INGRAM & INGRAM

[2016] FamCA 441

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INGRAM & INGRAM [2016] FamCA 441

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where it became apparent that the father was contemplating not participating to any extent in the final hearing – Where the father was given the opportunity to attend and listen to the proceedings by telephone – Where although it was too late for the father to be an active participant, he did not take up that opportunity to attend and listen by telephone – Where the proceedings proceeded on an undefended basis

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Where the parties have three children – Where the oldest is an adult – Where the mother’s application relates to only two of the parties’ children – Where presently the second oldest child lives in the USA with the father and the youngest child lives in Australia with the mother – Where it was agreed that the youngest child should continue to live with the mother and that older child should continue to live with the father in the USA – Where the children have meaningful relationships with both parents – Children’s views – Where given the evidence, it would be counter-productive to make an order forcing the youngest child to travel, which has the potential to be destructive of his relationship with the father – Both children to spend time with their other parent and siblings during school holiday periods in both Australia and the USA

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – Where the mother proposed that the parents should share equally in parental responsibility for each of the children – Where it is certainly an appropriate course given the history of the matter – Parties to have equal shared parental responsibility

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 65DAC
Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), ss 11

APPLICANT: Ms Ingram

RESPONDENT: Mr Ingram

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Fielden & Associates

FILE NUMBER: NCC 1948 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 18 May 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 18 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Flintoff

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Flintoff Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not Applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not Applicable

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Kearney

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Fielden & Associates

Orders

1. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children:

   (a)B born … 1999    (“B”); and

   (b)C born … 2003 (“C”).

2. B live with the father in the United States of America (“USA”).

3. C live with the mother in Australia.

4. B spend time with the mother as agreed between the mother and the father, in consultation with B, but failing agreement as follows:

   (a)

   In Australia for a period of up to 6 weeks from the second week in

   
   

   June 2016 until the last week of July 2016 and for a period of 2 weeks in December 2016 to January 2017 as follows:

   (i)For B’s journey to Australia and return to the USA, the mother shall purchase tickets for B to travel from Utah to Sydney and back at least 14 days before the proposed dates of travel and the mother shall promptly advise the father of the travel itinerary as soon as this is confirmed.

   (ii)The father shall deliver B to the nearest city airport at the time specified by the airline for check-in to be completed prior to the departure of the flight from Utah to Los Angeles.

   (iii)The mother shall deliver B to Sydney International Airport at the time specified by the airline for check-in to be completed prior to the departure of the flight back to the USA.

   (iv)The father shall do all acts and all things to facilitate B’s travel to Australia and the mother shall do all acts and all things to facilitate B’s travel back to the USA.

   (v)The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall forthwith transfer the funds that the mother deposited into her Trust Account for the children’s travel to the mother.

   (vi)If the father accompanies B to Australia, B shall spend half of his time with C and the father and half of his time with C and the mother to maximise the siblings spending time together.

   (b)

   In Australia for a period of up to 6 weeks from the second week in

   
   

   June 2017 until the last week of July 2017 or as agreed during the

   
   

   US Summer Break:

   (i)For B’s journey to Australia and return to the USA, the mother shall purchase a one way ticket for B to travel from Utah to Sydney and back at least 14 days before the proposed dates of travel and the mother shall promptly advise the father of the travel itinerary as soon as this is confirmed.

   (ii)The father shall deliver B to the nearest city airport at the time specified by the airline for check-in to be completed prior to the departure of the flight from Utah to Los Angeles.

   (iii)The mother shall deliver B to Sydney International Airport at the time specified by the airline for check-in to be completed prior to the departure of the flight back to the USA.

   (iv)The father shall do all acts and all things to facilitate B’s travel to Australia and the mother shall do all acts and all things to facilitate B’s travel back to the USA.

   (v)If the father accompanies B to Australia, B shall spend half of his time with C and the father and half of his time with C and the mother to maximise the siblings spending time together.

