Huntermotive Pty Ltd trading as Hunter Holden v Khan
[2022] FedCFamC2G 529
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Huntermotive Pty Ltd trading as Hunter Holden v Khan [2022] FedCFamC2G 529
File number(s): SYG 716 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS Date of judgment: 30 June 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether impracticable to effect personal service of the application on the respondent – whether by receiving the application by email the respondent should be taken to have been served with the application – order confirming service made.
CONSUMER LAW – application for order under s 182(4)(a) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPS Act) for an order that the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities Register register a financing change statement to remove registration of a purported security interest registered by the respondent in relation to a motor vehicle the applicant acquired – whether the applicant was a “buyer” of the vehicle within the meaning of s 43 of the PPS Act – whether at the time the applicant acquired the vehicle the respondent had an unperfected security interest in the vehicle – orders made.
Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Rules) 2021 (Cth) rr 6.06(1), 6.14, 13.06(1)(e), 17.05
Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW)
Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ss 10, 12(1), 18(1), 19(1), 19(2), 19(3), 21, 43, 147, 150(1), 153, 178, 182(1), 182(2), 182(4)(a), 194, 207
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) s 6
Division: General Number of paragraphs: 38 Date of hearing: 21 June 2022 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Keizer, by telephone Solicitor for the Applicant: Malcolm Murray & Associates The Respondent: No appearance by, or on behalf of, the respondent ORDERS
SYG 716 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: HUNTERMOTIVE PTY LTD T/AS HUNTER HOLDEN (ACN 003 247 514)
Applicant
AND: ABDUL MOHEED KHAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:
30 JUNE 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 6.14(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Rules) 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules) personal service of the application on the respondent be dispensed with.
2.Pursuant to r 6.14(3) of the GFL Rules the application shall be taken to have been served on the respondent on 18 May 2022 when Mr Basta, the solicitor for the applicant, sent by email the application and the affidavits of Mr Sultana and Mr Murray both made on 26 April 2022 to [email protected] (respondent’s email address).
3.An order pursuant to s 182(4)(a) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) that the Registrar of the Personal Property Securities Register register a financing change statement to remove Registration number 202202140069350.
4.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs set in the amount of $10,512.16.
5.Within 3 business days after the date on which these orders are pronounced the applicant serve on the respondent the reasons for judgment on the basis of which these orders have been made, a sealed copy of these orders, and a copy of r 17.05 of the GFL Rules, by sending these documents by email to the respondent’s email address.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The applicant (Huntermotive) applies for orders under r 6.14 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal) Rules 2001 (Cth) (GFL Rules), and, if such orders are made, an order under s 182(4)(a) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPS Act). The proceeding is within the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by s 207 of the PPS Act.
BACKGROUND
Huntermotive is a motor dealer licensed under the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW).
On or about 25 January 2022 Ms Bi attended Huntermotive’s place of business and enquired about trading in a 2012 Mercedes-Benz M-Class (Mercedes) for the purchase from Huntermotive of a 2017 Ford MD (Ford).
On or about 28 January 2022 Huntermotive searched for the serial number associated with the Mercedes on the Personal Properties Security Register (PPS Register) maintained under the PPS Act. A Serial Search Certificate that was issued in response to the search recorded “[t]here is no security interest or other registration kind registered on the [PPS Register] against the serial number in the search criteria details”.
On 29 January 2022 Huntermotive and Ms Bi signed a document under which Huntermotive agreed to sell the Ford to Ms Bi at the price of $19,750.01, and Huntermotive agreed to accept from Ms Bi the Mercedes “free of all encumbrances” to discharge $19,250 of the price at which Huntermotive agreed to sell the Ford. On 29 January 2022 Ms Bi signed over to Huntermotive the registration of the Mercedes, and Huntermotive signed over to Ms Bi the registration of the Ford.
