Joyce and Australian Postal Corporation - [2001] AATA 491

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 491

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) Nos V1999/1483

) V1999/1484

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )           V2000/795 V2001/107
           Re      TERRYANN JOYCE
  Applicant
           And    AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr B.G. Gibbs, AM, Senior Member Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member Dr P. Fricker, Member

Date5 June 2001
PlaceMelbourne

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the (4) decisions under review.
  (Sgd.)    B.G. GIBBS
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – post traumatic stress disorder – neck and right shoulder pain, right lateral chest wall and bruised right lateral ribs – whether effects ceased by specified dates – decisions affirmed.
Words and Phrases
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss. 4(1), 14(1), 16(1), 16(2)

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 June 2001 Mr B.G. Gibbs, AM, Senior Member Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member Dr P. Fricker, Member
Introduction

Mrs Terryann Joyce, the applicant in these proceedings, seeks review of four reviewable decisions made by the respondent.
The reviewable decisions in question were made on the following dates:

26 October 1999
19 November 1999
5 May 2000
15 January 2001

The reviewable decisions raise a number of issues for determination by the Tribunal, as follows:

Decision dated 26 October 1999
Whether temporary episode of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood ("PTSD") ceased on 18 August 1999 (File No. V1999/1483);
Decision dated 19 November 1999
Whether the effects of temporary neck pain ceased on 27 August 1999 (File No. V1999/1484);
Decision dated 5 May 2000
Whether liability for "right lateral chest wall and bruised right lateral ribs" should have ceased on 28 January 2000 (File No. V1999/795);
Decision dated 15 January 2001
Whether there was a recurrence of neck and shoulder pain allegedly sustained on 30 August 2000 (File No. V2001/107).

Representation

At the hearing Mrs Joyce was represented by her solicitor Mr Carey, and Mr Moulds, of Counsel, appeared for the respondent.
The Tribunal had before it documents ("the T documents") lodged by the respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Other material, to some of which it shall be necessary to refer, was also received in evidence.
Witnesses
Evidence was given by:

Mrs Joyce, the applicant
Dr R.P. Hain
Dr J.M. Le Bas
Dr L.A. Walton
Dr C. Moore

Relevant Legislation

Section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), provides that Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Act, in respect of an injury suffered by an employee, if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
Section 4 of the Act states that:
" 'injury' means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment."
Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of circumstances in which an injury to an employee, shall be treated as having arisen out of, or in the course of his or her employment.
Section 16 of the Act provides that, where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment. The liability on the part of Comcare applies whether or not the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
Background – General
Mrs Joyce was born on 6 August 1954 and since 1992 she has been employed by the respondent as a Postal Services Officer.
As we have indicated, the reviewable decisions before the Tribunal raise a number of issues for determination.
The first issue relates to an incident on 27 July 1997, where a member of the public allegedly threatened Mrs Joyce at the Mornington Post Office.
The second issue relates to a motor vehicle accident on 15 June 1999, while Mrs Joyce was said to be returning to her place of employment from a medical appointment.
The third issue relates to an incident on 19 January 2000, when Mrs Joyce stated that she injured her right side neck, ribs and arm, after falling from a chair at her workplace.
The fourth issue relates to an incident at work in mid-August 2000, when Mrs Joyce states she experienced a draught and cold temperature at her workplace, which resulted in her suffering neck and shoulder pain.
The Evidence
Mrs Joyce gave evidence that on 27 July 1997, while employed on higher duties as a Senior Postal Services Officer 2 in charge of the Mornington Post Office, an incident occurred at the front counter. She described the incident as follows:
"An elderly gentleman approached me, he was staggering, he stunk of alcohol, I had trouble understanding what he was saying to me, he was very irate. I asked him if he – I gave him a piece of paper and asked him to write down his name and address for me. As to the problem he had, I couldn't deal with it until the posties had come back to work the next day because they had gone for the day. The issue was about a letter being placed in his letterbox, and he had problems with it before and he was furious at Australia Post, and he didn't want it happening again. And I tried to explain to him that I would deal with it and I would correct it for him, but I would have to wait for the next day until the posties come in so I could have a word with him. Well, he took offence, he tried to – he started to write his name on the piece of paper, then he threw it at me, and he completely changed from a drunk that was carrying on, he was cold and calculated. I could understand every word he said. He just completely snapped. And he looked me in the face and he said to me, I am going to hold you personally responsible. If this isn't fixed I will be back here tomorrow morning and I am going to blow your head off. With that I followed procedures. We have procedures for things like this. I followed procedures, I kept my calm, I went out the back and I asked the girl out the back, I directed her actually to ring the police, I just had someone threaten to kill me. And she said, what, it is 5 o'clock, I don't want to be hanging around here all night. And I said, just ring the police. She opened the phone book, and I said to her, look, 000, ring the police. And I went back out onto the front counter because I had another two girls out on the front counter, and there was one at the door. Just before 5 o'clock someone stands on the door and lets them in and out. As I walked back out onto the counter to speak to Bruce Haddow, he was walking out the door and he was abusing the girl on the door. We had locked up, I went back out to the back, and I said to Pat, where are the police? And she said, they are not coming, I told them it was just Bruce Haddow again, and if they saw him in the street they would pull him up and have a word to him."
It should be noted that there is no dispute between the parties, and the Tribunal accepts, that this incident occurred and that it did so in the circumstances stated by Mrs Joyce.
The Tribunal also notes that following the incident Mrs Joyce was off work to 6 August 1997, at which time she was certified by Dr Hain, her GP for some 20 years, as fit for modified duties. She remained on modified duties throughout the remainder of August. She was then off work again from 1 September 1997 until 19 October 1997, returning to work on 20 October 1997, working three hours per day, three days per week for two weeks. Mrs Joyce then commenced a three hours per day routine on 4 November 1997, gradually increasing her hours, reaching four hours per day, five days a week.