   (c)During any periods that the mother is travelling  to the USA as follows:

   (i)The mother shall provide the father with 21 days’ notice of her intended travel to the USA.

   (ii)B shall spend time with the mother whilst she is in the USA as agreed between B and the mother.

   (iii)

   If such time occurs during US school holiday periods,

   
   

   B shall spend time with the mother at locations nominated by the mother within the United States of America.

   (iv)If such time occurs during school terms, such time shall occur in the City E area.

   (v)If C accompanies the mother to the USA, B shall spend half such time with the father and C and half such time with the mother and C to enable the siblings to maximise their time together.

5. If the father is travelling to Australia, C shall spend time with the father as agreed between the mother and the father but failing agreement, as follows:

   (a)The father shall provide the mother at least 21 days’ written notice of his intended travel to Australia including an itinerary for C when the father is in Australia and contact details for C’s proposed accommodation.

   (b)If such time occurs during school holiday periods, C shall spend time with the father at locations nominated by the father within the Commonwealth of Australia.

   (c)If such time occurs during school terms, such time shall occur in the F Town area.

   (d)

   During periods of time spent with the father in Australia C shall communicate with the mother be telephone every second day at

   
   

   5.30 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time as adjusted for daylight savings.

   (e)If B accompanies the father to Australia, C shall spend half such time with the father and B and half such time with the mother and B to enable the siblings to maximise their time together.

6. If C is travelling to the USA he shall spend time with the father as follows:

   (a)The mother shall provide 21 days written notice of C’s intended travel to the USA.

   (b)The mother shall book and pay for airline tickets for C and for a responsible adult to accompany him on the flights, noting this may be a fully refundable fare.

   (c)The mother shall promptly advise the father of the cost of C’s airfares.

   (d)The father shall reimburse the mother for one half of C’s airfares within 14 days of a request by the mother to do so.

   (e)If the funds are not received within 14 days, the mother may cancel the booking for C and his adult travelling companion to travel to the USA.

   (f)

   During periods of time spent with the father in the USA C shall communicate with the mother by telephone every second day at

   
   

   5.30 pm local time.

   (g)C shall spend half of his time in the USA with the mother and B and half of his time with the father and B to maximise the time that the siblings spend with each other.

7. C may communicate with his father in accordance with his wishes and as agreed but failing agreement at 9.30 am Sundays Australian Eastern Standard Time as adjusted for daylight savings and non-daylight savings periods.

8. B may communicate with his mother and siblings in accordance with his wishes and as agreed but failing agreement at 9.30 am on Saturdays Australian Eastern Standard Time as adjusted for daylight savings and non-daylight savings periods.

9. The mother shall promptly provide the father with C’s school reports, school photos and any other information pertaining to his long term educational progress and development and the father is authorised by these Orders to discuss C’s educational progress and development directly with C’s school teachers or school representatives.

10. The father shall promptly provide the mother with B’s school reports, school photos and any other information pertaining to his long term educational progress and development and the mother is authorised by these Orders to discuss B’s educational progress and development directly with B’s school teachers or school representatives.

11. The parties shall be restrained from discussing these proceedings or the child support dispute or denigrating each other or any other members of the children’s family in the hearing or presence of the children and shall immediately remove the children from the presence of any third parties engaging in such behaviour.

12. Within 42 days of a written request received by either parent for the renewal of C’s Australian passport, the other parent shall do all acts and all things to complete their section of such passport application and the requesting parent shall pay all fees for the renewal of such passport.

13. Within 42 days of a written request received by either parent to apply for a USA passport for B or to replace his Australian passport before he turns 18 years, the other parent shall do all acts and all things to complete their section of such passport application and the requesting parent shall pay all fees for such passport to be issued.

