J and McC
[2003] FMCAfam 35
•17 February 2003
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| J & McC | [2003] FMCAfam 35 |
| CHILD MAINTENANCE – Child over age of 18 years with special needs – relevance of income tested pension. Family Law Act 1975, ss.66B, 66C, 66H, 66J, 66K, 66L |
Houlihan v Houlihan (1991) FLC 92-248
Coon & Cox (1994) 17 Fam L.R. 692
Ganter v Grimshaw (1998) FLC 92-810
Beck v Sliwka (1992) 15 FLR 520
| Applicant: | A J |
| Respondent: | S G McC |
| File No: | DNM 2583 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 17 February 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Darwin |
| Hearing date: | 10 February 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Brown FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms M Orwin |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Janet Terry |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr I Brewer |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | David Gibbs and Associates |
ORDERS
That the father pay to the mother pursuant to section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975 for the maintenance of the child T J McC born
26 October 1984 the sum of $116.00 per week, the first payment to be made on the 20th of February 2003.That the above order be reviewed in twelve (12) months time and the application and response be re-listed at 9.30am on 24 February 2004.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNM2583 of 2002
| A J |
Applicant
And
| S G McC |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Applications
These proceedings relate to the appropriate level of maintenance payable for the parties disabled son, T J McC, who has recently turned 18 years of age. The parties to the proceedings are T’s parents, his mother, A J and his father, S G McC. The mother is the applicant in the proceedings. By way of her amended application filed on the 20th of January 2003, she seeks the following orders:
1)That the father pay $225.00 per week by the way of child support for ongoing care of the child T McC.
2)That the matter be reviewed in 12 months.
In his response filed on the 21st of November, 2002, the father seeks the following orders:
1)That pending further hearing of the application, the respondent continue making maintenance payments to the applicant at the rate of $200.00 per fortnight.
2)That further hearing of the application be adjourned for a period of 12 months.
The proceedings are governed by Division 7 of Part VII of the Family Law Act and in particular by section 66L. Prior to his eighteenth birthday, the father was paying child support in respect of T as assessed pursuant to the applicable formula in the Child Support (Assessment) Act. Now T has reached the age of 18, it falls to this Court to determine the appropriate level of maintenance to be paid for him. It is common ground between the parties that T is severely disabled and will be unable to provide for his own financial support, other than through his entitlement to an income tested pension. Notwithstanding this pension, the burden of providing financially for T is likely to be heavy and to continue for the indefinite future. It is the duty of the Court to determine how that burden should be divided between the parties, at least for the next twelve months, after which they both agree there should be a review of any order made.
Background
The mother was born on the 29th of June, 1959. The father was born on the 22nd of August, 1959. The parties married on the 1st of December 1979 and separated on the 18th of November 1989. The marriage between them was dissolved on the 17th of July 1991. T is their only child. He was born on the 26th of October 1984. He suffers from Pitt-Rojer-Dank Syndrome, which has resulted in him having a severe intellectual impairment and behaviour disorder. He requires permanent care to assist him with bathing, feeding, dressing and toileting. He is incontinent. He has limited skills to provide for his own needs and has limited verbal skills. In essence, T needs someone available to assist him twenty-four hours per day.
T currently lives with his mother in Darwin. She has provided the majority of his care since T was born. She has re-partnered and has a son, D E, who is aged eight. She has some part time work as a self-employed piano teacher.
Until the end of last year, T attended school on a weekly basis from Monday to Friday. That is no longer possible and other arrangements have had to be made for his care. On each Monday, he spends ten hours with a paid carer from Anglicare. This service is funded fully by government. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, he attends his former school, the H School in Wanguri. He also attends after school care on these days. There is no charge for either of these services. On Wednesdays and Fridays, T attends the Life Style Option Program at Carpentaria Disability Services. There is a small fee for this service of about $15.00 per week. Accordingly, T is in the care of others, apart from his mother, for between 36 and 37 hours per week.
The mother has an entitlement to one weekend per month of subsidised respite care in respect of T. This costs her $120.00 per month.
