Isaac and Isaac - [2016] FCCA 2397

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ISAAC & ISAAC

[2016] FCCA 2397

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Application for a Recovery Order by the Father for the parties’ two children – in circumstances where there is a long history of proceedings – where the Mother alleges psychological and physical abuse by the Father towards the children. HELD – parties’ two children to live with the Father and spend supervised time with the Mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.67Z, 69ZW

Cases cited:

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Applicant:

MR ISAAC

Respondent:

MS ISAAC

File Number:

DGC 400 of 2012

Judgment of:

Judge Bender

Hearing date:

9 September 2016

Date of Last Submission:

9 September 2016

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

14 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Williams

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Lander & Rogers

Counsel for the Respondent:

In person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Not Applicable

ORDERS

All previous parenting orders be discharged.
The Father have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2001 (‘X’) and Y born (omitted) 2005 (‘Y’).
X and Y live with the Father.
The Mother and the Father forthwith do all things and sign all documents necessary to make application to Berry Street Children’s Contact Service in (omitted) (‘the Contact Centre’) to enable supervised time to take place between the Mother, X and Y.
Upon a place becoming available at the Contact Centre, the Mother spend supervised time only with X and Y at the Contact Centre on such days and times as may be facilitated by Berry Street for a period of six months.
The Mother be restrained from contacting (including by text message, Facebook, Skype or phone call) X or Y when they are in the Father's care until the commencement of time pursuant to Order 9 herein.
The Mother is hereby restrained by injunction from attending at either of X and Y’s school at any time when either X or Y are present or at any of their extra-curricular activities until the commencement of time pursuant to Order 9 herein.
The Father is authorised is to provide a copy of these Orders to the principal of X and Y’s school/s and the manager of any of their sporting teams.
Upon the expiration of supervised time pursuant to Order 5 herein, X and Y communicate and spend time with the Mother as follows:
(a)each alternate weekend from after school Friday to before school Monday; and
(b)as otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.
The Father forthwith enrol and complete a Parenting Adolescents Program at LifeWorks Relationship Counselling and Education Services, P: (omitted).
The Mother is hereby ordered to do all things necessary to immediately erase any recordings taken by her or X during the conference with the Family Consultant on 1 September 2016 and is prohibited from copying them or making copies of same available to any other persons or on social media.
In the event the parties agree X shall live with the Mother:
(a)any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Isaac and Isaac

Details

AGLC: Isaac and Isaac [2016] FCCA 2397
Case: [2016] FCCA 2397
Decision Date: 14 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved Mr Isaac (the Father) and Ms Isaac (the Mother) concerning parenting orders for their two children, X and Y. The dispute centred on the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of contact between the children and each parent. The matter was heard by Judge Bender.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the discharge of previous parenting orders, the allocation of sole parental responsibility, the children's primary residence, the arrangements for supervised and unsupervised time between the children and the Mother, and the imposition of injunctions and restraining orders on both parties. Additionally, the court had to consider orders relating to the children's education, medical treatment, and the prevention of them being taken out of the Commonwealth of Australia. The court also had to address specific orders regarding the Mother's conduct, including the erasure of recordings and prohibitions on attending school or extracurricular activities.

Judge Bender's reasoning led to the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The court found that the Father should have sole parental responsibility for X and Y, and that the children should live with him. The Mother was to have supervised time with the children at a contact centre for a period of six months, with specific restrictions on her contact with the children outside of these supervised times. The court also imposed injunctions restraining the Mother from attending the children's school or extracurricular activities during this period. Further orders were made regarding the Father's enrolment in a parenting program, the Mother's obligation to erase recordings, and prohibitions on both parents from discussing the proceedings with the children. Crucially, both children and the parents were restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia, with the Australian Federal Police requested to place the children's names on the Airport Watch List. The court also made orders restraining both parents from denigrating the other to or in the presence of the children, and requiring them to follow professional recommendations regarding Y's learning difficulties.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The Father was granted sole parental responsibility for X and Y, with the children to live with him. The Mother was to have supervised time with the children at a contact centre for six months, with specific restrictions on her contact and attendance at school or extracurricular activities. Injunctions were granted to prevent the children from being taken out of Australia, and both parents were restrained from denigrating each other to the children. All extant applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

All previous parenting orders be discharged.

The Father have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2001 (‘X’) and Y born (omitted) 2005 (‘Y’).

X and Y live with the Father.

The Mother and the Father forthwith do all things and sign all documents necessary to make application to Berry Street Children’s Contact Service in (omitted) (‘the Contact Centre’) to enable supervised time to take place between the Mother, X and Y.