Mrs Joyce was on annual leave from 29 December 1997 to 28 January 1998. She was later certified totally incapacitated from 13 February 1998 to 8 May 1998.
From 9 May 1998 Mrs Joyce was employed on part-time work. On 8 September 1998 Dr Hain referred her to a Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Le Bas. In his referral letter (T33/71), Dr Hain stated:
"Many thanks for seeing Terryanne. In August last year, she developed an acute post traumatic stress/depressive reaction whilst at work (on the counter at Australia Post). A very difficult and apparently distressed man made threats on her life. Initially she tried to continue working, but found it was impossible. She has had considerable time off work, and eventually agreed to take some anti depressant medication. This did help her and she is now off it. She declined any counselling or psychiatric help and preferred to continue seeing me, as I have known her a long time.
She is generally much better now but has realised that she does have several emotional problems that she feels she needs to sort out, and would like to discuss these with you. She has had a difficult life with her husband and children and I'm sure there are many issues there."
In a report dated 28 October 1998 (T37/77), Dr Le Bas stated in part:
"Mrs Joyce's illness has been in existence for over a year now. It has caused significant morbidity and disability. She has shown some indication of recent improvement, though this may be transient. She retains a moderate level of disability in relation to performing her previous job and in relation to functioning normally in society; eg shopping and dealing with the public. The condition is therefore likely to be long term. I would suggest that she is not able to perform her previous service role."
In early to mid-December 1998 Mrs Joyce commenced employment at the Frankston Business Centre under a return to work programme. In giving her evidence she described an incident which it is understood occurred in February 1999, while she was working at the counter and which again involved Mr Haddow:
"We were extremely busy, the queue was right back to the door, we were under-staffed, I never had time to look up. You just put your head down and you just go as fast as you can to clear the queue. I didn't notice Bruce Haddow in the queue. When I did look up I had already called him and didn't realise who I had called. And I saw him and I remember thinking this is – it is someone that looks like him, it can't be, it is just someone that – it is just me over-reacting. That is what I was telling myself. And I asked him how I could help him. And he gave me a ripped up bill, or actually he didn't throw it at me, he threw it on the desk, a ripped up bill. And I said, excuse me, sir, have you got an intact account? Just put it together. Okay. So I put the bill together, and it was Bruce Haddow. So I read it, and it was on the bill, it was Bruce Haddow. I tried to tell myself it was just me, my emotions, it wasn't him. But it was him. And the address. I took a deep breath and made myself serve him. I had to do it, I just had to do it. This man was my problem, I had to try. He wasn't ranting and raving or anything at me. I felt he was a threat. But I manually put the account in, I couldn't barcode it, it was ripped up. I manually put the account in. I looked up to ask him for the change, and I couldn't go any further, I just couldn't do it. And I said to him, excuse me – I wasn't rude – and said to the girl that was serving right next to me, please could you finish serving this customer, I have to go out the back a moment. I just took a deep breath and I went straight out the back."
Mrs Joyce spoke to her GP, Dr Hain, about the incident and was off work for a day or so. An appointment was made by the respondent for Mrs Joyce to see a Psychiatrist, Dr Mendelson, however, she declined to do so, the reason being that she had not felt comfortable when seen by the doctor on an earlier occasion.
On 15 June 1999 Mrs Joyce was seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Seward. In a report dated 21 June 1999 (T60/114-120), the doctor states in part:
"She is now back on another antidepressant, Aropax 10mg in the morning and has resumed seeing Dr Le Bas. She said that her symptoms worsened after she saw Mr Haddow at the Frankston Post Office. She said she was actually progressing quite well until she realised he was in the queue and had to serve him. She started trying to serve him thinking that he would not remember her. She said it was obvious he did remember her and he was hostile and angry and gave her a torn up electricity bill. She attempted to deal with him and then had to hand over to another postal officer."