The father has also re-partnered. He and his wife live in Mornington in Victoria. He is a non-commissioned officer in the Royal Australian Navy. He is an instructor at the Navy’s Survival Training School at HMAS Cerberus near Hastings. His wife has a job in the fitness industry. She has three children from an earlier relationship, namely, C B aged 16, M B aged 12 and M B aged 10. M and M live at home with Mr and Mrs McC. However, C is working in North Queensland. The father’s annual salary is in the vicinity of $54,626.00. He and his wife are living in rented accommodation. There is no doubt that he is stretched financially.
The father recently visited T in Darwin. This was his first visit in about four years. The mother would dearly like him to visit more frequently, so that she and her family can have a break from caring for T. The father borrowed money to visit Darwin. It is his position that he would like to visit more often, however if the level of maintenance for T is set too high, he will be precluded from visiting T, for financial reasons. Ultimately the father believes this will be to T’s detriment, as it will deprive him of the opportunity of developing a relationship with his father. Accordingly, it is the father’s position that some sort of allowance should be made in the calculation of maintenance for T, to take into account the high cost of contact, because of the necessity for the father to travel to and from Darwin. It is the father’s position that the situation is akin to a departure application pursuant to section 117(2)(b)(i)(A) of the ChildSupport (Assessment) Act, involving high cost of contact. In this regard, I was referred to Houlihan v Houlihan[1].
[1] (1991) FLC 92-248
Prior to the 26th of October 2002, the father was paying a sum of approximately $119.00 per week child support for T, pursuant to the relevant administrative assessment. On the 17th of December 2002, I made an interim order that the father continue paying maintenance for T at the rate of $124.00 per week, until this matter could be heard on a final basis. At the present time, the father is $1397.50 in arrears in respect of this order and other earlier assessments of child support.
It is the father’s position that his present financial circumstances preclude him from paying any more than $100.00 per week in respect of T’s financial support. At present, he has a number of pressing debts, which include money he borrowed to visit T in Darwin; a fine of $6,000.00 which he incurred for maliciously damaging property and which was imposed by the Nowra Magistrates Court; as well as other debts incurred for the provision of consumer goods and, in particular, a motor vehicle as well as a debt to Telstra. He also argues that the reality of his situation is that he is, in part, supporting M and M, although he has no formal, legal obligation to do so.
He also argues that the fact he lives in Victoria and T lives in Darwin, make it appropriate that some sort of allowance be made for the high cost of him visiting Darwin from time to time. He borrowed approximately $1,000.00 to visit T in Darwin last December. This sum covered his airfares, but did not include accommodation expenses. He argues that a sum of approximately $20.00 per week should be factored into the Court’s calculations, to allow for the costs of contact. It is his position that his contact with T and the relief it will provide to the mother and her family in the care of T, are akin to maintenance.
It is the mother’s position that, given T’s special needs, the sum of $225.00 per week, represents a more appropriate level of maintenance for him. T utilises a large amount of bed linen and breaks items around the home, particularly cassette and CD players, as well as CDs and tapes. There is no doubt that there are many and varied expenses related to the care of T. These include the high cost of respite care. It is the mother’s position that, if the father is in straightened financial circumstances, those circumstances are of his own making and T should not suffer the consequences of unwise decisions made by the father both of a personal and a financial nature. In this, she includes the fine the father incurred at Nowra and which, he is paying off at the rate of $47.50 per week. The fine will be paid in full by October 2003.
The mother contrasts the position of her own family, who have not been able to have a holiday for several years, due to her responsibility to provide for T, with that of the father and his family, who have incurred debts in respect of past holidays. In essence, it is the mother’s position that the father’s duty to support T has priority over the monies the father expends in respect of M and M, whom the father has no legal duty to financially maintain. It is the mother’s position that the costs of maintaining T should include provision for respite care on a casual and yearly basis, to enable her and her family to take a holiday.
These, in brief, are the issues between the parties in this matter.
The law
The law in relation to child maintenance is set out in Division 7 of Part VII of the Family Law Act.
Section 66B sets out the principle objects of this division. These objects include ensuring that children receive a proper level of financial support from both their parents; that children have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both their parents and that parents share equitably in the support of their children.
