Kelly v Hilton [No 2]
[2022] WASC 374
•3 NOVEMBER 2022
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: KELLY -v- HILTON [No 2] [2022] WASC 374
CORAM: STRK J
HEARD: 31 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED : 31 OCTOBER 2022
PUBLISHED : 3 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: CIV 2228 of 2020
BETWEEN: ALLAN JOHN KELLY
First Plaintiff
ALLAN JOHN KELLY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KELLY FAMILY TRUST
Second Plaintiff
XGS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KELLY SUPERANNUATION FUND
Third Plaintiff
DEBNAL PTY LTD
Fourth Plaintiff
AND
JOHN CHARLES HILTON
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Release from Harman obligation - Whether special circumstances justify the grant of leave
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application granted in part
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| First Plaintiff | : | Mr B Campbell |
| Second Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Third Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Fourth Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Defendant | : | No appearance |
Solicitors:
| First Plaintiff | : | HHG Legal Group |
| Second Plaintiff | : | HHG Legal Group |
| Third Plaintiff | : | HHG Legal Group |
| Fourth Plaintiff | : | HHG Legal Group |
| Defendant | : | Bennett |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Augustson v AK Augustson as executrix of the estate of GF Augustson [2021] WASC 184
Australian Trade Commission v McMahon (1997) 73 FCR 211
Bedshed Franchising Pty Ltd v Battersby [No 2] [2015] WASC 281
Kelly v Hilton [2021] WASC 369
Minister for Education v Bailey [2000] WASCA 377; (2000) 23 WAR 149
Murray Riverside Pty Ltd v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 67
Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd v Discovery Beach Project Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] QCA 345; [2011] 1 Qd R 145
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1464
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Applicable principles
The claims made in this proceeding and current status
Discovery
Subpoenas
The evidence
The submissions made on behalf of Mr Kelly
Disposition
Conclusion and orders
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
STRK J:
Introduction
The defendant in this proceeding, Mr Hilton, has commenced an action in this court in defamation against the first plaintiff in this proceeding, Mr Kelly. The defamation action is known as CIV 1802 of 2021 and has been admitted to the Commercial and Managed Cases List of Kenneth Martin J. In defending the defamation action, Mr Kelly intends to plead justification and, in so doing, wishes to refer to documents discovered by Mr Hilton or produced by non-parties pursuant to subpoenas issued in the course of this proceeding.
By an application made on 25 October 2022, Mr Kelly made what became an unopposed application in this proceeding for leave to make use of documents obtained in this proceeding for the limited purpose of use in the defamation action. A memorandum pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 59 r 9 was filed with the application, together with a minute of proposed orders. The memorandum revealed that there had been proper conferral as between the parties, the result of which was that Mr Hilton neither consented to nor opposed the application. The orders sought on behalf of Mr Kelly as recorded in the minute of proposed orders were as follows:
(1)The First Plaintiff, Mr Allan John Kelly, and the Defendant, Mr John Charles Hilton, be released from the obligation not to use the materials produced on discovery or in response to subpoenas issued in this action for a purpose other than in connection with this action, and leave be granted, for the limited purpose of use in CIV 1802 of 2021.
(2)The costs of this application be costs in the cause of CIV 1802 of 2021.
While Mr Hilton neither consented to nor opposed the application, leave of the court was required and was properly sought by Mr Kelly as an application in this proceeding.
After hearing counsel for Mr Kelly, I was satisfied that special circumstances had been demonstrated which provided a sufficient basis to release Mr Kelly from his obligation not to use the materials produced on discovery in this proceeding for a purpose other than in connection with this proceeding, and to grant leave for the limited purpose of use of those materials in the defamation action. The relief provided to Mr Kelly by the orders made at the conclusion of the hearing on 31 October 2022 did not extend to use of the materials produced in response to subpoenas issued in this action. While I gave brief ex tempore reasons, I informed counsel at the conclusion of the hearing that I would publish my reasons for decision, which I now set out below.