Upon a place becoming available at the Contact Centre, the Mother spend supervised time only with X and Y at the Contact Centre on such days and times as may be facilitated by Berry Street for a period of six months.

The Mother be restrained from contacting (including by text message, Facebook, Skype or phone call) X or Y when they are in the Father's care until the commencement of time pursuant to Order 9 herein.

The Mother is hereby restrained by injunction from attending at either of X and Y’s school at any time when either X or Y are present or at any of their extra-curricular activities until the commencement of time pursuant to Order 9 herein.

The Father is authorised is to provide a copy of these Orders to the principal of X and Y’s school/s and the manager of any of their sporting teams.

Upon the expiration of supervised time pursuant to Order 5 herein, X and Y communicate and spend time with the Mother as follows:

(a) each alternate weekend from after school Friday to before school Monday; and

(b) as otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.

10.

The Father forthwith enrol and complete a Parenting Adolescents Program at LifeWorks Relationship Counselling and Education Services, P: (omitted).

11.

The Mother is hereby ordered to do all things necessary to immediately erase any recordings taken by her or X during the conference with the Family Consultant on 1 September 2016 and is prohibited from copying them or making copies of same available to any other persons or on social media.

12.

In the event the parties agree X shall live with the Mother:

(a) any time X spends with Y shall take place at the Contact Centre or at the Father’s home until the commencement of time pursuant to Order 9 herein; and

(b) X shall spend time with the Father as agreed between Y and the Father.

13.

The Mother be and is hereby restrained from taking X or Y, or either of them, to any counsellors, therapists, psychologists without the Father’s written consent.

14.

The Mother and Father shall not use any form of physical punishment on X or Y, or either of them.

15.

That MR ISAAC, born (omitted) 2001 and Y, born (omitted) 2005 are restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.

16.

That Mr Isaac (“the Father”) and Ms Isaac (“the Mother”) their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the taking or sending of the said children X, born (omitted) 2001 and Y, born (omitted) 2005 from the Commonwealth of Australia.

17.

IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the names of the said children on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children’s names on the Watch list until the Court orders its removal.

18.

This order does not prohibit the taking or sending of the child from Australia to a place outside Australia if it is done with the consent in writing (authenticated as prescribed in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Family Law Regulations)

19.

The Father, his servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the Mother to or in the presence or hearing of the said children or any of them and from permitting any other person so to do.

20.

The Mother, her servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the father to or in the presence or hearing of the said children or any of them, and from permitting any other person so to do.

21.

The Father be permitted to provide a copy of these orders to any medical, speech therapist or other treating professional of X or Y.

22.

The Mother be permitted to receive school reports for X or Y directly from their schools at her expense.

23.

Both parties be and are hereby restrained from discussing these proceedings or showing X or Y documents in these proceedings or permitting any other person to do so.

24.

Both parties follow the recommendations of any treating paediatrician or other professional in relation to Y's diagnosed learning difficulties.

25.

Each party provide the other with at least 28 days advance written notice of any intended change to their residential address or telephone number.

26.

The Father keep the mother informed of:

(a) any serious illness, injury or other significant condition of either X or Y;

(b) any medical emergencies involving X or Y as soon as practicable;

27.

