Kaine and Repatriation Commission
[2005] AATA 1168
•25 November 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1168
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No T2005/55
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re WILLIAM ERNEST KAINE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President) Date25 November 2005
PlaceHobart
Decision The decision under review is set aside. The applicant is to be paid a disability pension at the Special Rate with effect from 1 February 2004
..............................................
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
Veterans’ affairs – Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – disability pension – application for pension at the Special Rate – alcohol abuse – cervical and lumbar spondylosis –degree of incapacity determined to be 100 per cent – whether applicant is precluded from undertaking remunerative work for more than 8 hours per week by reason of his war-caused conditions alone – whether suffering loss of earnings he would not otherwise be suffering - applicant eligible for pension at the Special Rate - decision under review set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 24(1)(2),28 and,120(4)
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 171 ALR
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 129 ALR 219
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
REASONS FOR DECISION
25 November 2005 The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President) 1. William Ernest Kaine (“the applicant”) served in the Australian Army for almost 30 years including periods of operational service in Vietnam and Malaya. He had attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel when discharged in 1990.
2. Since 26 May 2001 the applicant has been in receipt of a disability pension at the Intermediate Rate. He is now seeking an increase in his pension to the Special Rate, often referred to as the “TPI pension”.
3. On 6 April 2005 the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed a decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 26 April 2004 refusing the applicant’s application for a pension at the Special Rate. He has now applied to this Tribunal for a review of the Board’s decision.
4. The hearing of the application was held at Burnie on 29 September 2005. The applicant was represented by Mr G Ralph and the respondent by Mr M Castle.
5. The applicant, his wife Mrs Margaret Kaine and Dr Tim Stewart gave oral evidence. Dr Stewart gave his evidence by telephone. The documents lodged pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T documents”) were received into evidence.
The Issue
6. The issue in this application is whether, in seeking a disability pension at the Special Rate, the applicant satisfies the requirements of s24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”) and in particular s24(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.
The Legislation
7. The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:
“S24 Special rate of pension
(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa) the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab) the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a) either:
(i) the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
(ii) the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving or entitled to receive a pension at the general rate; and
(b) the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a)a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i) the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; or
(ii) the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and ...”
.....
“S28Capacity to undertake remunerative work
In determining, for the purposes of paragraph 23(1)(b) or 24(1)(b), whether a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is incapable of undertaking remunerative work, and in determining for the purposes of section 24A whether a veteran who is so incapacitated is capable of undertaking remunerative work, the Commission shall have regard to the following matters only:
(a) the vocational, trade and professional skills, qualifications and experience of the veteran;
(b) the kinds of remunerative work which a person with the skills, qualifications and experience referred to in paragraph (a) might reasonably undertake; and ...
(c) the degree to which the physical or mental impairment of the veteran as a result of the injury or disease, or both, has reduced his or her capacity to undertake the kinds of remunerative work referred to in paragraph (b)”.
“S120Standard of proof
...
(4)Except in making a determination to which subsection (1) or (2) applies, the Commission shall, in making any determination or decision in respect of a matter arising under this Act or the regulations, including the assessment or re-assessment of the rate of a pension granted under Part II or Part IV, decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction.”
8. The applicant suffers from the following conditions which have been accepted as war-caused:
Alcohol abuse, lumbar spondylosis, cervical spondylosis, bilateral tinnitus, chronic solar skin damage, fracture right fibula, sensori-neural deafness, oesophagitis.
A number of other conditions suffered by the applicant as detailed in the T documents have not been accepted as war-caused.
Consideration of the Issues
9. It is not in dispute in this application that the applicant has made an application under s15 of the Act for an increase in the rate of pension, that he had not turned 65 at the date of his application and that his degree of incapacity for war-caused injury or disease has been determined at 100%. The applicant therefore satisfies the requirements of s24(1)(aa), (aab) and (a) of the Act.
10. The remaining matters for determination are therefore whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of s24(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.
11. Section 19 of the Act provides that the relevant time period in which to consider whether the applicant satisfies the requirements is the “assessment period” which is from the date when the application for the Special Rate of pension was lodged, namely 21 January 2004, until the date of the Tribunal’s decision (see Forbes and Repatriation Commission (2000) 171 ALR 131).
12. The standard of proof to be applied in this application is the Tribunal’s “reasonable satisfaction” or the ordinary civil standard of proof (see s120(4) of the Act and Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327).
Does the Applicant Satisfy s24(1)(b ) of the Act?
