Heath and Heath

[2007] FamCA 890

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HEATH & HEATH [2007] FamCA 890

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Shared Parental Responsibility

APPLICANT: MR HEATH

RESPONDENT: MS HEATH

FILE NUMBER: BRF 1441 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 08 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 08 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Waterman of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: James White Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr McGregor of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Peter J Sheehy

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr McGregor of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties shall have joint parental responsibility with respect to the children B  born … May, 1999 and Z born … July, 2002.

1. The children B and Z shall live with and communicate with their parents as follows:

(a)Each alternate week from 3pm or immediately after school Friday, whichever is the sooner until Friday morning the following week at 8:30am at the school with the father’s time with both children to commence on Friday 10^th August, 2007 and each alternate week thereafter AND the mother’s time with both children shall commence on Friday 17^th August, 2007 and each alternate week thereafter,  with all handovers to take place at the children’s school unless otherwise provided for herein.

(b)For half of the Queensland gazetted school holidays in each, provided that if the child is with the mother during the second half of the holidays, the mother’s time with the children shall conclude at 5pm on the Sunday immediately before the commencement of the new school term and where the mother’s time is for the first half of the school holidays, she shall collect the children at the conclusion of the school day from the school,  on the last day of the school term;

The mother shall have the children for first half of the school holidays, including Christmas Day in 2007 and she shall have the children with her in the second half of the school holidays in 2008 excluding Christmas Day.

The children shall be in the father’s care at all other times of the

Queensland gazetted school holidays.

(c)In relation to sub-paragraph (b) above, the father shall being permitted to ring the children between 8:30am and 9am (QLD time) on Christmas morning when the children are in the mother’s care,  PROVIDED THAT when the children are  with the father on Christmas Day the mother shall be permitted to ring the children on Christmas morning between 8:30am and 9am (QLD time).

(d)Mother’s Day in each year from 5pm on the Saturday immediately preceding Mother’s Day until the following Monday 8:30am at the School AND  the father shall have the children with him on Father’s Day in each year and where Father’s Day falls on the mother’s weekend, the mother’s weekend time shall conclude at 5pm on the Saturday immediately preceding Father’s Day.

(e)On the each of the children’s birthday;  if the birthday falls on a day when the children are in the mother’s care, the father shall spend time with both children,  from 3pm or immediately after school on the child’s birthday,  until 5pm;

AND  if the birthday falls on a day when the children are in the father’s care, the mother shall spend time with both children from 3pm or immediately after school on the child’s birthday, until 5pm.

1. All handovers between the parties that cannot be effected at School due to school/public holidays, shall take place at ... in Brisbane with the mother’s partner Mr M (or such other person that the mother nominates if Mr M is not available) to effect handovers with the father, provided that the mother shall not attend at such handovers.

1. Neither party shall take the children or either of them to consult with any counsellor, therapist, psychologist or social worker without the prior written consent of the other party or an Order of this Honourable Court.

1. The parents shall keep each other informed in writing of any medical appointments/treatments/referrals with respect to either of the children and shall notify the other parent of any forthcoming appointments with the medical specialists and each is authorised by these Orders to obtain information from the treating medical practitioner/specialist about the child/ren, at their request and costs.

1. If whilst the children are in a party’s care, either child or both of them need medical attention, the party shall notify the other in writing, of the arrangements he/she has made for the child/ren to see a doctor and also notify him/her of the name and address of the treating medical practitioner and the diagnosis and treatment recommended/provided

AND EACH PARTY is authorised by these Orders to obtain from the medical practitioner, at their request and cost, any information and documentation/reports pertaining to the child/ren health.

1. Each party shall immediately notify the other party of any medical emergency involving either of the children, including the name and address of the treating medical practitioner/medical centre/hospital and each parent is authorised by these Orders to obtain from children’s treating medical practitioners, any information about the child’s treatment and progress at their respective request and cost.

1. The parties are at liberty to attend any school functions that parents are from time to time invited by the School to attend, provided that each parent shall not approach the other party at such functions.