Section 66C places the primary duty of maintaining children upon the parents of those children. This duty has priority over all other commitments a parent has other than those commitments necessary to support him or herself, or any other children that he or she has a legal duty to maintain. Thus in the present case, the duty to support T resides solely with Ms J and Mr McC. The Court must ensure that, as far as possible, this duty is met equally by both Mr McC and Ms J, from shares in their respective incomes, earning capacities, assets and financial resources. In essence, the law requires parents to share the burden of maintaining their child, according to the levels of their respective means, so far as this is equitable. In this case, because of his undoubted special needs, the costs of maintaining T are likely to be substantial in the short to medium term. It is uncertain whether in future, some sort of supported accommodation may be available for T and what the cost of this will be. The consequence of this, is that the parties must make sacrifices to ensure that each of them makes an equitable contribution to T’s financial support.
The approach that the Court must take in assessing a child maintenance order is set out in section 66H. It is essentially a two step process. Firstly the Court must consider the level of financial support necessary for the maintenance of the child. Secondly the Court must determine what contributions each parent should make to providing that financial support[2].
[2] See Coon & Cox (1994) 17 Fam L.R. 692
Section 66L of the Family Law Act provides the circumstances in which maintenance is payable for a child over the age of 18 years. Section 66L reads as follows:
“A court must not make a child maintenance order in relation to a child who is 18 or over unless the court is satisfied that the provision of the maintenance is necessary:
(a)to enable the child to complete his or her education; or
(b)because of a mental or physical disability of the child.”
In this case there was no dispute between the parties that section 66L(b) applies and that T is a child who comes within that section because of the level of his disability.
In assessing the financial support required by the child concerned, I am required to consider the matters set out in section 66J. In summary, it is necessary for me to establish the following:
1)The proper needs of the child, which in this case includes any special needs he may have;
2)The income earning capacity of the child;
3)However, I am required to disregard the entitlement of the child to an income-tested pension, allowance or benefit. I may however have regard to any published research in relation to the maintenance of children generally.
In determining what contribution each parent should make to providing T’s financial support, I must have regard to the matters set out in section 66K of the Family Law Act. These matters include the following:
1)The income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the parties;
2)The commitments of the parties that are necessary to enable each of them to support:
i)Himself or herself; or
ii)Any other child or another person that party has a duty to maintain;
3)The direct or indirect costs incurred by the person or other person with whom the child lives in providing care for the child; and
4)Any special circumstances, which have not taken into account in the particular case, would result in injustice or undue hardship to any person [section 66K(1)(e)].
The matters set out in both sections 66J and 66K are subject to the matters mentioned in section 66B and section 66C, to which I have already referred.
The evidence
a) T’s needs and income
The mother provided a list of her estimate of the cost of the various items needed to maintain T as follows:
1. Carpentaria Disability Services Fees
$ 15.00
2. Respite weekends[3]
$ 30.00
3. Bedding
$ 14.00
4. Stereos[4]
$ 12.00
5. Tapes and CDs
$ 10.00
6. Cleaner[5]
$ 10.00
7. Entertainment[6]
$ 20.00
8. Hair cuts
$ 5.00
9. Replacing items broken by T
$ 10.00
10. Lunch with carer on each Monday
$ 10.00
11. Clothing/shoes
$ 10.00
12. Toys, magazines and batteries
$ 10.00
13. Additional respite care[7]
$300.00
14. Board
$ 50.00
15. Food
$ 50.00
16. Telephone[8]
$ 15.00
17. Taxi fares[9]
$ 50.00
18. Petrol money provided for T’s carer on Monday
$ 10.00
19. Toiletries
$ 10.00
20. Petrol
$ 10.00
21. Medicine – both prescription and other
$ 5.00
TOTAL
$386.00
[3] The mother has an entitlement to one weekends subsidised respite care per month at a charge of $120.00 per month.
[4] T enjoys listening to music. He breaks two or three stereos a year and this is the mother’s estimate of the cost of replacements.
[5] Subsidised by the Red Cross
[6] Includes hire of videos; attending Skateworld and Einsteins Amusement Centre
[7] This sum is calculated as providing an annual sum of $1,500.00 which would be used for five weeks respite care ($1,000.00) and short periods of respite care ($400.00)
[8] T is incapable of using the telephone himself. This is the mother’s calculation of the cost of telephone calls that she makes on his behalf in respect of arrangements for his care and for the funding of those arrangements.