13. The applicant is now aged 64 years having been born on 1 June 1941. He resides with his wife at Gawler, a town in the North West of Tasmania.
14. After enlisting in the Army in 1960, the applicant became an infantry soldier, but later in his career was involved in administration. In the last three years of his service he was senior personnel officer for the Army in New South Wales.
15. After leaving the Army in 1990 the applicant initially resided with his wife at Port Stephens in New South Wales. He did not work for a period but later briefly worked as a salesman. Then in 1994 he and his wife decided to return to Tasmania to live. The applicant gained employment in Tasmania as manager of Leven Skill Share and later worked for some months as a funeral director. From March 1999 Mr Kaine was employed by KS Office Supplies Pty Ltd (“KS”) at Ulverstone in Tasmania.
16. The applicant worked fulltime for KS from 1999 until May 2001 when health problems, including difficulty in concentrating, forced him to cease work. After a period of recuperating he returned to work in late August 2001 but only on a part-time basis. He was then working 2 hours per day for 4 days a week. In October 2003 the Ulverstone business of KS was purchased by Corporate Express Australia. The new employer reduced staff numbers and sought fulltime employment from its employees. In the case of the applicant, recognising his health problems and his value to the business a compromise was reached whereby he would work only 20 hours per week, and could choose his own hours “… in order to minimise any possible aggravation of his disabilities.” (T documents p211).
17. Despite the reduced hours the applicant was unable to cope at work. He ceased work with KS at the end of January 2004.
18. The applicant’s employer gave the following explanation of the events leading to his retirement from KS:
“By early December it was clear the extra workload was having an adverse affect on Bill’s health and disposition. He became less tolerant of his fellow work mates, could only concentrate on tasks for short periods and became less predictable in his work patterns. It was decided that he should take a break in mid December leading up to the slower trading period over the Christmas and New Year holidays.
By mid January it was again apparent that he was not coping well with the reduced tasks for which he was responsible and, as the post sale arrangements were winding down, it was agreed that he would finish work at the end of January. Another member of the staff was assigned to assume his responsibilities.” (T documents p211)
19. The employer added the following comment:
“From my observations, it is clear Bill suffers from distracting pain about the shoulders and lower back resulting in his inability to sit and concentrate for more than short periods. I also understand that he often suffers from sleep deprivation and this could probably explain why his normal cheerful disposition was often replaced by intolerance and moodiness. Both of these conditions probably accounted for his inability to concentrate for more than short periods.” (T documents p211)
20. In his oral evidence the applicant gave the following account of his retirement from KS:
“What happened was that – yes, with the extra pressure of the work that I was doing I found, you know, within a few weeks that in fact it was getting to me again. I was unable to sleep, you know, pains in my back because of the extra keyboarding work I had to do. So my condition started to deteriorate and so essentially what we decided to do in the business is I should take a couple of weeks off to see how I could recuperate from that. So I had a couple of weeks from about 15 December. I went back and that coincided of course with, you know, a slow-down of trade over the Christmas period, so it was easy on both sides to do that. But when I went back in late December and early into January I realised that I wasn’t coping with it at all, and the decision was made that I would wrap up, you know, involvement in the business and they would employ somebody else to do the job with effect in the end of January.” (Transcript p5)
21. The applicant explained in his oral evidence that his work incapacity resulted from “severe pain across the shoulders and the back”. He went on to say that the pain was “... across the back and the neck, across the shoulders and, you know, sort of minor paralysis down the left arm into the fingers, you know, and across the middle of the back”. (Transcript p11) He said the back and neck problems caused him to have “... difficulty sleeping because I can’t get comfortable in bed”. (Transcript p11) He also said “... predominantly I have to sleep on my right side because if I sleep on my left I get paralysis down the left arm and pain sets in ...” (Transcript p11)
22. In addition the applicant referred to his problems with alcohol. He would drink to find relief from the pain. He stated that “... the lack of concentration, the pain and the effects of alcohol I suspect reduce my capacity to sort of concentrate on the work”. (Transcript p11) He said Dr Stewart had advised him to give up alcohol but “... I haven’t been able to achieve that”. (Transcript p11). The applicant said that he could no longer work for 8 hours a week because he would have to work with computers and be involved in data input. He said “I don’t have the capacity to do it anymore, you know, because of the disabilities I have” (Transcript p12)
23. Mrs Kaine said before he left his work her husband was in “... a lot more pain. He was very, very difficult to live with, and he drank more”. (Transcript p16) She said he now “... limps, his shoulders go into a hunched, crouched position. He is very bad tempered. Yes, you have to live with him to know him”. Mrs Kaine added “... I don’t need him to drink anymore than he does”. She said “... he drinks more than he says he does ... he can’t cope with company at all unless he drinks ... he would come home from work and he’d want to drink”.