Mr Moulds, for the respondent, contended that the history given to Dr Seward by Mrs Joyce of her meeting Mr Haddow at the Frankston Business Centre Post Office in February 1999, was not corroborated. In contending thus Mr Moulds invited attention to a letter (T71/137) from Mrs Joyce to the Claims Manager (Carmen Isla), in which she stated that by the time the Postal Manager (Denis Morris), to whom she had reported the incident, came out to the counter, Mr Haddow had departed.

Mr Moulds submitted that the absence of corroboration was important in that it demonstrated (in the absence of Mr Morris being called to give evidence):
"A reconstructive tendency which, when taken together with the general vagueness of many of the answers she gives, not in cross-examination, but to other medical practitioners, means that a lot of what she says is unreliable in terms of what she is saying."
Mrs Joyce asserted that she experienced a flare-up of her neck condition in early September 1999. In this connection, we note that during the period 2 September 1999 to 26 September 1999 Dr Hain certified Mrs Joyce fit for work full-time, but that she was totally incapacitated for work as follows:

27. 9.99 – 8.10.99
9.10.99 – 22.10.99
23.10.99 – 5.11.99
6.11.99 – 19.11.99

On 22 November 1999 Mrs Joyce returned to work, three days per week for two weeks. From 3 December 1999 to 17 December 1999 she resumed working full-time, with a split up of duties between counter work and other duties. From 18 December 1999 to 7 January 2000 Mrs Joyce was continuing to perform counter duties, working full-time.
On 19 January 2000 Mrs Joyce suffered a fall at work. While reaching out of her work table her chair slid from beneath her, causing her to fall. She sought medical treatment on the same day from a GP, Dr Smith, who diagnosed soft tissue injuries to the right side of her neck, thoracic spine, right lateral chest wall and right lateral ribs. On 8 February 2000, Dr Smith issued a certificate, with an additional diagnosis of right elbow medial epicondylitis.
On 21 January 2000 Dr Kourdoulos certified Mrs Joyce fit to return to work four hours per day from 24 January 2000, later extended to 28 January 2000.
Mrs Joyce consulted her GP Dr Hain on 27 January 2000. The doctor issued a certificate for total incapacity for 27 and 28 January 2000, and fit for normal duties from 31 January 2000. Mrs Joyce subsequently presented certificates of incapacity for any work from 3 to 11 February 2000, and then fitness for 4 hours work per day from 14 February 2000 to 8 March 2000.
It should be recorded that on 15 June 1999 Mrs Joyce was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The vehicle which she was driving was stationary at a level crossing when it was struck from behind by a taxi.
It was Mrs Joyce's evidence that the accident occurred when she was returning to her workplace from a medical appointment.
Mrs Joyce attempted to see her doctor, Dr Hain but he was not available. However, the doctor saw her on the following day.
On or about 27 April 2000 Mrs Joyce was examined by a Neurologist, Dr Symington. In his report (Exhibit R2) the doctor expressed his opinion as follows:
"The diagnosis is a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine as a result of a rear end collision on June 15, 1999. There was a possible exacerbation of this injury as a result of a fall in January this year.
The condition of soft tissue injury to the cervical spine has been caused by her employment as specified above.
The applicant has suffered from a persistent regional pain syndrome following soft tissue injury to the cervical spine.
The applicant appears to have suffered short term incapacity as a result of the soft tissue injury to her neck from which she has recovered.
She is able to carry out her normal work related duties at present, but she appears to have some partial incapacity in her inability to carry out certain pre-injury activities such as ten pin bowling.
The applicant is present fit to carry out duties for which she is currently employed.
I anticipate that the applicant's persistent pain syndrome should completely resolve within the next few months.
In the event of persistent symptoms, review by the physiotherapist would be in order and it would be reasonable for the applicant to have physiotherapy treatment over the next three months.
The prognosis is uncertain because I note that the applicant also has a psychiatric claim relating to her apparent stress disorder which is likely to be the main factor in determining her prognosis."
We note that Mrs Joyce was examined on 3 May 2000 by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr Cullen. On 9 May 2000 the doctor provided a report (Exhibit R3) in which he stated in part:
"In my opinion, this lady's problems are largely of a psychological and psychiatric nature, but focussed on an underlying mechanical injury sustained in June of 1999. The degree to which the mechanical factors resulting from the injury are contributing to her current incapacity, are impossible to assess.
For as long as this lady's psychological condition persists, it would be impossible to determine the exact nature or extent of her medical condition, as far as the neck injury is concerned, as to when it had ceased or what contribution it may be playing with respect to her incapacity for work. Her symptoms will always be enhanced and will require a multi-disciplinary approach to her treatment, but largely reliant on psychiatric and psychological therapy."
In addressing the issue of Mrs Joyce's neck injury, Mr Moulds expressed the respondent's position as follows:
"The condition is just not medically pathologically corroborated in terms of going on for this period of time other than the overload of the psychiatric problem being added to it, which has made a very important problem. What we say is the physical aspects have disappeared by the time that she was certified by Dr Hain as being fit to return to work on 1 September 1999. The only restriction he put on it at that point was no lifting more than five kilograms. And we say that whatever has happened after that is a product of whatever psychiatric condition she may have, and we certainly say that there is plenty of reason in Mrs Joyce's life to suffer from stress and anxiety and psychiatric conditions."
During the proceedings Mrs Joyce gave evidence concerning her financial position. It was her assertion that because of her work-related health, and thus her income earning capacity, her financial position was precarious including her capacity to meet her home mortgage payments.
In so far as Mrs Joyce's position in respect of her salary is concerned, Mr Moulds invited the Tribunal's attention to her payment records (Exhibit R5), from August 1999 to February 2000.