1. Each parent is authorised by these Orders to obtain from the children’s school at their respective request and cost, any information about the children’s progress at school, copies of school reports, newsletters, school photographs.

10. Neither child shall be absent from school for more than 2 days without a medical certificate being obtained forthwith and provided to the School and the other parent explaining the reason for the absence.

11.  Except for handovers that are effected at the children’s school and SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE, the mother shall be responsible for picking up the children for her time with them and the father shall be responsible for collecting the children at the end of the mother’s time.

12.  If the children are absent from school on a Friday following time spent with a party pursuant to the terms herein above, that party shall forthwith notify the School by 8:30am that day, of the child’s absence from school and also immediately notify the other party of the same and shall make arrangements with the other party, for the child to be handed over to the care of the other party, on that day.

13. The parties shall be responsible for arranging and enrolling the children into extra curricular activities/co-curricular activities, PROVIDED THAT they shall keep each other informed in writing of the activities that the children are enrolled in and they shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the activities shall not impact on the children’s times with the other party, without first consulting each other about this and obtaining the written consent of the other party.

14.  The children are at liberty to ring each of their parent’s at all reasonable times and the parent who has care of the children at the relevant time, shall take all necessary steps to facilitate such telephone communication between the child/ren and the other parent.

15. In relation to paragraph 2 (b) above, where the mother spends time with the children in the first half of the school holidays, then her weekly time with the children (as set out in paragraph (2) (a) above), shall resume on the first school day of the new school term and conclude on the Friday at 8:30am at school,  with the father’s weekly time to commence on that Friday PROVIDED THAT where the mother spends time with the children in the second half of the school holidays, then her weekly time with the children, shall resume on the first Friday after the new school term commences and the children shall otherwise remain living with the father during the first week of the new school term.

16.  Each party shall forthwith within one calendar month of these Orders enrol and thereafter attend to completion a Triple P parenting course and thereafter each shall provide to the other party, a copy of the certificate of completion attained for the course.

17. All previous Orders shall be discharged.

18. The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be discharged.

19. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Heath and Heath.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF 1131 of 05

MR HEATH

Applicant

And

MS HEATH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This originally was an application on the part of Ms Heath, for certain orders in relation to two children of her marriage to the respondent, Mr Heath.  Those children being B, born in May 1999; and Z, born in July 2002.  As appears by Mr R's report and as supported by evidence before me, the parties commenced a relationship in 1992; married in 1995; and separated in or about the month of May or June 2004.  From about June until October 2004, the parents, in effect, had shared care of the children, notwithstanding some difficulties this appears to have worked. 

2. I do not intend to enter any in depth discussion of the matters relating to the cohabitation of the parties other than to say that they had two children and that those children now are the subject of this dispute.

3. Up until this morning, it appeared to me as though the respondent was seeking either an order for shared parenting as appears from his amended response of 27 July 2007, or as fell from him during evidence, if my memory serves me correctly, the children to reside with him.  This morning, after evidence, it was put before me by the independent children's lawyer proposed orders which, in effect, sought the so-called old normal order, that being that the children lived with the father primarily and that they live with the mother for alternate weekends and one half the school holidays 

4. I make it quite clear that it is exceptionally difficult for any Court to consider such an order when no evidence was directed towards such order at all.      No-one, particularly Mr R, was at any time cross-examined, or examined with a view to his commenting upon whether it was in the best interests of the children that the presumed shared responsibility for the children be discharged and that the so called normal order be made.

5. Consequently, as I have said, the Court has been bereft of any evidence from an expert and an expert of Mr R's vast experience to enable it to more readily come to a conclusion.  Consequently, as I have said, and must be inferred from what I have said, I feel as though that I am completely acting in this matter in effect with one arm tied behind my back.  I will endeavour to do my best. 

6. But I would have thought that it is absolutely essential that if anything diametrically opposed or diametrically different to what has been sought in the orders, or even in the oral evidence, that it should be put, at least to one of the experts or more if necessary - that was Mr R. 