24. Dr Tim Steward a Consultant Occupational Physician provided two written reports dated 24 March 2003 and 13 April 2004 and also gave oral evidence by telephone. He was the only medical witness called although the T Documents include written reports by Dr H R Brigden, a psychiatrist Professor J R Ball and psychologist Ms S E Hyslop all of which predate the applicant’s cessation of work and his application for an increase in his pension.
25. The Tribunal has read and carefully considered all of the medical reports and other documents which contain references to the applicant’s various medical conditions and which are included in the T Documents.
26. The Tribunal finds that the oral evidence of Dr Stewart, and in particular his second report, should be given significant weight because they are of special relevance to the issues now being considered by the Tribunal in terms of both time and content. It is important to note that Dr Stewart was actually engaged by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to examine the applicant and provide a report.
27. In his first report of 24 March 2003 Dr Stewart referred to the applicant’s “binge drinking” and said he believed Mr Kaine could work part-time for up to twenty hours per week. He thought that if the applicant was required to work more than twenty hours it could cause stress and exacerbate his condition. Dr Stewart recommended that Mr Kaine refrain from the consumption of alcohol.
28. However in his second report dated 13 April 2004 Dr Stewart said he had again examined Mr Kaine and had further considered his various medical conditions and complaints including pain in the shoulders and back, diminished ability to concentrate and the continuation of his binge drinking. Dr Stewart concluded that Mr Kaine was unfit to work even on a part-time basis and would not be capable of working eight hours per week. Dr Stewart stated in his second report:
“On balance I believe that Mr Kaine’s problems emanate from his unsafe use of alcohol. Mr Kaine drinks heavily on a regular basis and alcohol has a distinct effect on the brain leading him to experience tolerance to alcohol, a decrease in concentration and an overall flattening of mood. This alcohol abuse is an “accepted” medical condition.
If Mr Kaine were to abandon the use of alcohol he would experience a major improvement in his health over time. Unfortunately I cannot see such an outcome occurring in either the short or long term.
An additional reason for Mr Kaine’s health problems refers to the accepted medical condition “cervical and lumbar spondylosis”. Again, if Mr Kaine were not drinking alcohol, his capacity to cope would improve and he would manage the neck, shoulder, low back and buttock pain in a better manner.
Unfortunately when Mr Kaine’s overall health picture is considered the conclusion is reached that he is no longer able to work either on a part-time or full-time basis.”
29. In his oral evidence Dr Stewart explained why his opinion of Mr Kaine’s capacity to work had changed between the dates of his two written reports. He said: “I felt that he had deteriorated and wasn’t coping as well as he had prior to that, and that the alcohol abuse on top of his general health was combining and I felt that it probably tipped him into that situation where he was no longer able to work either on a part-time or a full-time basis”. (Transcript p21) Dr Stewart added: “There has been no decrease in the use of alcohol and I felt that overall he was – alcohol has a very depressing affect on the central nervous system, and I felt that this was having an effect on him. And I felt at the time when I saw him I was of the – I felt that his general function was diminished and he wasn’t as well as he was on the prior occasion”. (Transcript p21) Dr Stewart said he believed Mr Kaine was now totally unfit for work “... because of the alcohol problem” (Transcript p23)
30. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife Mrs Margaret Kaine established a bookkeeping business in January 2004. The business is operated from Mr and Mrs Kaine’s home at Gawler. It was registered in the joint names of Mrs Kaine and the applicant. Mr Kaine said the business was conducted by his wife. He described his role as “predominantly advising”. The business was in joint names mainly for “taxation purposes”, but also because of the applicant’s good standing in the business community in Ulverstone. The applicant said he only works in the business for “five hours a month maybe”. It has not been a successful business. Currently it has only two clients. The applicant said it is not profitable and has “… certainly cost us to do it…”. Mr Castle for the respondent said in his closing address that “… the respondent does not place any weight on the employment, if one might use the word, of Mr Kaine with the business (that is, the bookkeeping business)… We are not contending that is of such a nature that it would preclude him from obtaining the special rate of pension …”. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s involvement in this business is minimal. It amounts to only some five hours per month and has no relevant bearing on the issues under consideration.