As to Mrs Joyce's home mortgage, the Tribunal notes that as at 14 March 2000 she was $644 in arrears, which represented two instalments. We further note that at some earlier time Mrs Joyce had refinanced her mortgage, borrowing $50,000 from her mother in order to do so, and that as at 14 March 2000 the total of her mortgage was some $90,000.
It was Mr Moulds' submission that Mrs Joyce was asserting that her resumption of full-time work from 18 December 1999 to 7 January 2000 (see paragraph 28 above) was because she was in desperate financial straits, and that she had returned to full-time work against the advice of her doctors. It was Mr Moulds' submission that throughout the period in question Mrs Joyce was fit for full-time work, which she performed. As to the mortgage, it was Mr Moulds' submission that although Mrs Joyce had worried about the fact that she was in arrears in respect of her repayments in mid-March 2000, and that she would probably have difficulty in meeting future repayments, she was concerned about having to also repay the $50,000 which she had borrowed in order to refinance her mortgage.
In addressing the incident in which Mrs Joyce suffered a fall while at work on 19 January 2000, Mr Moulds said that while there was no dispute that the accident occurred, and while liability had been accepted by the respondent from the time of the fall to 27 January 2000 (and then up to the end of February 2000), the submission of the respondent was that the reason Mrs Joyce's symptoms continued was because of her psychiatric condition, and not because of her physical injuries. In support of his submission Mr Moulds invited attention to Mrs Joyce's pay advice records (Exhibit R5), including as they do reference to normal salary, overtime worked, sick leave and other types of leave taken, such as leave without pay and recreational leave. The particular records to which Mr Moulds invited attention covered the period from mid-March 2000 to late December 2000.
We note that on 18 July 2000, Mrs Joyce was examined by a Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Walton. The doctor subsequently provided a report dated 24 July 2000 (Exhibit R1). As indicated earlier, Dr Walton also gave evidence at the hearing.
In his report Dr Walton recorded that he had the benefit of certain reports rendered by Dr Le Bas, Dr Hain, Dr Symington and Dr Cullen. Examination of the doctor's report also reveals that he took quite an extensive history from Mrs Joyce, including not only the several incidents at work to which reference has been made, but also to a range of personal matters, including difficulties she had experienced with her 15 year old daughter, a son aged 24 years, and coping with the illness and subsequent death of her father, to whom she was particularly close. These and other family matters of a personal nature were all covered extensively during the course of Mrs Joyce's evidence at the hearing. That evidence was essentially consistent with the history taken by Dr Walton.
In his report, which we find to be particularly helpful, Dr Walton records his opinion as follows:
"1.While it is not the case at present in the sense that this woman does not meet all the diagnostic criteria, I believe that Ms. Joyce would have attracted a diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of the 27 July 1997 incident and there does appear to be a reasonable consensus of psychiatric opinion in that regard.
Following the motor vehicle accident on 15 June 1999, Ms. Joyce appears to have developed temporary motor vehicle-specific anxiety of mild proportions and, perhaps, an overall minor aggravation of her pre-existing post-traumatic symptoms, again apparently of a temporary nature.
2.It is my opinion that there has been a material contribution to this woman's psychiatric condition from her employment, particularly the incident of confrontation with the drunk and irate customer, and to a minor extent from the motor vehicle accident. However, there have also been significant contributions and, in my opinion, these are the major current contributions, from the protracted illness and then death of this woman's father, she remaining in a situation of unresolved grief at present, as well as the recent behavioural problems exhibited by her daughter. I suspect that the period of marital separation was less than as smooth a transition which Ms. Joyce describes, however, I doubt that that has current relevance.
3.The psychiatric condition from which this worker has suffered has been a post-traumatic stress disorder, now in a thoroughly residual stage but complicated by a pathological grief reaction.
4.It is not an unreasonable proposition that the worker would have been incapacitated by the post-traumatic stress disorder initially, particularly in relation to dealing with customers.
I expect that that incapacity would have extended over some months. As best I can determine, the minor aggravation of symptoms which occurred in the aftermath of the motor vehicle accident would not have produced significant incapacity on psychiatric grounds.