In March 2022 it had been brought to Huntermotive’s attention that the respondent, Mr Khan, had registered with the PPS Register a security interest in the Mercedes without notifying Huntermotive. On or about 8 March 2022 Huntermotive searched for the serial number of the Mercedes on the PPS Register. The Serial Number Search Certificate that was issued on 8 March 2022 recorded that Mr Khan had a security interest in the Mercedes which he registered on 14 February 2022. The Serial Search Number Search Certificate also recorded a postal address for service for Mr Khan (Kentlyn address) and an email address for service, [email protected] (Mr Khan’s email address).
On 10 March 2022 Mr Murray, the solicitor for Huntermotive, sent an email to Mr Khan’s email address. After setting out the circumstances in which Huntermotive acquired the Mercedes, Mr Murray stated as follows:
Our client maintains that you had no right to register any security interest in the motor vehicle as it was already sold and our client did not grant you a security interest.
Our client demands that you delete the security interest within 7 days of the date of this email.
Should you fail to delete the security within that time our client will commence proceedings against you without further notice and also seek an order that you pay its costs of the proceedings.
Should you claim to have a valid security interest could you please provide all the relevant documentation to prove that interest.
Mr Murray received no response to his email of 10 March 2022. He therefore sent to Mr Khan another email on 24 March 2022 requesting Mr Khan remove his security registration from the PPS Register in relation to the Mercedes, noting that that demand was being made under s 178 of the PPS Act. Mr Murray again said that if Mr Khan did not remove the registration Huntermotive “may apply to a court seeking removal of the registration under the PPS Act”, and also apply for costs.
On about 4 April 2022 Mr Khan telephoned Mr Murray. Mr Murray informed Mr Khan that Mr Khan needed to have a security interest to lodge a registration in relation to the Mercedes, and he asked Mr Khan whether he had a security interest in the Mercedes. Mr Khan said that all he knew was that he had paid $4,400 “to repair the car”, and that if Mr Murray’s client paid Mr Khan $4,400 he will remove the registration. Mr Murray said his client will not agree to pay $4,400 to Mr Khan, and said that if Mr Khan did not remove the security “they will take you to Court”. Mr Khan said: “[w]e will see what happens”.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Huntermotive commenced this proceeding on 18 May 2022 by filing an application and an affidavit made on 26 April 2022 by Mr Sultana, Huntermotive’s Chief Financial Officer, and an affidavit made on 26 April 2022 by Mr Murray. On Huntermotive filing its application, the proceeding was listed for a first court date before me at 9:30 am on 8 June 2022.
At 6:50 pm on 24 May 2022 Mr Vitanza, a licensed process server, attended the Kentlyn address to serve a letter dated 18 May 2022 from Huntermotive’s solicitors, the application, and the affidavits of Mr Sultana and Mr Murray. Mr Vitanza was unable to gain access into the property. Mr Vitanza left a calling card with a request that Mr Khan contact Mr Vitanza. On 26 May 2022 Mr Vitanza received a call from Mr Khan. Mr Vitanza informed Mr Khan that Mr Vitanza had documents he needed to personally deliver to him, and asked whether Mr Khan was able to meet Mr Vitanza. Mr Khan said he was in Western Australia for the next three weeks, and said: “[h]ave the Solicitor contact me on this number”.
In the meantime, on 18 May 2022 Mr Basta, a solicitor employed by the solicitors for Huntermotive, sent to Mr Khan’s email address the letter dated 18 May 2022 from Huntermotive solicitors, the application, and the affidavits of Mr Sultana, and Mr Murray. Mr Basta also posted these documents to the applicant at the Kentlyn address. After noting that the letter enclosed “by way of service” the application, and the affidavits of Mr Sultana and Mr Murray, the letter stated that the proceeding had been listed for hearing at “9.30pm [sic]” on 8 June 2022, but that, due to “the Covid-19 situation”, Mr Khan’s “physical appearance in Court will not be required”. The letter further stated that Mr Khan was required to email his details to the Court two days before the hearing “so the Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court can call [the applicant] on the day of the hearing”.