All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

In his lengthy judgment, Judge O’Sullivan set out in some detail the background to the history of the matter in paragraphs 4 – 53 of his judgment. Whilst lengthy, they will be reproduced here as they are of relevance to the matter that is before the Court at this time. Background 4. Before doing so it is timely to set out the background facts and procedural history.5. On the basis of the uncontentious or agreed background facts in the parties’ affidavits, an agreed chronology was prepared which was marked as an exhibit in these proceedings. However where in these reasons there is a statement of fact those are, unless otherwise specified, findings of fact.6. The father is aged 45 and the mother is 37 years of age. The mother has lived overseas in (country omitted) and (country omitted). In 1997 the father arrived in Australia and shortly thereafter his first marriage ended. In March 2000 parties commenced cohabitation. On (omitted) 2001 the eldest child, X was born. X is now aged 11. There were proceedings for intervention orders in 2002.7. On (omitted) 2003 the parties married. In late 2003, 2004 and again in 2005 there was police involvement with the parties following family violence complaints. On (omitted) 2005 the second and youngest child, Y was born. Y is now aged 7.8. In 2006 X commenced school initially at a (omitted) primary school then at (omitted) Primary School followed by (omitted) Primary School after a dispute involving the mother and another family at the former school led to an intervention order being made against the mother. Police involvement with the parties due to domestic violence complaints continued in 2006, 2007 and 2009.9. On 8 October 2011 the father moved out of the matrimonial home.10. On 4 January 2012 Senior Constable A applied for an interim intervention order for the mother and the children with the father named as the respondent. On 30 January 2012 the interim intervention order was granted in favour of the mother and the children.11. On 14 February 2012 the father commenced these proceedings by filing an initiating application which was abridged to be heard on 14 March 2012.12. On 25 February 2012 the mother and the children made statements to the police. On 27 February 2012 at the hearing into the intervention order at the Magistrates’ Court a final order was made by consent of the parties (without admissions) and the children’s names were removed from the order.13. One day later the mother made a further application to vary the intervention order to include the children’s names again. On 28 February 2012 the children were formally interviewed by the police.14. On 3 March 2012 X attended upon Mr L, psychotherapist to commence therapy and continued to attend on a fortnightly basis.15. On 14 March 2012 the father’s initiating application had its first return date before this Court at Dandenong. On that day both parties were represented and the Court made interim consent orders. The Court also made orders for the parties and the children to attend a section 11f child inclusive conference on 3 April 2013, a conciliation conference was listed on 21 May 2012 and the matter was adjourned for mention on 3 April 2013.16. On 2 April 2012 the intervention order hearing was held at the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court. A final intervention order was made by consent, without admissions, including the children and the order contained the usual exemption for orders made under the Act. That order expired on 27 February 2013.17. On 3 April 2012 the proceedings commenced by the father returned before this Court for hearing. On that day the section 11f conference was held with the children and an oral report was provided to the Court by the family consultant. The Court made orders for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Department of Human Services was requested to intervene in the proceedings. The matter was adjourned for mention on 7 May 2012. The Department did not intervene.18. On 7 May 2012 the matter again returned to this Court for hearing. By this time the Independent Children’s Lawyer was on the record, both parties were represented there were interim orders made by consent. There were orders that both parties obtain psychiatric assessments and for a family report to be prepared. The Court also made orders and directions for final hearing in relation to both parenting and property. The proceedings were adjourned to 14 November 2012 for final hearing on both parenting and property.19. On 8 May 2012 the father was charged by the Victoria Police for criminal damage to the former matrimonial home, 4 counts of recklessly causing injury, animal cruelty and unlawful assault.20. The father was also charged with breaching the intervention order as a result of Skype messages to X between 31 January 2012 and 15 February 2012.21. On 24 and 25 July 2012 the parties attended upon Dr T for the purposes of psychiatric assessments. On 26 July 2012 the psychiatric reports prepared by Dr T were released to the parties. On 3 August 2012 the parties then attended for interviews with Dr N for the purpose of preparing the family report.22. On 8 August 2012 X ceased attending upon Mr L.23. On 21 August 2012 the parties attended a Conciliation Conference at Dandenong pursuant to the orders made on 14 March 2012. The parties entered into final property orders by consent at the Conciliation Conference.24. On 5 September 2012 Dr N’s family report was released to the parties which recommended immediate resumption of the children’s time with the father.25. On 19 September 2012 the father’s criminal charges came before the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court. All of the charges against the father were withdrawn by police save for the charge of breach of intervention order in relation to the Skype messages to X, to which the father pleaded guilty and received no conviction.26. In late September 2012 there was correspondence between the solicitors for the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. No agreement was reached on what time the children should spend with the father.27. On 10 October 2012 the mother’s lawyer wrote to the father’s lawyer proposing the commencement of unsupervised time with the children. An agreement was reached and on 13 October 2012 the father commenced spending unsupervised time with the children from 1.30 pm to 5.30 pm, followed by 3 further events on 14 October 2012, 20 October 2012 and 21 October 2012 for the same duration.28. On 23 October 2012 the father filed an amended initiating application seeking inter alia that the children live with him. On 27 October 2012 both children spent unsupervised time with the father from 1.30 pm to 5.30 pm.29. On 28 October 2012 the father was concerned that X may have been attempting to record a conversation