
22. In February 1991, the applicant had been seen by a Dr Amos complaining of bilateral back pain and in that record Dr Amos had recorded no history of injury (Exhibit 14). Mr Clark put to the applicant that there had been no complaint of back pain recorded when he had had an x-ray of his back in October 1989 but that the physiotherapist who ordered the x-ray had recorded in clinical notes only leg symptoms. In the Medical Board examination dated 12 July 1990, the typed report did have a cross in the abnormal column against item 36 – back, and item 43 – scars but in the comment the references were about item 35 – legs and item 43 – scars. As the legs should have been listed as abnormal, Mr Clark suggested that the cross against item 36 had been put in the wrong spot. The applicant maintained that he had told the physiotherapist and a number of doctors about his back earlier but that they had omitted to record the complaint (Exhibit 15).
23. Mr Clark also brought to the attention of the applicant the Medical Board examination of 12 July 1990, which made no mention of any mental illness problems. Again the applicant said that he had told the doctor of mental illness problems but that it had not been recorded. The applicant made a similar claim about the absence of any mention of mental illness in the next Medical Board examination dated 6 November (Exhibit 16). He agreed that the doctors had asked about these issues and again a different doctor who saw him in November 1991 had failed to record his claim that he was suffering severe mental problems at the time.
24. In the final Medical Board examination record, the applicant recorded that he had had recurrent depression over the previous few years. He also indicated that he had pain in legs and had had back pain since carrying logs during PT in 1989. The final Medical Board report, dated 11 September 1992, assessing him as medically unfit and listed his disabilities as bilateral shin splints and chronic lumbar back pain. No mention was made of any psychiatric illness by the examining medical officer.
25. The applicant was then cross examined in relation to the redress of grievance. The applicant said that victimisation had been a big issue in relation to his current psychiatric condition but he had not included that matter in his address of grievance because Captain Brandy had told him not to include that information. Mr Clark suggested that it did not make sense that such information had not been included.
26. The applicant agreed also that during recent years he had had stomach problems, psoriasis, blackouts, and had also reported neck pain. He had also had a number of problem relationships prior to July 1997 but he denied that those relationships had caused any psychiatric problems. He claimed that the problem relationships had been due to the fact that, because of the Army, he did not trust people. He agreed however that he had had at least two problem relationships prior to rejoining the Army in 1989.
27. Mr Clark referred to the following letter from his treating psychiatrist Dr Lawford to Dr Geoffrey Smith.
“Dear Geoff, Thanks for your note re Garry Hayes. He has suffered a number of reverses over recent times, first from the army, and a number of problem relationships ----- A further major problem was he had a close relative die of cancer.”
28. The applicant agreed that the illness and death of his grandfather had been a big issue for him in 1998 because he loved him and was very close to him.
29. On 11 September 1996, he had been admitted to Greenslopes Hospital for psychiatric treatment. He had broken up with his girlfriend two months previously. He denied that the admission had been precipitated by the break-up and claimed that he had broken with her because he did not trust her because of what had happened in the Army. He did however still love her at that time.
30. It was in December 1997 that his grandfather had commenced chemotherapy. On 23 February, the Greenslopes clinical notes recorded that the applicant had been suffering depression for six weeks. His grandfather had died by June 1998 and he went back into hospital at Greenslopes in August 1998, October 1998, November 1998 and January 1999. In February 1999 the applicant had travelled to the Philippines to try and get a wife but it did not work out. He did not know if that had caused problems.
31. Other problems experienced by the applicant had included shoulder pain in 1996 and again in 2000. He had seen an orthopaedic surgeon about the shoulder and he had been reviewed by a vascular surgeon in relation to his legs. He had seen an ENT surgeon concerning tinnitus and a respiratory physician about shortness of breath. In 1996 he had been referred to Greenslopes Hospital by his general practitioner with the statement that he had suffered an acute depressive episode triggered by the separation from his girlfriend.
32. When the applicant was admitted to Greenslopes Hospital in July 1998, and subsequently transferred to Toowong Private Hospital, the notes had again recorded a break-up with his girlfriend. The applicant accepted that that was part of the reason for the admission but said that the break-up had occurred because of the way that he had been treated in the Army.
33. He agreed that in his conversations with Dr Lawford he had been fairly insistent that the Army was the root cause of all his problems. He had earlier indicated that he had remained angry that he had been required to return to duty postoperatively when he still had staples in his left leg. He was frustrated with the way the Army medical system had let him down. He was bitter and angry about that because they were supposed to be looking after him and they just kept getting it wrong.