14. The child C born … 2003 is permitted to travel internationally as provided by s11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and for this purpose in the event that the father does not comply with order 12 insofar as completing an application for the child’s Australian passport, the mother is permitted to apply for the issue of an Australian passport for the said child under the provisions of s11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) without the necessity for the consent of the father.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ingram & Ingram is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 1948 of 2013

Ms Ingram

Applicant

And

Mr Ingram

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. There are applications for parenting orders in respect of two children, B, aged 16 years and eight months, and C, aged 13. 

The Parties

1. The applicant is the mother, aged 47. Her household consists of herself, the parties’ young adult daughter, Ms G, aged 18, and C. She lives in F Town and is employed as a public servant. She has not re-partnered since separation from the father. 

2. The respondent is the father, aged 50. He was born in Country H to Australian parents. He presently lives in Utah, USA. His household consists of himself and B. The father is described by the mother, at least in her first application, as a technician. There has been some reference to the father currently having a girlfriend, but there is no current information before the Court other than that. 

3. The children were represented by an Independent Children’s Lawyer throughout the proceedings.

Short History of Relevant Events

1. The parties married and began living together in 1990. 

2. Their first child, Ms G, was born in 1997, and thereafter the mother did not return to work for about nine years. The father continued to work full-time. 

3. At some time in 1998 or 1999, the parties began discussion about a move to the USA for job prospects for the father. 

4. In 1999 B was born. When he was about six months old, the parties travelled to the USA and returned.

5. In October 2001, the parties moved with their two children to the USA. 

6. In 2003 C was born.

7. In August 2006 the mother began some part-time work and it appears that in 2007, C, then aged about four years, began exhibiting some symptoms of anxiety; at least separation anxiety in relation to the mother. 

8. Early in 2013 there was discussion, the mother says initiated by the father, about the end of their marriage. At that time, the parties lived in the USA in a property they had purchased and which was subject to a mortgage.

9. Early in 2013 the parties separated but remained living under the one roof.  The mother says she became concerned about how she would manage financially after separation, for a variety of reasons.

10. In June 2013 the mother left the USA with the three children for a holiday in Australia. Whilst the mother was in Australia, she made the decision not to return to the USA and informed the father accordingly. There has been conflict, disappointment and hostility between the parties since that time. The three children were all enrolled in school in Australia. 

11. In August 2013 the mother filed an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit Court in Newcastle, which was transferred to this Court. She proposed a raft of parenting orders, which involved the children living with her and spending time with the father. The matter progressed in the Court quite quickly. 

12. On 17 October 2013 an application was made to the Family Court in the Sydney Registry, initiated through the Hague Convention, for the return of the C and B to the USA. The matter went before that court on 21 October 2013 and directions were made for the hearing of that application.

13. On 28 November 2013 the matter took a different turn. The parties reached some interim consent orders, namely, Ms G and C would live with the mother in Australia and B would live with the father in the USA. There were also orders made setting out how and when the children would see each other and the other parent. The application by the Director-General in respect of the Hague Convention was dismissed at that time. 

14. In September 2014 orders in this Court were made, noting at that time, that neither party had been able to afford to permit the children to travel overseas in order to see each other, and that the father and B would be visiting Australia in December 2014. In December 2014 the father and B did travel from the USA to Australia, so the children could spend time with each other and the other parent. 

15. On 14 January 2015 the parties and all three children were seen at a Child Inclusive Conference. During the course of that conference, B indicated that he would prefer to come back and live in Australia. Soon after, the mother filed an Application in a Case making an application to support that apparent wish. The father was opposed to the change and quite quickly B changed his position and decided that he would, in fact, return to live in the USA. 

16. Since that time, B has continued to live in the USA with the father and Ms G and C have lived with the mother in Australia. 

17. On 17 July 2015 there were procedural orders made for the final hearing of the mother’s application. An Amended Initiating Application was filed by the mother on 29 July 2015. The father had filed a Response to the original Initial Application, but it contained more of a resisting of the jurisdiction and opposition to the orders sought by the mother than a particular set of parenting orders.