Applicable principles
The principles to be applied in determining Mr Kelly's application were recently restated by the Court of Appeal in Murray Riverside Pty Ltd v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 67 [69] ‑ [76]. I adopted the same as if set out here in full, and I applied them in the determination of Mr Kelly's application.
The claims made in this proceeding and current status
This proceeding was commenced by writ of summons indorsed with a statement of claim on behalf of the four named plaintiffs on 15 December 2020 as against Mr Hilton. Mr Kelly is named as the first plaintiff in his personal capacity. As the trustee of the Kelly Family Trust, Mr Kelly prosecutes this proceeding as the second plaintiff. Mr Kelly is also a director of the third and fourth named plaintiffs. The third plaintiff company is the trustee of the Kelly Superannuation Fund. Counsel for Mr Kelly described him as the guiding mind and will of all plaintiffs.[1]
[1] ts 54 (31 October 2022).
The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages or to a compensation order under s 236 and s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law and the Australian Consumer Law (WA) by reason of Mr Hilton's misleading or deceptive conduct, together with interest and costs.
As I noted in Kelly v Hilton [2021] WASC 369 at [4], the plaintiffs plead that nine separate representations were made by Mr Hilton to Mr Kelly; and that the making and repeating of the representations was conduct in trade or commerce for the purposes of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and the Australian Consumer Law (WA). In summary, the representations attributed to Mr Hilton are as follows:[2]
[2] Kelly v Hilton [4].
(a)the Cambodian Tenements (being gold tenements in Cambodia applied for by Brighton Mining Group Limited (administrators appointed) (Brighton)), included three tenements which were located 'next to the 1 million-ounce Okvau Project' that was being developed by Emerald Resources Limited (Emerald) (described as the Ownership Representation);
(b)the Cambodian Tenements were 'about to be granted' by the Cambodian Government (described as the Timing Representation);
(c)Mr Hilton had negotiated a joint venture term sheet with Emerald with respect to the Cambodian Tenements (Emerald JV) pursuant to which Emerald would manage and fund exploration on those tenements, and that the grant of the Cambodian Tenements would trigger the commencement of the joint venture between Brighton and Emerald (described as the JV Representation);
(d)if Brighton was used as the vehicle for any project in respect of the Cambodian Tenements, Brighton could be 'relisted quickly', and by in or around February 2017 (described as the Relisting Representation);
(e)if the Cambodian Tenements were to be vended into Brighton, based on the value that Emerald had ascribed to those tenements for the purposes of the Emerald JV, it was appropriate to ascribe to the Cambodian Tenements a value in the order of AUD$4.5million (described as the Value Representation);
(f)Brighton had obtained environmental approval from the Cambodian Government, via the Cambodian Ministry of Environment (MOE), for its Kang Roland South project (KRS Project), which formed part of the Cambodian Tenements (described as the KRS Environmental Approval Representation);
(g)Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd had a local subsidiary company in Cambodia (Local SubCo Representation);
(h)Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd had made an application to the MME for an exploration licence in respect of the Cambodian Tenements (including both the KRS Project and the Antrong Project) via its local subsidiary company. Further, Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd, via its local subsidiary, would be the holder of the exploration licences and ultimately the Cambodian Tenements, once the applications were granted (described as the CGPL Ownership Representation); and
(i)Justin Tremain and Morgan Hart of Emerald had attended a meeting with the Cambodian Ministry of Mines and Energy during which Emerald had pledged its support for Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd in respect of Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd's application for the Cambodian Tenements (described as the Emerald Support Representation).
(footnotes omitted.)
The plaintiffs plead that each representation was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and the Australian Consumer Law (WA). The plaintiffs also plead that in the negotiations as between Mr Kelly and Mr Hilton, only Mr Hilton knew or would know certain information regarding the Cambodian Tenements, including whether there was likely to be any legal or regulatory impediments to the grant of exploration licences for the KRS Project and the Antrong Project,[3] but there was a deliberate failure on the part of Mr Hilton to disclose certain information despite there being a reasonable expectation of disclosure.
[3] The capitalised terms 'Cambodian Tenements', 'KRS Project' and 'the Antrong Project' are defined in the statement of claim and described in Kelly v Hilton [4], reproduced at [8] above.