7. On or about 10 October 2004, a most unfortunate incident took place.  Once again I do not dignify the actions of either of the parties by an in depth examination of them, needless to say there was a dispute in which violence allegedly was offered by the father to the mother, and the mother was ejected in one way or other from the former matrimonial home where she had gone, at the request of the father, to pick up certain items which she said were not - she was not coming to discuss property but matters of the children - and she alleges that she suffered some injuries thereto.

8. It has been submitted by counsel for the father that it could be found on material before me that the father was set up for this type of thing, that the mother came along and by her general conduct provoked the father to such an extent that he reacted.  She relies upon the evidence of Dr P, a general medical practitioner who was at that time practising in the C area but is now at I, in which he described the injuries that she presented with, and I refer to and incorporate in these, my Reasons for Judgment, Dr P’s affidavit, filed 10 November 2006.

9. In that affidavit, in annexure A, he sets out the injuries which were documented which included bruising to the right forearm below the elbow, right arm above the elbow, right arm laterally, abdomen, left lower flank, and to other injuries which were complained of being tender and painful across the neck and the lower back, and complaint of some generalised muscle soreness. 

10. The result of a question posed by myself to Dr P indicating that his examination, which took place on 13 October 2004, in which he found that the bruising was grey and yellow in colour, indicates that, in fact, the injuries took place something like 10 days before the date which he saw her, and that was on 13 October 2004.  She alleges that the assault upon her person, for which the father was charged, and fined, if my memory serves me correctly, took place only three days before. 

11. That, in itself, would, of course, ring alarm bells I would have thought in anybody hearing this matter as to the question of credit.  I may say now that my general philosophy in cases before the Court, particularly, in relation to children because of the ongoing relationship between the parties and because of the children, is not to find questions of credit but to find on questions of credit.  I believe the parties should be entitled to leave this Court with some dignity left and not to be attacked by a Judge who, unfortunately, may not have heard all the evidence as is necessary to come to that conclusion. 

12. After taking that into consideration, and the statements wherein she has made to Mr R, particularly in his first report at paragraph 20 of his first report, makes me feel that where there is a dispute between the parties I would prefer the evidence of the father in relation to that of the mother. 

13. Thereafter, the mother, I think at the behest of her mother, approached Ms A with a view to counselling B.  B, on the second of two visits, which were about three hours each, made certain disclosures in relation to sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated upon his person by his father. 

14. At the time of the incident of 10 October, the mother observed that B was showing some signs of bruising between his eyes which allegedly was caused by the father saying that he tripped, but B saying that he was assaulted by the father.

15. That matter and the matter of the alleged sexual abuse was such of concern to the mother that she ceased “contact”.  It was not resumed by the father until about mid to late November, and eventually the matter came before the Federal Magistrates Court before his Honour Baumann FM and he made certain orders and eventually in 2005 he made orders in relation to the children living with the parents in a regime which has come down to nine days with the mother and five days, or five nights, with the father, such nights being split up into three and two with the father.

16. At that time, Mr R had recommended in his first report that because of the emotional abuse, as he found, of the mother that the children should be removed from the mother and placed in the possession of the father.  Not only did he come to that opinion but also that opinion had been expressed by the Department of Child Safety in January 2005 when, after the matter came to their attention, because of the referral by Ms A, they were of the view that any allegations of assault or sexual abuse upon the father were unsubstantiated, the police were not interested in prosecuting any assault upon the boy, and that, however, the department did find that there was emotional abuse perpetrated upon these children by the mother.

17. A DVO was sought by the mother against the father, and initially it was only for the protection of herself but subsequently was extended to the children and this, of course, was overtaken by the order of the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to the father spending time with the children.  Since that time there have been a litany of allegations and counter allegations by the parents against each other. The children, I find, have been the meat in the sandwich of two people who loathe and detest each other, who are unable to submerge their own vicious feels towards each other and put their precious children ahead of their own feelings to such an extent that I find that B, as opined to by Mr R, is starting to show emotional problems and he has been coming to the attention of his school teachers on comparatively frequent occasions.