with him using a recording device in his pocket. X refused to spend time with the father. Y spent time with the father from 1.30 pm and 5.30 pm.30. On 2 November 2012 the children spent overnight time with the father. On 5 November 2012 the mother made a complaint to the police while the children were in the father’s care claiming the children were scared and needed to be returned to her. The police spoke to the children and did not take any action.31. On 14 November 2012 the parenting proceedings returned to this Court. Both parties were represented and there were interim consent orders for inter alia the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility, the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father each alternate weekend and every Wednesday evening. On 14 November 2012 orders and directions for final hearing on parenting issues were also made including an order for the preparation of an updated report. The final hearing date was subsequently relisted.32. On 16 to 19 November 2012 both children spent time with the father from after school Friday until the commencement of school on Monday in accordance with the interim consent orders.33. The father collected the children from school on 21 November 2012 and spent overnight time with the children until the commencement of school on Thursday morning in accordance with the interim consent orders.34. The children spent the weekend with the father on 30 November 2012 until 3 December 2012 and the children were returned to school at the commencement of school on Monday morning pursuant to the interim consent orders. On 5 December 2012 the father attended the children’s school to collect them and X was not happy about going to spend time with his father. The mother arranged to collect X from school and only Y spent time with the father.35. On 12 December 2012 X spent time with the father. There was as an incident at (omitted) beach. This was the last time X spent time with the father.36. On 14 December 2012 the mother took the children to (omitted) Police Station. X made a statement alleging violence against him which the father denied. The police contacted the father and advised him that the children would not be spending time with him for the weekend occurring on 14 to 17 December 2012.37. An application was made for a variation of the intervention order on behalf of the mother on 14 December 2012. That application said:“The victim in this incident is the son of the respondent and AFM. During a consensual custodial visitation approximately 2 weeks ago the AFM’s son and his younger brother were at the respondent’s house. Both boys were playing a game using a hand held console. The respondent has walked up to X and hit him across his head. The hit was unprovoked and X had a headache for two days as a result. On Wednesday the 12th of December 2012 the respondent has picked up X and his brother after school. Took them swimming down at (omitted). For some reason the respondent has told X not to go near his brother. X has found a large star fish on the beach, he has asked the respondent if he could show his brother. The respondent has given his consent, as X has turned away the respondent has kicked X, this has resulted in bruising to his leg. X is scared to go with his father on visits. When spoken to X breaks down and cries for fear of more assaults. Police and the AFM are seeking a variation to the original intervention order to exclude X from any visitation by the respondent (Family Law Court). Please remove the clause that allows family access.” 38. The reason given for the application to vary the intervention order referred to above was:“I seek to:Have the order varied to exclude the respondent from having any visitation or access rights to 11 year old X pursuant to clause 9 of the existing orders. As well as suspending the current Family Law Court order pursuant to 68R of the Family Law Act.The reasons/grounds for the application are:During visitation pursuant to the Family Court Orders the respondent has walked up to 11 year old X and hit him across the head. X had a headache for 2 days as a result. On 12 December 2012 the respondent has kicked X resulting in a bruise to his leg. X is scared of his father and is in fear of more assaults. Confirmed by police interview.” 39. On 19 December 2012 the application to vary the intervention order came before the Victorian Magistrates Court. An interim order, naming the mother and the children as affected family members, was made ex parte by Magistrate Barrett against the father in the following terms: “The Court orders that the respondent must not:1.Assault, harass, threaten, intimidate or commit family violence against the protected person(s) at any time. Note: The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 denies family violence as behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person that is physically or sexually abusive, emotionally or psychologically abusive, economically abusive, threatening, coercive, or in any other way controls or dominates a family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or well being of that family member or another person. Family violence includes behaviour that cases a child to hear or witness or otherwise be exposed to the effects of these behaviours.2.Intentionally damage any property of the protected person(s) or threaten to do so.3.Attempt to locate, follow the protected person(s) or keep them under surveillance.4.Publish on the internet, by email other electronic communication any material about the protected person(s) including social sites.5.Contact or communicate with a protection person by any means including phone, text and email.6.Approach or remain within 10 metres of a protected person.7.Go to or remain within 200 metres of (omitted) or any other place where a protected person lives, works or attends school or child care. 8.Get another person to do anything the respondent must not do under this order.9.The respondent may:(a) do anything that is permitted by a Family Law Act order, a child protection order or a written agreement about child arrangements; if made after today and in contemplation of this application, but subject to paragraph 10 of interim. (b) communicate with a protected person through a lawyer or mediator; or police.