[9] This is the mother’s calculation of the cost of taxi fares in addition to those that are subsidised for T
The mother was an honest and frank witness, who is clearly devoted to securing T’s best interests. I formed the impression that she has been a tireless advocate on his behalf. That cannot have been an easy task from time to time. As a result of her efforts, she has been able to obtain additional funding for T’s care, particularly in the form of the care provided on each Monday. This has significantly alleviated the financial burden of caring for T. It is clearly in T’s best interests that he spends as much time away from home as possible. Fortunately, no doubt as a result of the mother’s efforts, the majority of the expense for his care out of the home from Monday to Friday is funded from sources other than T’s parents. She is currently examining future options for T’s care, including the prospects of him living in some form of supported accommodation in future.
At the present time, the funding that the mother has obtained covers only 37 or 38 hours of each week. At other times, the burden of caring for T falls primarily on the mother. Because of T’s needs, which are unremitting, it is a heavy burden. In those circumstances, I think it appropriate that some allowance be made for respite care in respect of the financial arrangements for the care of T. It is not unreasonable for the mother and her family to have an opportunity to have a holiday from time to time.
I think it is also appropriate to make some allowance for the telephone calls that the mother makes on T’s behalf. Arranging carers, lobbying funders and other arrangements in respect of T’s care take up a significant proportion of the mother’s time. I also accept that not all of T’s taxi trips are subsidised. In particular T needs to take taxis to and from Carpentaria Disability Services.
One of the more significant aspects of T’s difficulties, is his propensity to break things, particularly his stereo, CDs, tapes, car mirrors, pot plants and other items. These items have to be replaced. It is neither possible nor reasonable that T and his family live in an environment in which nothing can be broken.
The father does not quibble with most of the items of expense the mother has set down for T, other than that he believes that they are generally at the higher end of the scale and in respect of telephone calls and taxi fares in particular, inflated. In general terms, I agree with the father. However, there can be no doubt that the cost of maintaining T is significant, because of his special needs, particularly in respect of respite care and the replacement of bedding and other broken items. Pursuant to section 66J(2)(b) I am entitled to have regard to published research in relation to child maintenance. In this context, regard is generally to two pieces of research, namely the Lee Scale and the Lovering Scale.
In 1984 Kerry Lovering of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, in a paper entitled ‘Costs of Children in Australia’, published tables relating to the costs of raising children based on a ‘basket of goods’ approach. Included in the basket were food and clothing, fuel, household provisions and so on and so forth.
In 1989 Donald Lee of Deakin University, working under contract to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, published tables relating to the cost of children, based on an expenditure survey approach.
In Coon and Cox[10], Nicholson C.J. indicated a preference for the Lee Scale as being a more accurate approach. He said:
“…the Lee scale published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies… is an approach which I consider realistically takes into account the many and varied and often hidden and neglected costs of maintaining children by custodial parents. It is, I think, a more comprehensive approach than the calculations which go to compromise the Lovering scale which has several important and acknowledged omissions, for example, housing, medical and dental expenses, transport and school uniforms…”
[10] Coon and Cox (supra) at page 695
At the present time, the Lovering Scale gives at the cost of maintaining a teenage child in a low income family, the sum of $91.30 per week and in a middle income family the sum of $151.89 per week. The Lee Scale, as at the August quarter of 2002, gives as the cost of maintaining a child of 11 – 13 years of age, the sum of $290.44 per week.
Bearing in mind the findings of the Lee Scale and particularly bearing in mind T’s special needs, which must necessarily result in there being additional expenses incurred in respect of his care, although some particular items may be inflated, in general terms, I accept that the sum as calculated by the mother is a reasonably accurate estimate of the weekly cost of maintaining T.