The plaintiffs plead that the non‑disclosure by Mr Hilton was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and the Australian Consumer Law (WA). The plaintiffs further plead to having acted in reliance on the representations made and omissions by Mr Hilton, and to having suffered loss and damage.
An appearance was filed on behalf of Mr Hilton on 23 December 2020. Mr Hilton denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. His defence was filed on 15 February 2021 and an amended defence was filed on 8 October 2021.
Among other things, in his defence, Mr Hilton pleads that on a proper construction of a deed of settlement and release entered into by Mr Kelly and Riversgold Ltd on or about 27 May 2019, Mr Kelly's claims in this proceeding were released and barred.
The plaintiffs' reply was filed on 17 March 2021 and amended reply was filed on 19 November 2021. Pleadings are closed, although the plaintiffs have foreshadowed an intention to amend the statement of claim.[4]
Discovery
[4] ts 55 - 56 (20 October 2022).
By 31 May 2022 and 27 July 2022, the parties to this proceeding gave their respective discovery on affidavit of the categories of documents set out in the schedule to orders made on 6 April 2022.
Subpoenas
Four subpoenas have been issued in this proceeding. The first was issued by the court on 18 February 2021 at the request of Mr Hilton to the proper officer of Riversgold Ltd. The documents that were to be produced pursuant to that subpoena were as follows:
1.All documents recording the confidential settlement between Riversgold Limited and Mr Allan John Kelly (Mr Kelly) referred to in the announcement made by Riversgold Limited on the Australian Securities Exchange announcement platform on 30 May 2019 titled 'Resolution of Matters with Allan Kelly' (Settlement).
2.All documents created up to and including 30 May 2019 recording communications between or on behalf of Riversgold Limited and Mr Kelly in relation to the matters the subject of the Settlement dated 30 May 2019.
I understood that documents had been produced by Riversgold Ltd pursuant to the subpoena but that the court no longer holds the documents.[5]
[5] The materials were destroyed in accordance with Consolidated Practice Direction 4.3.7.
Three further subpoenas were issued by the court at the request of Mr Kelly on 10 October 2022. The first was addressed to the proper officer of Riversgold Ltd and described the documents to be produced in the schedule to the subpoena, which schedule is reproduced at sch A to these reasons. The second was addressed to the proper officer of Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd and described the documents to be produced in the schedule to the subpoena, which schedule is reproduced at sch B to these reasons. The third was addressed to the proper officer of Granite Gold Pty Ltd and described the documents to be produced in the schedule to the subpoena, which schedule is reproduced at sch C to these reasons.
On 19 October 2022, Mr Hilton applied to set aside or strike out the three subpoenas filed on 10 October 2022, which application has been programmed for hearing. While all three subpoenas prescribed compliance by 9 November 2022, no documents have been produced in response to the same and the time for compliance has been extended to a date to be fixed after the determination of the subpoena application.
The evidence
Mr Kelly's application to be released from the Harman obligation was supported by two affidavits deposed to by Mr Kelly on 25 and 28 October 2022, respectively.
In his first affidavit, Mr Kelly deposed to the commencement of the defamation action by Mr Hilton against him, in response to which he had filed a memorandum of appearance. Mr Kelly attached to his affidavit a copy of the writ and the statement of claim filed in the defamation action.[6]
[6] First Kelly affidavit, AJK1 and AJK2.
Mr Hilton's claim in defamation against Mr Kelly is said to arise with respect to two allegedly false and defamatory publications on Mr Kelly's Facebook page, of and concerning Mr Hilton, published in the following manner:[7]
1.1on or about 14 August 2020, [Mr Kelly's] publication of a notice originally published by the 'Ministry of Mines and Energy Cambodia' in the Khmer language of Cambodia in relation to the 'Notice of opening of mining exploration area for exploration license application' together with a series of maps, photographs and 'comments' by [Mr Kelly]; and
1.2on or about 30 September 2020, [Mr Kelly's] publication of a post together with a series of photographs;
…
[7] First Kelly affidavit, AJK1 (indorsement of claim).