(c) arrange and/or participate in counselling or medication; or (d) go to the home of a protected person, in the company of a police officer or a person chosen by the applicant, to collect personal property by phone arrangement But only if the respondent does not commit family violence while doing so.10.Further order that no child contact pursuant to s91(1) and (2) of the Family Violence Protection Act & on the basis of the evidence before the Court and being satisfied that the safety of a child may be jeopardized by contact with the respondent – the respondent must not:(a) live in the same place as; or(b) spend time with or have contact with; or communicate with X protected by this order until further order of a court made after consideration of this application and conditions of this family violence protection order.11. OTHER order:That pursuant to paragraph 14 of the interim order made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 14 November 2012 that the Independent Children’s Lawyer speak to the children, and is granted liberty to make any submissions deemed appropriate on the return date.This intervention order expires on 7/1/2013, unless extended or varied prior to that time. The current interim intervention order will remain in place until this final intervention order is served on the respondent.” (emphasis added) 40. The father was not at that hearing and did not consent to the order. The father was served with the interim intervention order that evening. On the same day the father attended the children’s school to the collect the children in accordance with the interim consent orders. The mother was also present at the children’s school. X left with the mother. The father took Y home with him. The Police did not remove Y from the father’s care.41. On 20 December 2012 the father filed an application in a case seeking that the children reside with him. That application was listed for hearing on 25 March 2013. On 21 December 2012 the mother also filed an application in a case seeking to suspend the interim consent orders made on 14 November 2012 in relation to X and that X attend counselling. That application was also listed for hearing in this Court on 25 March 2013.42. On 22 December 2012 the father collected Y from school and spent time with him in accordance with the interim consent orders. The child X did not spend time with the father. The father returned Y to the mother’s care on 1 January 2013. This was the last occasion the child Y spent time with the father.43. The application to vary the intervention order was listed for mention in the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court on 8 January 2013. That hearing was adjourned for a contested hearing before Magistrate Barrett on 21 January 2013.44. On 10 January 2013 the mother, who was by this time unrepresented, sent an email to the father’s lawyer stating that she consented to the father spending time with Y from 15 January 2013 to 27 January 2013 provided that the father returned Y for 21 and 22 January 2013 so that he can attend a wedding. The father agreed to those arrangements.45. On 15 January 2013 the mother failed to attend changeover with Y for Y to spend time with the father.46. On 21 January 2013 the parties return to the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court for a contested hearing over the intervention order. The variation application was dismissed and the following orders were made:“The following person/s are protected by this order:First Named Affected Family Member – Isaac, Ms Isaac Second Named Affected Family Member -Isaac, (sic) YThird Named Affected Family Member – Isaac, (sic) XThe Court orders that the respondent must not:1.Assault, harass, threaten, intimidate or commit family violence against a protected person(s) at any time. Note: The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 denies family violence as behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person that is physically or sexually abusive, emotionally or psychologically abusive, economically abusive, threatening, coercive, or in any other way controls or dominates a family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or well being of that family member or another person. Family violence includes behaviour that cases a child to hear or witness or otherwise be exposed to the effects of these behaviours.2.Intentionally damage any property of the protected person(s) or threaten to do so.3.Attempt to locate, follow the protect person(s) or keep them under surveillance.4.Publish on the internet, by email or other electronic communication any material about the protected person(s) including social sites.5.Contact or communicate with a protected person by any means including phone, text and email.6.Approach or remain within 10 metres of a protected person.7.Go to or remain within 200 metres of (omitted), or any other place where a protected person lives, works or attends school or childcare.8.Get another person to do anything the respondent must not do under this order.9.The respondent may:(a)do anything that is permitted by a Family Law Act order, a child protection order or a written agreement about child arrangements;(b)communicate with a protected person through a lawyer or mediator; or police(c)arrange and/or participate in counselling or mediation; or(d)go to the home of a protected person, in the company of a police officer or a person chosen by the applicant, to collect personal property by phone agreement BUT ONLY IF the respondent does not commit family violence while doing so.This interim intervention order will last until final order, unless varied or revoked; or if the application is withdraw.” (emphasis added)47. As will be clear from the above, this last order removed the purported suspension of the interim parenting orders made in November 2012 in this Court. The proceedings in the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court were adjourned sine die pending the outcome of these proceedings.48. On 24 January 2013 the father filed a contravention application which was listed on 25 March 2013. On 26 January 2013 the father attended the children’s school to collect them. The mother was already in attendance at the children’s school and took the children home with her.49. On 31 January 2013 the mother took the child X to see Ms L. X attended approximately weekly after this.50. On 5 February 2013 the mother filed an application in a case which sought to “withdraw” the orders made on 14 November 2012, for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the children’s time with the father to be supervised at a contact centre. The mother also sought orders for the children to attend counselling and for their names to be removed from the Airport Watch List.51. The child X attended upon Ms L for the last time on 7 March 2013. On that day, the mother’s current solicitors filed a notice of address for service.52. On 12 March 2013 an updated family report was prepared by Dr N and released to the parties.53. The father filed a further amended initiating application on 22 March 2013. The father sought in his application for the children to live with him and spend time with the mother in accordance with Dr N’s recommendations. The Independent Children’s Lawyer filed an outline of case on 27 March 2013. The mother filed further affidavits in support and an outline of case on 28 March 2013.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.