T receives a disability support pension each fortnight calculated as follows:
Disability Support Pension
$198.60
Pharmaceutical allowance
$ 5.80
Remote area allowance
$ 18.20
Youth disability supplement
$ 85.30
TOTAL
$307.90
It is clear that at the present time, T has no capacity to earn any income whatsoever. Pursuant to the provisions of section 66J(3)(b)(ii) and section 66K(4)(a) of the Family Law Act, I am required to disregard any entitlement that T has to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit. Income tested pension allowance or benefit is define by regulation 12A of the Family Law Regulations, as including any payment within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1991. No doubt the purpose of these sections was to ensure that the primary responsibility for the support of children remained with their parents, rather than being cast upon the public revenue, through the mechanism of artificial child maintenance orders so as to maximise access to social security benefits[11]. However, in the present case, there can be no suspicion that the parties in this case are attempting to avoid their responsibilities for caring for T and place them on the State. The costs of providing for a child like T are beyond the means of all but the wealthiest in our society. In my view, to apply these provisions strictly, would be to ignore the reality of T’s situation.
[11] See Ganter v Grimshaw (1998) FLC 92-810 at page 85,159
T is incapable of managing any funds on his own behalf. His mother receives his disability pension each fortnight and applies it scrupulously to T’s needs. The sum each week is a significant one, but does not come close to meeting T’s full financial needs. However, it would result in injustice, if I was to disregard the sum. In my view, it is appropriate to calculate the maintenance required by T, on the basis of the short fall between T’s pension and the proper costs of providing for his needs each week.
Accordingly, in calculating the financial support required for T each week, it is necessary to subtract the sum of $153.95 (his weekly pension) from $386.00 (his weekly financial needs), leaving a balance of $232.10, which is the responsibility of his parents to provide. In my view, the extent of T’s disabilities and the resulting high costs of his maintenance, when coupled with the fact that this is clearly not a case where either of the parties are attempting to shift the burden of maintaining T on to the State, are special circumstances within the meaning of section 66K(1)(e) and, as such, it is not appropriate to entirely disregard T’s entitlement to an income tested pension.
b) The mother’s income
The mother is a self-employed piano teacher. She gives lessons when T is occupied during the day. Her average weekly earning are $182.00. In addition, she herself receives a carer’s allowance and a Family Tax Benefits Part A and Part B, amounting to $155.46 per fortnight[12].
[12] Income statement from Family Assistance Office dated 17 January 2003, tendered by the wife
Her partner, Paul E earns $800.00 per week. The mother and Mr E are purchasing their family home, which is subject to a substantial mortgage to Westpac. The mother owns a car worth $14,000.00, which is subject to a loan of $6,000.00. She has no other debts. She owns furniture worth about $15,000.00, the major item of which is, not surprisingly, a grand piano. Her overall financial position indicates a modest income and budgetary restraint and prudence.
c) The father’s income
The father’s gross income is $1,050.50 per week. His major expenses are as follows:
1. Tax
$ 218.00
2. Superannuation
$ 50.00
3. Rent
$ 240.00
4. Trust Fund loan from RAN[13]
$ 84.00
5. Westpac loan
$ 75.00
6. ANZ Bank loan
$ 75.00
7. Repayment of Nowra Magistrates Court fine
$ 47.50
8. Telstra debt[14]
$ 80.00
9. Car loan
$ 70.00
10. Fuel
$ 40.00
11. Credit card debts
$ 90.00
TOTAL
$1,069.50
[13] Calculated as follows: $20.00 per week to pay loan for rental bond and rent in advance; $45.00 per week for loan for furnishings and $19.00 per week to repay loan for Darwin airfare
[14] Debt of $846.00 for telephone calls being paid off at $80.00 per week
The father has no savings. The car he owns is subject to a loan which is greater than its value. His major assets are his furniture and household effects worth $50,000.00. However, he is heavily in debt in respect of these items, through credit card debts and personal loans.
Mrs McC earns $400.00 gross per week through her employment in the fitness industry. It seems that her wage is used to purchase food and other supplies for the family.
The mother is critical of the father for his choice of car and manner of its financing. The car, a 1999 VT Commodore is worth $23,990.00 and is subject to a loan of $28,488.00. The mother is also critical of the father for his level of consumer debt, part of which was incurred to finance holidays for the father, Mrs McC and her three children. The mother is also critical of the father for his conduct, which resulted in his $6,000.00 fine that was imposed by the Nowra Magistrates Court.