18. On 3 September 2015 there was no appearance by the father.  At that time, the Court noted that there was a forum issue to be determined between Australia and the State of Utah. There is no doubt that this Court had jurisdiction over parenting issues. It may be that the Court in Utah could also have had jurisdiction, however, it is clear that the Court in Utah, for its own purposes, made a declaration. Exhibit 5 is the “Stipulation and Property Settlement Agreement and Divorce “of the parties in Utah.  Paragraph 2 of that document makes this statement:

    Children. The parties have two minor children. All issues relating to child custody, parent time visitation, and child support fall under the jurisdiction of the Australian legal system. The scope of this Utah divorce matter is limited to division of marital assets and debts, the question of spousal support, and marital status.

19. In September 2015 the father sought a stay application of the parenting orders, whilst property proceedings were concluded in Utah. On 17 September 2015 that application was dismissed and the hearing dates in March 2016 were confirmed. 

20. Subsequently, the father made an application to the Court for the vacation of the March 2016 hearing dates on the basis that he required surgery, which would affect his hearing and he would be unable to properly participate in the proceedings. Fresh hearing dates were set down in May 2016. 

21. Either in February or March 2016, the property settlement between the parties was finalised. 

22. The mother thereafter filed an affidavit by herself and an affidavit sworn by the maternal grandfather. 

23. On 28 April 2016 it was clear, because the father had not filed any material, that there could be a problem with his participation in the adjourned hearing.  Orders were made that the hearing would proceed on 18 May 2016 for three days, and that the father was to confirm that he would be participating in the proceedings, but if he did not do so, the matter would reduce to a one day hearing on 18 May 2016, undefended by the father. On that occasion, the father did not attend by telephone. 

24. On 17 May 2016, the father sent an email to the solicitors for the mother, and included the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Court. A part of it, that part which did not relate to a proposal to resolve the matter said this:[1]

    For that it’s worth, here is my suggestions [sic] for a way forward. You, of course, can get the heavy handed approach from the Judge, but please NOTE I will not comply, as per my earlier email.

    [1] Exhibit 7

25. It became apparent that the father was contemplating not participating to any extent. In that correspondence, the father also noted that he would cover the costs of B’s passport if the mother would cover the costs of C’s.  There has always been an undercurrent of co-operation between the parents, which is probably a reflection of their long marriage prior to separation.

26. On 17 May 2016, quite late in the evening, an email arrived from the father asking for a phone number so that he could participate in the proceedings.[2]

    
    

    A phone line was opened for the father to attend and listen to the proceedings.  Whilst it was made clear that it was too late for him to be an active participant, the father did not take up that opportunity. The line remained open during the course of the hearing, which commenced at 10.10 am this morning, but the father did not come on to the line at any stage.

    [2] Exhibit 8

Evidence

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

   The Mother

   (a)Amended Initiating Application filed 29/07/2015, which was subsequently superseded by a minute of order proposed jointly on behalf of herself and the Independent Children’s Lawyer[3];

   [3] Exhibit 3

   (b)Affidavit of the mother filed 13/04/2016;

   (c)Affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 13/04/2016;

   The Father

   (d)Response filed 14/09/2015; and

   Reports

   (e)Child Inclusive Memorandum dated 14/01/2015.

1. Both the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer filed Case Outlines.

2. There was also some evidence from cross-examination of the mother and further evidence and submissions on behalf of the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

The Law

Parental Responsibility

1. When the Court is asked to make parenting orders, certain presumptions arise.  One of them is that parents should have equal shared parental responsibility. 

2. In this case, the mother proposes that that should be the position; that the parents should share equally in parental responsibility for each of the children – B who lives with the father and C who lives with the mother.  It is certainly an appropriate course, given the history of the matter.

3. Section 65DAC(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets out what it takes for parents to share parental responsibility by way of consultation and making a genuine effort for a joint decision to be made.

4. The mother proposes, and it is undisputed by the father, that C should continue to live with her and that B should continue to live with the father in the USA. 