34. At this stage Mr Clark again referred to the absence of allegations of victimisation in his redress of grievance. It was put to the applicant that he had not made a claim in any of his written statements which were in evidence that he had been told not to include allegations of victimisation in the address of grievance. The applicant agreed that he had not and that he had first provided such information during his oral evidence on the initial day of the hearing in December 2002.
35. When reference was made to a statement provided by Captain Ronald Brandy, the applicant said that he had never been interviewed by Captain Brandy but in later evidence to the Tribunal, Captain Brandy said that he had spoken face to face with the applicant and that he would have to refute the claim made by the applicant.
36. Evidence was also taken from the mother and brother of the applicant. Much of their supportive evidence was however hearsay and the Tribunal did not find their evidence to be of any real assistance.
37. The first medical witness was Dr Bruce Robert Lawford, a specialist psychiatrist. Dr Lawford was also the treating psychiatrist of the applicant. Dr Lawford gave evidence by telephone. During his evidence in chief he was taken to a number of his written reports. In the report of 22 October 1999, Dr Lawford had stated that the applicant suffered from a recurrent major depressive disorder. In responding to a question about the cause, Dr Lawford said that many things had happened to the applicant. He confirmed that the applicant had told him that following the leg injury he had not fully recovered and had sort of chronic pain.
38. He had ended up being discharged from the Army which had been a major blow to him. He had been subject to nicknames of “limpy” and “cripple” and he had also received mail from colleagues stating that he stunk, was lazy with work, did not work quickly enough etc. These aspects were important as far as his self-esteem was concerned.
39. During cross-examination, Dr Lawford confirmed that he believed that the applicant had acquired his depression because of his injuries. Dr Lawford was referred to a medical report of July 1989, prior to the leg injury, when the applicant had presented to a medical officer following a recent break-up with his fiancé.. The medical officer had reported that he was depressed and referred him for counselling. Dr Lawford indicated that the applicant would have been unhappy but he refused to concede that there was enough evidence to accept a diagnosis of depression.
40. Dr Lawford confirmed that the applicant had never told him that he had seen another psychiatrist, Dr Chaplow, in 1984 and 1985. Dr Lawford said that he could not remember if he had asked if he had had any previous psychiatric consultations. When it was put to him that that would have been one of his first questions, Dr Lawford replied in the negative.
41. Dr Lawford agreed that Dr Chaplow had diagnosed an adjustment disorder with depressive features and had arranged counselling but he commented that he had not prescribed any antidepressants.
42. Dr Lawford agreed that he relied on the history given by the applicant as being truthful and to a large measure reliable. He did not concede that he needed to rely on the history being untainted by anger or resentment. He agreed that the numerous health issues would have impinged on his psychiatric health. When he was asked to comment on the fact that Dr Sharwood, an orthopaedic surgeon, had in February 1995 stated that the anterior compartment syndrome was then no longer a health issue, Dr Lawford responded that he did not know anything about that condition. Dr Lawford said that the applicant had hardly raised anything in respect to his legs with him at all.
43. In reply to a question from the Tribunal, Dr Lawford summarised the Army events that had caused the depression as (i) the injuries, (ii) his feeling of being inadequate generally, (iii) the sort of feedback from serving members, and (iv) the loss of his career in the Army. Dr Lawford was also asked that, if he was attributing the depression to the injuries, would he not attempt to make some kind of assessment of the degree of injury to relate it to the depression. Dr Lawford said that does not help and that the physical problems had been very small in relation to his depression. He then said that he felt that the consequences of the injury, in that he did not recover properly or quickly, had been the problem. Other factors had been that he had lost his career and that his brother had a successful career in the Army.
44. During his final cross-examination, Dr Lawford told Mr Clark that the applicant’s main stressors since he left the Army were his unemployment, his inability to form relationships with people and his lack of close friends. He has psychosocial dysfunction. Dr Lawford agreed that the applicant is pretty upset with the Army.
45. The second medical witness was Dr Jill Reddan, also a specialist psychiatrist. During her evidence in chief she was referred to two extracts from the 1984 report of Dr Chaplow:
“Many thanks for referring this young man whom I saw on 7th of the 12th ‘84 in regard to his current stress and ‘depression’. Apparently stress has continued for some years in one form or another and as you correctly state in your letter, he has gone from one disaster to another.”