31. At the hearing of this application the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant was not seriously challenged. Very little was advanced by way of argument against the applicant’s case. Although the applicant called a medical witness, no experts were called by the respondent to counter that evidence. The medical reports in the s37 documents, other than Dr Stewart’s reports, predate by some years the health problems experienced by the applicant in 2003 and 2004 and are of limited relevance. It would appear the respondent was putting the applicant “to his proof” rather than advancing argument and evidence in opposition to his application. Although the Tribunal is considering these matter de novo it looked to the reasons for decision by the Veterans’ Review Board to gain an understanding of the reasons the application for an increase in the pension to the Special Rate had been rejected.
32. In its reason for decision dated 6 April 2005 the Veterans’ Review Board concluded as follows:
“The Board considered, for the reasons discussed above, that Mr Kaine was prevented from continuing to work in his part time employment in large part because of his disabilities, both accepted and non accepted, but also because of the restructure of his job role and the pressure to work greater hours. If this restructure had not occurred the Board considers the veteran would have been able to continue to undertake the duties associated with financial management. A veteran cannot be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages or earnings on his own account by reason of incapacity from war-caused injury or disease if he ceased to engage in paid work for reasons other than his accepted disabilities, or is incapacitated or prevented from engaging in paid work for some other reason.
He is accordingly not entitled to the special Rate of pension.”
33. Unlike the Veterans’ Review Board the Tribunal has had the advantage of hearing the sworn evidence of Dr Stewart, the applicant and Mrs Kaine. Dr Stewart, who is an experienced medical practitioner and an expert in occupational health, is of the opinion that alcohol abuse is the reason the applicant is no longer able to work even on a part-time basis. In her evidence Mrs Kaine also placed significant emphasis on the alcohol issue. She was adamant that it was a very serious problem and one which she said Mr Kaine had understated in his own evidence.
34. Professor Richard Ball, consultant psychiatrist, interviewed the applicant on 30 April 2001 and provided a written report to Dr Henry Brigden, Senior Medical Officer of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs dated 30 April 2001 (T documents p70). That report, in the view of the Tribunal, is of somewhat limited value as it was prepared when the applicant was working reasonably normal hours and more than 2½ years before he experienced the serious health difficulties which forced his retirement from work. As has been mentioned, Professor Ball was not called as a witness in these proceedings.
35. Ms S E Hyslop, psychologist, also wrote a report dated 13 November 2002 (T documents p98). Again that report in the Tribunal’s view is of limited value to the consideration of this application. It is relatively brief and appears to consider principally the possibility that the applicant was suffering from PTSD. It does however place considerable emphasis on the alcohol abuse issue, which was described in the report as “… quite problematic for several years…”.
36. Dr Stewart’s oral evidence clarified his written views about the true cause applicant’s incapacity. He said “…. I think the issue is the alcohol …” and “… I felt he was totally unfit for work because of the alcohol problem”. The Tribunal accepts the opinions provided by Dr Stewart.
37. In determining, for the purpose of s24(1)(b) of the Act whether the applicant is incapable of undertaking remunerative work, regard shall be had only to the various matters set out in s28(a),(b) and (c) of the Act.
38. S28 obviously excludes some matters which might otherwise be relevant to an assessment under s24(1)(b), for example, depressed labour market conditions. However it does not exclude for consideration, for example, work within the applicant’s capacity which is of a more menial and less stressful nature than the work he had previously been doing.
39. The decision-maker is bound to give due weight to each of the matters set out in s28, however it is not required to consider each of the paragraphs separately and to make findings in relation to each (see Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 129 ALR 219).
40. The Tribunal has considered all of the matters set out in s28 of the Act. In this particular application the respondent did not contend that there were other employment opportunities reasonably available to the applicant that he could take up. He has no specialist qualifications other than as a soldier. His work experienced since then has, in the main, been in administration. He had worked briefly in New South Wales as a salesman and also as a funeral director for some months in Tasmania. After first considering the requirements of s28(1) and (b), it is then necessary to have regard to the effect of the applicant’s relevant war-caused conditions on his capacity to undertake remunerative work of a kind he might reasonably be expected to do. The reality is that the effect of his ongoing alcohol abuse is such that it prevents him from not only undertaking remunerative work of the kind he was doing previously, but any other sort of work he might reasonably be expected to do.