Mr Khan did not appear at the first court date at 9:30 am on 8 June 2022. After Mr Basta, who appeared for Huntermotive, informed me of the nature of the proceeding, of the attempt to effect personal service on Mr Khan at the Kentlyn address, and of emails having been sent to Mr Khan’s email address, I made the following orders:
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
1. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2. The proceeding is listed for hearing before Judge Manousaridis at 10:15 am on 21 June 2022 (such hearing to proceed by telephone) for the purpose of hearing any application for:
a. orders in relation to service;
b. an application for default judgment; and
c. any application for final relief.
3. By 9 June 2022 the applicant serve a sealed copy of these orders on the respondent, such service to be effected by sending the orders to the respondent's email address.
4. Costs of the first court date are reserved.
5. The parties have liberty to apply on such notice as the circumstances warrant.
On 8 June 2022 Mr Basta sent the orders of 8 June 2022 to the Kentlyn address and to Mr Khan’s email address under cover of the following letter:
We refer to the above matter and to the hearing before Justice Manousaridis on Wednesday 8 June 2022 and note you were not present in Court.
As a result, the Court has listed the matter for hearing on 21 June 2022 at 10.15am as per the enclosed orders dated 8 June 2022.
If you want to participate in the proceedings the court has granted the parties leave to appear by telephone by dialling . . . and entering the following conference ID 235....
Please note if you don't appear in Court on the next occasion, we are instructed to seek default judgement against you and orders to remove your security interest with costs without further notice.
On 21 June 2022 the matter came before me for hearing. Huntermotive, by its counsel, Mr Keizer, appeared; Mr Khan, however, did not appear. I considered it was appropriate that, as envisaged by the orders I made on 8 June 2022, and pursuant to r 13.06(1)(e) of the GFL Rules, I proceed with the hearing of Huntermotive’s application.
Mr Keizer applied for orders under r 6.14 of the GFL Rules and for an order under s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act. Mr Keizer also applied for an order for costs. In support of Huntermotive’s application for orders under r 6.14 of the GFL Rules Mr Keizer read affidavits made by Mr Basta on 7 and 17 June 2022, and on an affidavit made by Mr Vitanza on 9 June 2022. In support of Huntermotive’s application for an order under s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act, Mr Keizer read the affidavit of Mr Sultana made on 26 April 2022, and the affidavit of Mr Murray made on 26 April 2022. I have relied on those affidavits, the truth and accuracy of which I accept, in finding the facts I have set out above.
APPLICATION FOR ORDERS UNDER r 6.14 OF THE GFL RULES
Rule 6.14 of the GFL Rules is as follows:
(1) If, for any reason, it is impracticable to serve a document in a way required under this Part, the Court may make an order dispensing with service or substituting another way of serving the document.
(2)The Court may specify the steps to be taken for bringing the document to the attention of the person to be served.
(3) The Court may specify that the document is to be taken to have been served on the happening of a specified event or at the end of a specified time.
I am satisfied that the circumstances in which Mr Vitanza attempted to personally serve Mr Kahn with the application and affidavits in support have rendered it impracticable to serve the application personally, as required by r 6.06(1) of the GFL Rules. I am satisfied, however, that Mr Khan has been given notice of Huntermotive’s application and of the affidavits on which Huntermotive relies for the orders it seeks. Huntermotive gave such notice by sending these documents to Mr Khan’s email address, being the email address Mr Khan specified as an address for service when he registered his purported interest in the Mercedes; and by posting these documents to the Kentlyn address.
I am satisfied, therefore, that it is appropriate to make an order under r 6.14(1) of the GFL Rules dispensing with personal service of the application, and an order under r 6.14(3) of the GFL Rules that Mr Khan is to be taken to have been served on 18 May 2022 when Mr Basta sent the application and affidavits of Mr Sultana and Mr Murray to Mr Khan’s email address. I am also satisfied that Mr Khan had notice of the hearing on 21 June 2022.