46. Dr Reddan was asked what significance she would place on this report. She replied that the applicant had denied to her that he had any earlier psychiatric history. Apart from the issue of his reliability as a historian she thought that it pointed to some degree of long-term disturbance and significant fragility.
47. In relation to the medical note about being depressed after a break-up with his girlfriend and the recommended counselling which had previously been put to Dr Lawford, Dr Reddan commented that the applicant had been distressed enough to tell a doctor about it and he was complaining of depressed mood. Again it suggested that faced with the difficulties in life, he was somewhat fragile and perhaps tended to regress rather readily.
48. When she had seen the applicant, he had attributed his condition to pain and the loss of his career in the Army. She felt it understandable that the applicant might attribute his depression purely to Army events but he had presented previously to a psychiatrist and she felt that it was in some respects the natural history of what one could expect.
49. During cross-examination Dr Reddan explained that, when she sought any evidence of previous psychiatric history, she asked people if they had ever attended anyone for psychological therapy or counselling and had they been prescribed any medication for anxiety, depression or nervousness. She does not merely ask if there was any psychiatric history because that can cause misunderstanding.
50. In relation to the depressive episode in 1990-1991, Dr Reddan said that from the contemporaneous material at the time, she had felt that the most one could call 1990-1991 was an adjustment disorder and even that was arguable. When she herself had seen him in 2001, he had been unhappy but he was not exhibiting depressive symptoms at the time.
51. Dr Reddan was referred to the report of Dr Slaughter whom the applicant had seen in 1994 and the fact that he had seen Dr Davison in 1995. It was suggested to Dr Reddan that she had recorded that the applicant had not been depressed between the time that he had left the Army and when he had first seen Dr Lawford in 1996. Dr Reddan corrected this impression by stating that what she did say was that he did not seek psychiatric treatment during that period.
Review of Evidence
52. Dr Lawford had diagnosed major depression which he has attributed to the applicant’s Army service. In reply to a question from the Tribunal, he summarised the Army events responsible as (i) the injuries, (ii) his feeling of being inadequate generally, (iii) the feedback from serving members, and (iv) the loss of his career in the Army .He regarded the consequences of the injury as being more important than the injury itself.
53. It was surprising that Dr Lawford should state that he had made no attempt to assess the severity of the leg symptoms when deciding the role of the injuries in the onset of the depression. In fact he said that the applicant had hardly raised anything with him in respect to his legs at all.
54. Dr Lawford provided no evidence to support the claim that the feeling of being inadequate generally was due to Army service. In fact Dr Slaughter, a psychiatrist who had seen the applicant in 1994 for Comsuper, opined that his low self-esteem had come from childhood problems of rejection by his natural father and an abusive stepfather.
55. Again Dr Lawford had been under the impression that the applicant had been forced out of the Army whereas he had resigned of his own accord when he could have continued in a clerical role. As noted above, in April 1992, he had received an excellent reference from Major Wilson in relation to his clerical work.
56. Dr Lawford agreed that he relied on the history given by the applicant as being truthful and to a large measure reliable. The applicant during evidence agreed that in conversations with Dr Lawford he had been fairly insistent that the Army was the root cause of all his problems. Dr Lawford had not been told that the applicant had seen a psychiatrist in 1985 when an adjustment disorder with depressive symptoms had been diagnosed, nor did Dr Lawford, in his reports, make any reference to other events which had clearly precipitated the need of the applicant to seek psychiatric care.
57. During cross-examination, Dr Lawford had dismissed the problems with girlfriends and the illness and death of his grandfather as having been of any significance. He also refused to accept that any significance should be attached to the 1985 visits to Dr Chaplow, even though he acknowledged that he had not been told of those visits previously. Dr Lawford had therefore had no opportunity to assess the importance of the visits to Dr Chaplow during his consultations with the applicant.
58. In refusing to accept the significance of the girlfriend episodes, Dr Lawford ignored the fact that on at least four occasions the break-up with a girlfriend had been a presenting symptom when the applicant had sought help. Similarly Dr Lawford did not deny that the applicant had been admitted for psychiatric care following the death of his grandfather. The applicant in his evidence agreed that he had been very close to his grandfather and had loved him and that his illness and death from cancer had been a big issue for him in 1998.