18. The mother has little or no regard - in fact, the mother has no regard to the father whatsoever.  I have already referred to paragraph 20 of the first report as being her attitude towards him.  She considers him to be a lesser being, and they are my words, she considers that he be less intelligent than herself, notwithstanding the fact I think they have very similar jobs as registered nurses.  And she could not see any benefit in the children having any time with the father at all.  She is of the view that the alleged sexual abuse complained of by B took place, that she was of the view, and I must say I think she still is, of the view that it did take place and that was not going to force B to attend upon the father for the purpose of his spending time with them. 

19. Mr R in his second report was concerned that the mother had acted upon allegations which he found were spurious, that she acted on little or no evidence, and that it concerned him considerably.  And, in fact, she was at that time, and that was in October 2006, still of the view that notwithstanding the findings of the Department of Children's Safety that it had taken place. 

20. She was cross-examined on this matter by McGregor and Bourke of counsel, Bourke for the independent children's lawyer, in relation to whether, in fact, she still held the view that the boy had been sexually abused by the father and to a lesser extent, Z.  I must say in passing that Z tends to be like the non squeaky wheel.  Very little has been said about her.  She sees to be handling matters remarkably well.  There was some faint suggestion by the mother that she too had been sexually abused by the father and Dr P, as he has to do under the law, did refer the matter to the Department of Children's Services. 

21. Mr R himself was concerned about this as I have said, and even as at yesterday's date when she was cross-examined I would say - yesterday or the day before - I would say that she wriggled about whether, in fact, she still considered - eventually she came down and said "No" she does not prosecute such allegations against the father.  I think she did that grudgingly.  I think that once again shows that she would say and do anything that she possibly could to ensure that B's relationship with his father would not be advanced by his spending time with his father in anyway whatsoever.  She concerned me gravely.

22. But then again, we look now at the father.  Is the father a paragon of virtue in relation to his attitude towards his children?  Definitely not.  He, himself, once again considers that the mother has got nothing to offer these children save that, in fact, she is the mother, and he does not even think that that takes it too far.  I once again refer to Mr R.  He is bitter, he is quite - I suppose I could say he is very hurt, I think he believes that Mr M, upon whom I will touch very briefly later on, cuckolded him during the marriage and that it was his fault that the mother left him and he believes that he did nothing wrong.  There was nothing in the marriage that he knew of which would cause the marriage to breakdown. 

1. He supports such allegations by the letter, exhibit 2, which was tendered in cross-examination by McGregor of counsel, a letter of the mother.  I do not believe that we had any date particularised for it, and the mother would not concede a date when it was made, but I think it was either subsequent to separation or around the time.  He is bitter.  He does not advance the welfare of the children and, particularly, does not advance B's, and I refer to the question of Scouts.  Notwithstanding the fact that in all probability the mother enrolled B at Scouts to niggle the father, I think it was essential that the father recognise that the boy is entitled to attend Scouts and that he should make an effort to do so, not the bland statement as contained in the communication book that "If you joined him to Scouts, you make sure that you take him and not me because I don't have enough time with them anyway and I'm not going to spend my time by taking him to Scouts and not having that one hour or an hour and a half with him on a Thursday night."  It appears the time for scouting has been rearranged to Tuesday night when he does attend. 

2. Then we have the BMX, and this is a classic case where the mother has just shown total disregard for the right of the children to know their parents, in this case the father.  … BMX has a membership form, and in April 2007, of this year, the mother enrolled B at that club.  I refer to and incorporate in these my Reasons for Judgment, exhibit 1, which is a photocopy of that membership form.  In it, it has many things that they request information about but line contains "Mother's Name" "Father's Name".  The mother has seen fit in her name, "[K]".  And in the father's name she puts "[Mr M]".  Mr M is the person to whom I have already hereinbefore referred. 

3. I would have thought that nothing would antagonise a father more than that, and nothing would evidence more an attempt on her part to diminish the role of the father in relation to B.  Admittedly, it was only in the year 2007, some four months ago.  It is evidence of the attitude of the mother towards the father.   The mother alleges that the father is violent and was violent during the marriage as shown by exhibit 2.  It does not appear that she had any complaints there, but I do note that Mr R is of the view that, in fact, she gave as good as she got, and I think she was even asked a question to that extent in cross-examination and she acceded to saying that, yes, in all probability she did.  She gives me the impression of being a very strong willed woman, and a woman who would not, in any way, take acts of violence perpetrated upon her person lightly because she would give as much back. 