5. The proceedings were really to determine what time and communication should take place between each of the two children with the other parent.

6. The joint minute proposed, which has been made with only the most minor variation, is for two trips for B to Australia, which the mother has proposed through the orders to fully fund herself.  This will represent a benefit for B, who will be able to spend time not only with the mother, but both his siblings in Australia. 

7. There is also provision for C to spend time with the father and B at any time that they came to Australia. 

8. Likewise, there is provision for orders that if the mother and C were to travel to the USA, then time could be spent in a particular way.

9. There is no defined proposal for C to travel and spend time at a particular time in the USA, and in that respect, C’s wishes are something that the Court is obliged to consider (referred to below).

Primary Considerations

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected or exposed to abuse or family violence

1. The children do have meaningful relationships with both their parents. They are able to keep in contact electronically and by phone. Of course, it is difficult to be separated by continents. 

Additional Considerations

Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

1. B appears to be clear that he would like to visit Australia but that he is confident that his place presently is in the USA. 

2. C is confident that his place is in Australia, but does not wish to travel for a holiday yet. He would like to see the father and brother. He is reported as having broken into tears at the thought of conflict over staying in the USA. 

3. C is now 13 years and in year 8 at High School.  I am confident that both he and B have been kept advised and consulted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer about these proceedings in a way designed to allay their fears. 

4. Nevertheless, C is apparently rather an anxious child and has been since he was about four years of age. He has been seeing a clinical psychologist, most recently Ms D, and her records, or at least some of them, became Exhibit 6 in the proceedings.

5. Unsurprisingly, C expressed how much he missed B, to Ms D.  He also stated that he found that the rule that he spoke to the father every week by phone something that he did not like. I can accept that the rule for a phone call might be upsetting to him, but on balance, it ensures that that link is maintained and should continue. 

6. Ms D, knowing that the matter was going to be finalised, assisted him to identify the “pros and cons” of spending time to see the father and B in the USA.  C was able to identify the positive benefits of his doing that, that he would see the father, B, his friends in the USA and his dog.  The things that deterred him from wanting to do that was his fear the father would “hassle him to stay and yell at him”. He expressed the view that the father was not really listening to his wishes and that, finally, during the course of this session, C said he realised that he just could not face the hassling, “[I hate] it so much.” 

7. It seems that C, who was already inclined to be anxious, has been impacted by the conflict between his parents and the separation of his family, and his greatest worry is that he will go to the USA and be not allowed, or at least discouraged from, returning home.

8. He expressed a very clear view when interviewed for the Child Inclusive Conference in January 2015. The Family Consultant reports this, “C presented as a friendly and thoughtful boy”. She went on to set out the things that he enjoyed about living in Australia and then said this:

   [C] reports experiencing strong and (emotionally) close connections/ relationships with his mother, sister, friendships and school community in [F Town] … He feels very happy about having been able to see [B] and spend time with him. He said he missed his brother.

9. C expressed some concern and anxiety at the thought of not living with the mother in Australia, as was his clear preference. He indicated that he has enjoyed seeing the father and spending time with him over Christmas, albeit he has preferred it when they have spent time together in F Town rather than in Sydney.  Crucially, the final point for C was: 

   Whilst happy to spend time with his father, [C] said that he does not want to travel to America to see his father until he is “lots older”. This is due to his worrying that his father would not allow him to return to Australia at the conclusion of a holiday or alternatively, his father might make him feel “bad” or guilty for not electing to stay in Utah with him.

10. It seems that for the year and a half year approximately since, C has continued to worry in that way and to fear the consequences of spending holiday time in the USA.

11. At 13 years of age, and having the history of C in the evidence before me, I conclude that it would be quite counter-productive to make an order forcing C to travel, which has the potential to be destructive of the relationship between C and the father. 