59. In spite of his oral evidence, Dr Lawford had written a letter to the applicant's general practitioner saying that he had suffered a number of reverses first from the Army and a number of problem relationships and that a major problem had been a close relative with cancer. It was apparent that the written reports of Dr Lawford to the Department of Defence and to the applicant's solicitors had not recorded a detailed psychiatric history but had focused only on the Army service.
60. During cross-examination, Dr Lawford tried to avoid direct answers to the specific questions put to him by Mr Clark in relation to other causes for depressive episodes. Having regard to his superficial reports and his oral evidence, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that Dr Lawford's opinion could be accepted as being entirely objective.
61. Another important factor to consider in relation to Dr Lawford's reports relates to the reliability of the history given to Dr Lawford by the applicant. Firstly, the applicant agreed that Dr Lawford had asked him whether he had seen another psychiatrist previously and the applicant had denied the fact. He said that he had forgotten about those visits. The Tribunal finds it hard to accept that he had forgotten those visits because the reason for the visit to Dr Chaplow in 1985 had been at a time of great stress and he readily recalled the event in question. Also the later visit to Dr Davison had been only in 1995.
62. The applicant also claimed that he had told a number of medical officers about his back pain at an earlier stage but that none of them had recorded the history given to them. He made similar claims in relation to his depression. The Tribunal believes it highly unlikely that so many medical officers would all omit to record his symptoms.
63. Dr Reddan referring to the extract from the 1984 letter prepared by Dr Chaplow, that stress had continued for some years in one form or another, opined that the comment pointed to some long-term disturbance and significant fragility in the case of the applicant. Dr Reddan had also disagreed with Dr Lawford about the significance of the break-up with his girlfriend in July 1989. Dr Reddan observed that the applicant had been distressed enough about the incident to tell the doctor when he had presented with depressed mood. This had suggested to her that when faced with the difficulties of life, he was somewhat fragile and tended to regress rather readily.
64. In relation to the presentation to the Army psychologist in August 1991, it is noted that he had improved within a few weeks and had been discharged from psychological review in September of that year. Based on the documentation at the time, Dr Reddan had regarded that episode as no more than an adjustment disorder. Where there has been conflict between the evidence of Dr Lawford and that of Dr Reddan, the Tribunal finds the evidence of Dr Reddan to be more convincing.
65. On review of all the evidence it is clear that the applicant is particularly vulnerable to depressive episodes and that he tends to regress rather rapidly. The notes of Dr Chaplow, back in 1985, indicate that the applicant had been stressed for some years, and Dr Slaughter had regarded some problems to have commenced during his childhood. When in the Army, the applicant had been very angry and resentful of what he had perceived as injustices in relation to his medical care, but the only documentation relating to possible depression during his service had been the July 1989 episode relating to the break-up with his girlfriend and the subsequent visit to the psychologist in August-September 1991. The diagnosis for the latter visit had been assessed by Dr Reddan as no more than an adjustment disorder. It is true that the applicant had recorded recurrent depression in the record of illnesses at the time of his discharge but the documentation did not record any actual depression at that time nor was any mention of depression made by the final Medical Board.
66. It is also of some relevance that although the applicant left the Army in 1992 he did not seek psychiatric treatment until 1995 or 1996 and he did not make a claim until 1998. By that time many events had occurred in his life which had caused psychiatric stress. Also, as his treating psychiatrist had said in evidence, he had had the additional factors of a number of physical illnesses or conditions subsequent to leaving the Army, he is unemployed, he has been unable to form relationships with people, he has no close friends and he has psychosocial dysfunction
67. For all these reasons the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a vulnerable personality which had predated his entry into the Army in 1989 and that many events over the years have resulted in repeated episodes of depression or related psychiatric disturbances. The anger and resentment that the applicant has for the Army cannot be equated with depression. There is no convincing evidence to justify the claim that his Army service is responsible for his current diagnosis of recurrent severe depression, nor that his Army service resulted in an aggravation of an existing depressive disorder during the course of his employment.
68. The Tribunal therefore affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 68 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr K L Beddoe, Senior Member and Dr K P Kennedy OBE, Member
Signed: Sarah Oliver
AssociateDates of Hearing 2 December 2002 and 4 April 2003
Date of Decision 27 May 2003
Counsel for the Applicant Mr A Harding
Solicitor for the Applicant Gilshenan and Luton
Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Clark
Solicitor for the Respondent Phillips Fox
1
0
0