41. Although the applicant suffers various other conditions which have not been accepted as war-caused, the Tribunal is satisfied that those conditions have not caused the applicant to become totally and permanently incapacitated. Had the applicant only suffered from those conditions he would still be capable of working. If he had only suffered the war-caused conditions of lumbar and cervical spondylosis, as indicated by Dr Stewart in his evidence, the applicant probably would have been able to continue to work. The evidence establishes to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the applicant’s war-caused alcohol abuse is the true cause of his incapacity. He cannot carry out remunerative work for any period of time each week whilst suffering his ongoing and accepted condition of alcohol abuse.
42. After considering all of the evidence before it, and in particular the persuasive evidence of Dr Stewart, the Tribunal is satisfied that the accepted war-caused condition of alcohol abuse has alone rendered the applicant incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week. He therefore satisfies the requirements of s24(1)(b) of the Act.
Does the Applicant Satisfy the Requirements of s24(1)(c) of the Act?
43. Section 24(1)(c) requires the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant’s incapacity from his war-caused conditions alone prevents him from continuing to undertake remunerative work and also whether he is suffering a financial loss that he would not otherwise suffer if he was not so incapacitated. When considering s24 (1) (c) it is necessary to have regard to the provisions in s24 (2) of the Act.
44. The requirements of s24 (c) should be determined in accordance with the four questions set out in the Full Federal Court decision of Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1 at pages 4 and 5.
"1. what was the relevant ‘remunerative work’ the veteran was undertaking within the meaning section 24(1) (c) of the Act?
2. Is the veteran, by reason of war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, prevented from continuing to undertake that work?
3. If the answer to question 2 is ‘Yes’, is the war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, the only factor or factors preventing the veteran from continuing to undertake that work?
4. If the answer to questions 2 and 3 are, in each case, ‘Yes’, is the veteran by reason of being prevented from continuing to undertake that work, suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity?"
45. Question 1 in Flentjar’s case is not intended to refer to a particular job or employer but rather the type of work the applicant had been doing. (See Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395). The applicant had been involved in administration and financial control and management. That work, of necessity, involved a significant amount of data input and keyboard work.
46. As already determined by the Tribunal when it considered s24(1)(b) of the Act the evidence establishes to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction that one of the applicant’s accepted war-caused conditions, namely alcohol abuse, has prevented him undertaking that work and indeed any remunerative work. The answer to question 2 is “yes”.
47. The Tribunal is satisfied that the answer to question 3 is ‘yes’. It is recognised that any factor other than a war-caused condition which may have influenced the applicant’s decision to cease work or affected his capacity to work or obtain work would disqualify him from eligibility for a pension. The Tribunal must take into account the guidance provided by Burchett J in Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534 at 539 when His Honour said:
“It is a decision that should not be made on nice philosophical distinctions, but with an eye to reality, and is a matter in respect of which common sense is the proper guide”
48. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not stop working because of changes put in place by the new owners of the business which employed him. Nor was it because of health issues other than his war-caused conditions. It was not due to age or family circumstances or because his wife intended starting a book keeping business. The Tribunal is satisfied it was because his accepted war-caused condition of alcohol abuse worsened making it impossible for him to concentrate and to cope at work. He became less tolerant of others and moody. These problems were evident well before the take-over by Corporate Express Australia. They were affecting his work as early as March 2001 but became worse. He was not well enough to keep working at the time of the decision to retire and has been incapacitated since then. The answer to question 3 is ‘yes’.
49. In answering question 4 one has to consider the hypothetical scenario of the applicant at 62 years of age and with his range of experience and skills free of his war-caused disabilities seeking work. The Tribunal is satisfied he would have been able to find and keep administrative or similar work and be in receipt of a salary or wages for some years into the future. He has therefore suffered a financial loss as required by s24 (1) (c).
50. The Tribunal therefore finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the requirements of s24(1)(c) are satisfied in this application.
Decision
51. For the reasons set out above the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution thereof, determines that the applicant is entitled to a disability pension at the Special Rate. The earliest date of effect is 3 months prior to the date of application. However as Mr Kaine did not cease work until the 31 January 2004, the effective date is 1 February 2004.
I certify that the 51 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon R J Groom (Deputy President)
Signed: R Hunt (Administrative Assistant)
Date/s of Hearing 29 September 2005
Date of Decision 25 November 2005
Counsel for the Applicant Mr G Ralph
Counsel for the Respondent Mr M Castle
Solicitor for the Respondent Repatriation Commission
0
9
0