APPLICATION FOR ORDER UNDER s 182(4)(a) OF THE PPS ACT
Relevant provisions
Huntermotive applies for an order under s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act. That paragraph empowers a court to make “an order requiring the Registrar to register a financing change statement amending the registration (including an amendment to remove the registration)”. The “Registrar” is the “Registrar of Personal Property Securities” appointed pursuant to s 194 of the PPS Act and who, under s 147 of the PPS Act, is required to establish and maintain a register known as the “Personal Property Securities Register” (that is, the PPS Register). A “financing change statement” is defined in s 10 of the PPS Act to mean “data amending a registered financing statement”; and a “financing statement” is defined as data that is registered (or that is to be registered) pursuant to an application for registration under s 150(1) of the PPS Act. Subsection 150(1) of the PPS Act provides a person may apply to the Registrar to register with the PPS Register a financing statement with respect to, among other things, a “security interest”.
A “security interest” is defined in s 12(1) of the PPS Act to mean “an interest in personal property provided for by a transaction that, in substance, secures payment or performance of an obligation (without regard to the form of the transaction or the identity of the person who has title to the property)”. Under s 18(1) of the PPS Act a security agreement (being an agreement or act by which a security interest is created, or being writing evidencing such agreement or act) is effective according to its terms. Under s 19(1) of the PPS Act, a security interest is enforceable against personal property only if the security interest “has attached” to the personal property, in which case such personal property is designated by s 10 of the PPS Act to be “collateral”; and the circumstances in which, and the time at which, a security interest attaches to collateral are specified in s 19(2) and s 19(3) of the PPS Act, which provide:
Attachment rule
(2) A security interest attaches to collateral when:
(a) the grantor has rights in the collateral, or the power to transfer rights in the collateral to the secured party; and
(b) either:
(i) value is given for the security interest; or
(ii) the grantor does an act by which the security interest arises.
Time of attachment
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the parties to a security agreement have agreed that a security interest attaches at a later time, in which case the security interest attaches at the time specified in the agreement.
Also relevant is the notion of “perfection”, the main rule for which is contained in s 21 of the PPS Act, which provides:
(1) A security interest in particular collateral is perfected if:
(a) the security interest is temporarily perfected, or otherwise perfected, by force of this Act; or
(b) all of the following apply:
(i) the security interest is attached to the collateral;
(ii) the security interest is enforceable against a third party;
(iii) subsection (2) applies.
(2)This subsection applies if:
(a) for any collateral, a registration is effective with respect to the collateral; or
(b) for any collateral, the secured party has possession of the collateral (other than possession as a result of seizure or repossession); or
(c) for the following kinds of collateral, the secured party has control of the collateral:
(i) an ADI account;
(ii) an intermediated security;
(iii) an investment instrument;
(iv) a negotiable instrument that is not evidenced by a certificate;
(v) a right evidenced by a letter of credit that states that the letter of credit must be presented on claiming payment or requiring the performance of an obligation;
(vi) satellites and other space objects.
(3) A security interest may be perfected regardless of the order in which attachment and any step mentioned in subsection (2) occur.
(4) A single registration may perfect one or more security interests.
A financing statement with respect to a security interest a person applies to be registered with the PPS Register must consist of data that complies with the table in s 153 of the PPS Act.
A court can make an order under s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act requiring the Registrar to register a financing change statement only if an application is made under s 182(1) of the PPS Act for an order “in relation to an amendment demand”; and such application is made either by the “secured party” or by “the person who gave the amendment demand”. “Amendment demand” has the meaning given by s 178(1) of the PPS Act, which provides:
A person with an interest (including a security interest) in collateral described in a registration with respect to a security interest may give a demand (an amendment demand), in writing, to the secured party for a financing change statement to be registered to amend the registration as authorised by the following table:
Authorised amendments Item When amendment is authorised What amendment is authorised 1 No collateral described in the registration secures any obligation (including a payment) owed by a debtor to the secured party. Amendment to end effective registration (including an amendment to remove the registration). 2 The particular collateral in which the person has an interest does not secure any obligation (including a payment) owed by a debtor to the secured party. Amendment to omit the collateral.