However, no matter how critical one may be of the father, there is no escaping the fact that he does not have easy access to surplus amounts of income or any asset that could be easily and immediately sold to realise a significant amount of cash. I do not believe that if his furniture and household goods were sold, they would produce significant funds. However, it is likely that the husband’s financial situation will ease as he pays off his fine and short-term loans.
Conclusions
I think the reality of the situation is that much of T’s general living expenses, particularly his food, board, toiletries, medicine, clothes and like items are met from the pension he receives. However, he has considerable financial requirements beyond these items, which are attributable to his special needs, particularly for respite care and replacement of bedding, stereos and other items and his attendance at Carpentaria Disability Services. This sum is in the vicinity of $232.10 per week. The question is how is this sum to be divided between the parties.
There is no doubt that the father’s income is far superior to that of the wife’s. However, he has arranged his affairs so that he has little financial liquidity available to be allocated for T’s needs. The mother is entitled to be critical of him in this regard. She has shouldered by far the more significant share of the burden of supporting T in recent times. It seems to me that her modest income and much of her time are allocated to providing for T. However, in the short to medium term, the father’s financial burden will most likely ease as he pays off the Royal Australian Navy Trust Fund loan and the Nowra Court fine.
In marked contrast to the husband, the mother has lived a life of restraint and denial, so that T’s needs can be met. She deserves praise for her devotion. I have no doubt that her devotion will continue and she will continue to be a tireless advocate on behalf of T.
However, in spite of the admiration it is natural to feel for the mother, I must be careful not to fix the level of maintenance to be paid by the father, at such a level that it will be impossible for him to meet it. At present, he is already in arrears in respect of the existing maintenance order. He has indicated a willingness and a capacity to pay $100.00 per week by way of maintenance. I think the evidence is clear that he has no capacity to pay $225.00 per week, as the mother currently seeks. Nor, in the circumstances, do I think that such a sum is reasonable.
There is much to be said for the father’s submission that some allowance be made in the calculation of maintenance so that he can afford to save sufficient money to be able to visit T at least once each year. The benefit of this from the mother’s point of view would be to enable her to have a break from caring for T. There would also be some savings of respite care fees. However, to my mind, there is some uncertainty about how often the father will visit. After all, he has only visited once in the previous four years and the history of his financial expenditure to date does not indicate that he places a high priority on visiting T. In those circumstances, I am concerned that to unduly reduce the level of maintenance payable by the father, may result in an injustice to T and the mother, in that the promised visits may not occur.
Although the situation of the parties and T is not strictly analogous to a Stage 2 Child Support matter, in that now T receives a disability pension, which provides for a significant proportion of his financial needs, it is, I think, a useful exercise to see what sum the basic formula would produce, when applied to the father’s income. In doing so, I am conscious that it is not appropriate for me to use the Child Support formula as a substitution for the exercise of my discretion after a consideration of the relevant matters in section 66K, but that I can use it as a final check[15].
[15] See Ganter v Grimshaw (supra) and Beck v Sliwka (1992) 15 FLR 520
The basic child support formula, when applied to the father’s income of $54,626.00, gives a weekly child support payment for one child of $152.14. As neither M nor M are dependent children of the father for the purposes of the formula, they have not been included.
As the father has a much higher income than the mother and is, too a large extent, the author of his current financial woes, I believe that it is appropriate that he contribute the sum of $116.00 per week towards the maintenance of T or half of what I have found to be the costs of his special needs. This is significantly less than the comparable child support assessment, which would be applicable if T were still under the age of 18 years. Although it is more than the father has indicated he is able to pay, it is not significantly so. Nor do I think, as the father’s financial situation eases, does it necessarily preclude him from visiting Darwin in future. I do not believe that in making this assessment I have placed on the father an unmeetable financial burden. To the contrary, I believe, that the reality of the situation is that, of the two parties, it is the mother who will continue to make the more significant sacrifices for the care of T, both financially and generally.
The parties agree that there is some uncertainty about what will be future arrangements for T. For that reason, these orders will only stand for the next twelve months. It will be necessary for the proceedings to be adjourned to a date in February 2004.
For all these reasons the orders of the Court will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Brown FM
Associate: Lynnette Chin
Date: 17 February 2003
12
0
0