5.According to Ms. Joyce, despite what she perceives to be some harassment from her manager, she is engaged in full-time employment at present, and, simply on that basis, I doubt that she could be described as exhibiting significant current incapacity, despite her residual psychological symptoms. However, if she is determined to be suffering from some partial incapacity for work, say, that she is less than able to fulfil duties in relation to customer services as opposed to work not involving customer contact, those interpersonal difficulties are more likely attributable to the pathological grief reaction and the anxiety she experiences surrounding her daughter's problems.
6.My understanding is that the worker is currently engaged in full-time employment, performing what amount to be her pre-injury duties.
7.It is not my opinion that this applicant is not fit for her pre-injury employment.
8.The effects of this woman's psychiatric condition, in the sense that she is suffering from residual symptoms, and she probably would attract an impairment rating in that regard, have not ceased but the previous incapacity for work associated with her condition has ceased.
9.Essentially this woman is no longer receiving any psychiatric treatment. She is prescribed Murelax, which is a drug with anti-anxiety effect but that is more than likely being exhibited mainly because of its anti-muscle spasm benefit in relation to neck pain, and, in any event, Ms. Joyce reports that she now relies upon this medication highly intermittently. In my opinion Ms. Joyce does not require formal psychiatric treatment at this point."
As we have indicated earlier, one of the issues to be determined by the Tribunal relates to Mrs Joyce's assertion that in mid-August 2000 she experienced a draught and cold temperature at her workplace, resulting in her suffering neck and shoulder pain.
We note that a statement by the office Manager dated 8 September 2000, confirms that Mrs Joyce's request to wear a coat was approved and that she was provided with a portable heater.
We understand that no other such complaints have been made by staff members manning the relevant counter, nor are we aware of any medical evidence or opinion which might support Mrs Joyce's contention that her neck and shoulder pain was work related, including any relationship with the neck injury which she suffered as a result of the motor vehicle accident on 19 January 2000.
It was Mr Carey's submission that Mrs Joyce's PTSD had its origins in the incident which occurred at the Mornington Post Office on 27 July 1997 and her fear that she might be similarly confronted by other abusive customers, as indeed, on her evidence, occurred variously while she was employed at the Dandenong Post Office, and at the Frankston Business Centre Post Office.
We do not accept that proposition. While we have no doubt that Mrs Joyce at times experienced difficulties at work, the evidence leads us to the conclusion that there was no material contribution by her employment to her PTSD, beyond the date stated in the relevant reviewable decision, namely 18 August 1999. It is our view, and we find, that beyond that date any contribution to her condition has been occasioned by the circumstances of her private life, about which a great deal of evidence has been led in these proceedings.
As we have mentioned, Mrs Joyce's pay and leave records, certainly from mid-March 2000 to December 2000, demonstrate her fitness for work and consequently her earning capacity, although we consider this may be related more to her concerns over her mortgage payments, and the need to repay the loan from her mother, rather than to any other factor.
It is our finding that the neck injuries sustained by Mrs Joyce as a result of her motor vehicle accident on 15 June 1999, had resolved by 4 August 1999, being the date she was certified by Dr Hain to be fit to resume full-time work on modified duties. We should add that our attention has also been drawn to a statement made by Mrs Joyce dated 27 August 1999, in which she stated she had made a good recovery (T23/81).
In respect of the fall from a chair which Mrs Joyce suffered at work on 19 January 2000, we accept the submission made by Mr Mould, to which we have referred at paragraph 41 and 42 above.
Finally, as we have already observed we are not aware of any medical evidence or opinion which might support Mrs Joyce's assertion that her neck and shoulder pain was work related.
Decision
For the reasons stated, the Tribunal will affirm each of the decisions under review.
I certify that the 55 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
Mr B.G. Gibbs, AM, Senior Member
Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member
Dr P. Fricker, Member
Signed:.....................................................................................
  Personal Assistant
Date/s of Hearing  20/2/01; 23/4/01; 24/4/01
Date of Decision  5/6/01
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr M. Carey
Solicitor for the Applicant         Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent    Mr A. Moulds
Solicitor for the Respondent    Sparke Helmore