4. I must say and note in passing, I do apologise that this judgment, although, perhaps may not be in a very elegant nature, but I have had little time and as I have said I am required in Melbourne this afternoon, but in an endeavour to get the matter out of the road for the children's sake and for the parents' sake, I will do the best I can with it. 

5. I do not believe that either of these parents have sufficient intelligence, is it, or courage to put their children's welfare above their own hatred for each other.  I think marginally the father is better, marginally, than the mother at what has is happening to these children.  I do not think either of them recognise what enormous pressure is upon B, who is now 8 years of age.  I will be ordering that they attend a Triple P program in an endeavour to get them to learn about children's welfare and not their own. 

6. Since I do not have a very high opinion of either of the parents, where do I start?  I start with the presumption which is contained in s.61D(a) wherein our political masters have indicated that if I make a parenting order, and I will be making a parenting order, I must apply, and I emphasis the word "must" which has been put in by the parliamentary draftsmen and approved of by the parliament - "must apply a presumption that is in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility."  I emphasis "parental responsibility" is not equal living with the parties, but equal parental responsibilities. 

7. I should not make such an order, and it does not apply if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a parent has engaged of abuse, family violence, or I am satisfied it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.  What am I left with in this case?  I am left with my being dissatisfied with both of the parents.  I am left with their being of the opinion, I make it quite clear, that it is not in the best interests of the children that they have shared parental responsibility.  That is my prima facie view.  But then what am I left with?  Am I left with the least detrimental alternative?  No.  Because there is not an alternative.  They are both detrimental. 

8. Presumptive shared parental responsibility is out, but does that preclude me from making an order for shared parental responsibility?  I do not believe so.  I put this to Mr R.  He, himself, was concerned that these children's welfare is not being advanced because of the attitude of the parents towards each other - not so much towards the children, but towards each other.  It is a lack of concern for the children, I feel.  And I put to him whether in fact if he is concerned that there will be pressure brought to bear upon the children if in either of the parent's households, it is either all in or all out.  In other words, the one who would do less damage to the children, or will less interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent, should get the lot, and the other should not have any at all. 

9. He, himself, said he understood that but in this case he considers that there is a relationship with the children with both of the parents, that the children have a right to have that relationship between themselves and their parents magnified to as much as possible and that is incumbent upon me to find some way to do it. 

10. Talking about the questions of pressure upon the children. The father, insofar as scouting is concerned, says, and I once again refer to the communication book, which is exhibited to the wife's main affidavit, that if the child does not want to go he does not have to.  This was when the child I think was about 5 or 6.  He does not recognise that it is his duty, and as I have said before, not his right - it is his duty to assist his children in doing things and not to say, "If you don't want breakfast you don't have to have it."  Which is, admittedly, taking it to the extreme. 

11. The mother involves the child in coming to a decision whether he, B, considers it fair in relation to the list of property that she wants, a list of furniture.  I think he was - well, he is no more than 8, because he is 8 now and just 8.  Time after time in this case, they put the onus upon the children.  Is it gutless that they cannot accept the responsibility of themselves.  I am not here as a social worker or anything of that nature, but this case has distressed me more than many other cases because I think it is the blatant unawareness of their children from, clearly, intelligent people. It worries me intensely. 

12. Mr R, in his report of 3 October, as is his wont, he being a very experienced man in this field, directed his attention towards shared parenting - by parenting I mean living with as well as parental responsibility, and he was of that opinion, at that time, that it would not work because of the antagonism between the parties.  Philosophically, I am generally against shared parenting.  I believe that shared parenting works exceptionally well, but we rarely see it, because the parties agree with each other and they put their children first. 