Subsection 182(2) of the PPS Act provides that a person who gave the amendment demand cannot apply under s 182(1) before the end of 5 business days after the day the demand is given to the secured party.
Huntermotive’s claims
Huntermotive submits: it is the buyer of the Mercedes; as a buyer, it has an interest in the Mercedes, being the interest it acquired by accepting the Mercedes from Ms Bi at an agreed value of $19,250 in the partial discharge of the price for which Huntermotive sold the Ford to Ms Bi; and that, contrary to what is recorded on the PPS Register, the Mercedes is not collateral that secures any obligation owed by a debtor to Mr Khan. The basis of Huntermotive’s submissions is s 43 of the PPS Act, which provides:
Main rule
(1) A buyer or lessee of personal property, for value, takes the personal property free of an unperfected security interest in the property.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the unperfected security interest was created or provided for by a transaction to which the buyer or lessee is a party, unless the personal property concerned is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Huntermotive submits that, although it cannot be proved that Mr Kahn did not have a security interest in the Mercedes at the time Huntermotive bought the Mercedes, there was no security interest registered in relation to the Mercedes at the time Huntermotive bought it; and Mr Kahn himself did not register any security interest he may have had in the Mercedes until 14 February 2022, after Huntermotive bought it. To the extent, therefore, Mr Kahn held any security interest in the Mercedes at the time Huntermotive bought the Mercedes, it was an unperfected security interest because, at that time, there was no registration that was effective with respect to the Mercedes, and no person other than Huntermotive possessed or controlled the Mercedes. Huntermotive further submits that Mr Murray’s emails of 10 and 24 March 2022 both constituted the making of an amendment demand within the meaning of s 178 of the PPS Act.
Determination
I am satisfied that the email Mr Murray sent to Mr Khan on 10 March 2022 constituted Huntermotive’s making an amendment demand within the meaning of s 178 of the PPS Act. The demand Mr Murray made in that email that Mr Kahn “delete the security interest” is in substance a demand directed to Mr Kahn for a financing change statement to be registered to amend the financing statement Mr Kahn had registered in respect of the Mercedes; and that that amendment was to “omit the collateral”, that is, to remove the Mercedes from the PPS Register. I am also satisfied that the email Mr Murray sent to Mr Kahn on 24 March 2022 demanding Mr Kahn remove his security registration from the PPS Register in relation to the Mercedes also constituted Huntermotive’s making an amendment demand for the same reasons I have found Mr Murray’s email of 10 March 2022 constituted an amendment demand.
The next question is whether Huntermotive was justified in instructing Mr Murray to make the amendment demands by sending to Mr Kahn the emails of 10 and 24 March 2022. That turns on whether Huntermotive was the “buyer . . . for value” of the Mercedes. If the effect of the transaction Huntermotive entered into with Ms Bi was to render it a “buyer . . . for value” of the Mercedes, s 43 of the PPS Act would have applied, which means that Huntermotive will have taken the Mercedes free from any unperfected security interest Mr Kahn may have had in it.
The expression “buyer” is not defined in the PPS Act. It would include a buyer under a contract of sale of goods, as such contracts are defined in s 6 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), namely, “a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration called the price”. But “buyer” in s 43 would extend beyond a buyer who agrees to accept the transfer of the property in goods for a money consideration called the price. Subsection 43(1) of the PPS Act refers to “buyer . . . for value” which would include contracts for the transfer of the property in goods for a consideration that is not a money consideration. Thus, for the purpose of s 43 of the PPS Act, a “buyer” of goods or other items of personal property means a person who has accepted, or has agreed to accept, the transfer of property in such goods or other items of personal property for value, whether that value is money or some other item of property that has value.