12. C’s confidence appears to be increasing. Ms D refers to having assisted him with cognitive behaviour therapy and taught him to test his own worried thoughts, which has caused his confidence to grow.[4] 

    [4] Exhibit 6

13. When C is ready to initiate spending holiday time with the father, the mother would be well advised to allow that to happen, and I am confident that if the wish came from C himself and was clear, she would facilitate that. 

14. However, on the evidence before me, as I said, it should not be forced in the context where there is still considerable disagreement and unhappiness between the parents, which all three children have been exposed to and which clearly affects C very much.

15. I give considerable weight to C’s views and wishes. 

The nature of the relationship of the child with each of their parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The children have important relationships with both their parents and the maternal and paternal family in Australia. 

The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions, to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child

1. The parties are responsible parents who have the capacity to meet the emotional, educational needs of the children and that is reflected in the position of equal shared parental responsibility.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

1. There is still some dispute between the parents about money. 

2. The property settlement has been resolved, although the money in question to be transferred to the mother has not yet been paid.[5]

   [5] Exhibit 5

3. There is a debt associated with child support owed by the father to the mother; the mother of about $10,000.[6] 

   [6] Affidavit of the mother filed 13/04/2016, Annexure E

4. There is a current child support assessment for about $64 per week to be paid by the mother on account of B, increasing, apparently, to $71 per week in 2017.[7] That situation is apparently in dispute.

   [7] Exhibit 4

5. Nevertheless, each parent is working and supporting the child in their care.

Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of future proceedings in relation to the child

1. I have given this matter some thought. 

2. If there were no defined orders for time for either of the children, it is likely that there would be more applications by one or both parties over what to do for the five years until all children have reached 18 years of age. 

3. Defined orders such as proposed by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer do lead to the possibility of contravention applications if they do not take place. 

4. The mother pragmatically conceded in the witness box that it is possible that B will not travel to Australia, despite her offer to fund two trips for him, but she is hopeful that he will. It would certainly be a benefit for all the children and both parents if that happened.

5. It is also possible that the father will not come to Australia with B or alone to visit C and his older sister but, again, it would certainly be a benefit for the children if he did, especially if he was able to inspire confidence in C that, if he were to come and enjoy a holiday in the USA, there would be no doubt whatsoever that he would be returned to Australia in accordance with his wishes.

Conclusion

1. For those reasons, I have made the Orders which are now distributed. 

2. A copy of those Orders will be emailed to the father and I will arrange for a copy of these ex tempore reasons for judgment to be extracted and provided to all parties.

Costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer makes an application, as is required of her, for a contribution by the parties to her costs. 

2. As I have said over the last three years, I am confident that the Independent Children's Lawyer has provided appropriate information and has sought appropriate information from the children about their own views and wishes.  It is of great assistance to the Court, particularly in circumstances such as this where there has only been limited participation by the father, which does not represent any lack of interest by him in the children, but is part of the particular circumstances of this family.

Financial Hardship

1. I am obliged to consider whether it would impose financial hardship on either party for a costs order to be made. 

2. The parties are both working, they do have some assets, but the mother has borne the costs of bringing the parenting proceedings to conclusion. 

3. In circumstances where the mother has not yet received the benefit of what will be a reasonably modest property settlement and has the exclusive care of two of the parties’ children, and where she is likely will have to fund the tickets if that offer is taken up through the Orders, I consider it would impose financial hardship on the mother in the circumstances. 

4. I am not in a position to know the father’s circumstances. He has not provided information of that kind, although he is working. He has paid out the mother’s interest in a property in the USA and has a mortgage and one of the children to support. I am not prepared to make an order for his contribution, absent that kind of information, but with sufficient information to know that there could be an unfair impact on B if an order is made.

Conclusion

1. Accordingly, for reasons unrelated to the assistance provided to the Court by the Independent Children's Lawyer, I decline the application.

I certify that the preceding seventy nine (79) paragraphs are a true copy of the

ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 18 May 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  30 May 2016