13. When it comes to this Court and they cannot agree, I consider that it is doubtful whether shared parenting would work and Mr R supported that in his report, which I think was in paragraph 47.  However, he did to a certain extent resile from that in cross-examination yesterday when - and this was not once again followed through or investigated in any depth - he was of the opinion that there had been an improvement and he was not so sure, as I have opined, that shared parenting would not be to the advantage of the children. 

14. I am afeared for the children's sake.  That, perhaps, may get through to the parents now, but it may not.  They obviously if they - particularly B, as I said Z is the non squeaky wheel and she gets no grief - but if B is continued to be pressured the way he has been by the parents he is going to turn out to be an emotional cripple.  I am sure that is something even they do not want.  How can I best promote B and Z's welfare?  Clearly, since the first report B has had his relationship with his father resurrected, perhaps, because of the contact or spending time with his father that he has had.  Initially, there was some hesitation on his part, as was set out by Mr R.  That concerned him, but the second time it appears that he is much more comfortable.

15. The mother, of course, made her position quite clear in the first report, and I refer to and incorporate Mr R's concerns about the inability of the mother to separate from the child by holding his hand, her wishing to have him interviewed with the door ajar, and her various statements in relation to the father and to the boy. 

16. It has been submitted that the father being marginally less worse, if I could put it that way, that the children should spend the greater time with him, therefore, there would be less opportunity for the mother to put pressure upon the children.  Equally, I am of the view that the father is putting pressure upon the children, although I have said, I do not think quite as much.  But then we will have to leaven it.   We will have to let the children be pressured 50/50.  Unless these parties can wake up to themselves they are going to lose these children.  Unless they wake up to themselves, this matter will come back before this Court, and one will lose altogether contact with the children because it will be absolutely essential to enforce separation from one of the parents for the children's sake. 

17. I am not persuaded to limit the spending time of the children with each of the parents.  I consider that there is a relationship between the children and the parents.  The mother has been the primary care giver, and I am of the opinion that I could not destroy such primary caring totally by ordering the so-called normal order that the children have one weekend every fortnight with their mother.  I do not believe that would be in their best interests, and I sincerely hope that I have set out the matters that are of sufficient importance, but I must go through s.66 and those factors which I consider of importance.  I have made it quite clear that I am of the opinion that the children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents, and I do not believe that such relationship would be advanced by the mother having one weekend per fortnight.

18. There is psychological harm.  The children are being exposed to neglect, or abuse, marginally less, in the father's household than the mother's.  I just wish they would grow up.  The children allegedly, according to the mother, have expressed a view they prefer to stay with her.  I do not take much notice of that at all.  The children have a relationship with each of the parents to which I have referred, and that is, of course, s.60CC(3)(b). 

19. Insofar as s.60CC(3)(c), that is the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship, I make my feelings quite clear in relation to that.  I think generally that the fact that the parents are not that far apart, there is some 20 k, I think, that this is a case where unfortunately - I say, unfortunately, because as I said philosophically I am overly keen on shared parenting when the parties come before this Court and put conflicting suggestions before me, that I will order that the parties have joint parental responsibility with respect to the children, and I have amended in handwriting the draft put before by the independent children's lawyer and I will be requiring them to put before me a clean copy.  If there are any difficulties, of course, they can contact me - I am sure Ms C can do that, Mr B. 

    RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

20. It has been modified.  I may have missed something.  Insofar as the spending time with, will commence each Friday at 3 pm. This Friday will be the commencing date for the father, and the following Friday after school, the mother will take possession of the children.  The changeover, as I said, will take place at school other than for holidays when it will take place at …, was it Mr McGregor?

    RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

21. And as I said, I have modified the other specific orders, I believe.  If I have missed any I am sure it will be brought to my attention.  I wish you to have that prepared Mr B and hand it to each of the parties so they may consider it.  I wish them to initial it.  Not that they - that means that they agree with the orders made, that they have read it and have nothing to bring to my attention.  As a result of that, once that is done, there are to be handed to my Court officer and it will be order as per draft to be supplied. Do you understand that?

    RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

22. Monday or Tuesday of next week.

    RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

23. I order that Triple P too. 

I certify that the preceding forty five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell

Associate: 

Date:  27 August 2007