Huntermotive was the “buyer . . . for value” of the Mercedes. The effect of the agreement Huntermotive entered into with Ms Bi was that Huntermotive agreed to acquire from Ms Bi the property in the Mercedes (together with its being paid $500) for value, that value being Huntermotive transferring or agreeing to transfer to Ms Bi the property in the Ford; and Huntermotive accepted the transfer to it of the property in the Mercedes when it took possession of the Mercedes in exchange for its giving possession of the Ford to Ms Bi.
The transaction between Huntermotive and Ms Bi may be characterised differently. It could be said that Ms Bi’s delivery to Huntermotive of the Mercedes in part exchange for the price of the Ford generated a reciprocal contract of sale under which the price for the Mercedes, as represented by the part exchange allowance of $19,250, was set off against $19,750.01, being the price of the Ford.[1] On this characterisation Huntermotive would also be a “buyer . . . for value” of the Mercedes.
[1] C Procter Goode on Payment Obligations in Commercial and Financial Transactions, Second edition, 2009, at page 12, n. 51
At the time Huntermotive bought the Mercedes Mr Khan either did not have a security interest in the Mercedes or, if he did, it was unperfected. That means that, by the operation of s 43 of the PPS Act, Huntermotive as the “buyer . . . for value” took the Mercedes free from any unperfected security interest Mr Kahn may have had in the Mercedes. That, in turn, means that item 2 of column 1 of the table in s 178(1) of the PPS Act applied to the Mercedes at the time Mr Murray sent to Mr Kahn the emails of 10 and 24 March 2022: the Mercedes was particular collateral in which Huntermotive has an interest that does not secure any obligation owed by a debtor to Mr Kahn.
I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to make an order under s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act requiring the Registrar to register a financing change statement to remove Mr Kahn’s registration of his purported interest in the Mercedes.
COSTS
Costs should follow the event, not only because Huntermotive succeeded on its claims, but also because Huntermotive gave Mr Kahn notice of its intention to commence proceedings if Mr Kahn did not remove his registration of his purported security interest in the Mercedes, and offered him an opportunity to justify the maintenance of the registration of the Mercedes.
Huntermotive submits I should set its costs in the amount of $10,512.16, relying on a “bill of costs” it has filed. The bill of costs includes a filing fee of $1,680 for a “Creditor’s Petition”. That appears to be an error. The $1,680 represents the filing fee for the application Huntermotive filed to commence this proceeding. The amounts claimed in the bill of costs, however, appear to be based on invoices issued wholly in connection with this proceeding. I am satisfied that Huntermotive’s fees and disbursements of $10,512.16 have been reasonably earned and incurred for the purpose of making and pursuing this proceeding, and that I should order that its costs be set in that amount.
DISPOSITION
I will make the following orders:
(a)An order pursuant to r 6.14(1) of the GFL Rules that personal service of the application on Mr Kahn be dispensed with.
(b)An order under r 6.14(3) of the GFL Rules that the application be taken to have been served on Mr Kahn on 18 May 2022 when Mr Basta sent the application and affidavits of Mr Sultana and Mr Murray to Mr Khan’s email address.
(c)An order pursuant to s 182(4)(a) of the PPS Act that the Registrar register a financing change statement to remove Mr Kahn’s registration of his purported interest in the Mercedes.
(d)Mr Kahn pay Huntermotive’s costs set in the amount of $10,512.16.
I will also order that within 3 business days after the day I pronounce these orders Huntermotive serve on Mr Khan these reasons for judgment, a sealed copy of the orders I will pronounce, and a copy of r 17.05 of the GFL Rules, by sending these documents by email to Mr Kahn’s email address.
I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Manousaridis. Associate:
Dated: 30 June 2022
0
0
0