As to the publication described at par 1.1 of the indorsement of claim (reproduced above), it is pleaded that to persons reading the same who were aware of certain pleaded facts, the publication conveyed of Mr Hilton the false and defamatory imputation that:[8]
(a)Mr Hilton lied to Riversgold Ltd; and
(b)Mr Hilton, in respect of the sale by Greenwich Equities to Riversgold Ltd of Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd, falsely represented Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd had made application in Cambodia for mineral exploration licences for Antrong.
[8] First Kelly affidavit, AJK2 (statement of claim, par 8).
As to the publication described at par 1.2 of the indorsement of claim (reproduced above), it is pleaded that to persons reading the same who had knowledge of certain pleaded facts, the publication conveyed the false and defamatory imputation of Mr Hilton that Mr Hilton, in respect to the prospectus of Riversgold Ltd, had deceived Riversgold Ltd into acquiring Cambodia Gold Pty Ltd which, in fact, had made no mineral exploration licence applications in Cambodia.[9]
[9] First Kelly affidavit, AJK2 (statement of claim, par 11).
In his first affidavit, Mr Kelly deposed to his belief that representations attributed to Mr Hilton and their truthfulness are central to:
(a)this proceeding, in which it is claimed that in making certain representations Mr Hilton engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct; and
(b)the defamation action, particularly to a possible justification defence.
Mr Kelly deposed that a number of documents had been exchanged in the course of this proceeding which bear directly on the truthfulness of representations attributed to Mr Hilton.
Mr Kelly also deposed to having engaged senior counsel, Mr MacLaurin SC, to act for him in the defamation action, noting that Mr MacLaurin SC was not briefed in this proceeding. He deposed that in the course of assisting senior counsel to prepare a defence in the defamation action, it had become apparent to him, to his solicitor and to junior counsel, that they had knowledge of various matters from this proceeding that would bear on a possible justification defence in the defamation action. However, by reason of the Harman obligation, those matters could not be shared with Mr MacLaurin SC, and Mr Kelly deposed to his concern that senior counsel may not be able to properly and comprehensively particularise his defence in the defamation action.
In his first affidavit, Mr Kelly also deposed to conferral with the solicitors for Mr Hilton in relation to this application, and attached to his affidavit correspondence between HHG Legal Group on behalf of Mr Kelly and Bennett on behalf of Mr Hilton.
In his second affidavit, Mr Kelly deposed to his belief that over 2750 documents had been discovered by the parties to this proceeding. He also deposed that it was not always easy for him to be sure whether information that he is aware of, relevant to the claim made in the defamation action and potential defences, had come from Mr Hilton's pleadings, discovery or elsewhere.
Mr Kelly deposed that his uncertainty as to the source of information was hampering the preparation of his defence in the defamation action, where he wants to specifically plead certain matters that are known to all parties in the defamation action and their legal representatives, with the exception of Mr MacLaurin SC. He gave an example of a document that he would like to disclose to senior counsel to assist in the preparation of his defence, but must refrain from so doing until he is able to confirm the source of the document.
The submissions made on behalf of Mr Kelly
On behalf of Mr Kelly, it was submitted that the court could be satisfied that special circumstances were evident in the circumstances deposed to by Mr Kelly sufficient to warrant the grant of the relief sought. Counsel drew the court's attention to the following.
First, counsel observed that there is an overlap as between the parties in this proceeding and in the defamation proceeding.[10] While Mr Kelly is only one of the four plaintiffs who prosecute this proceeding, as noted above, counsel described Mr Kelly as the guiding mind and will of all plaintiffs in this proceeding.[11]
[10] ts 54 (31 October 2022).
[11] ts 54 (31 October 2022).
Secondly, counsel observed that there is an overlap in legal representation, save for Mr MacLaurin SC.[12]
[12] ts 54 - 55 (31 October 2022).
Thirdly, counsel observed that there is an overlap of facts.[13] In this regard, counsel noted that in this proceeding '… Mr Kelly alleges that Mr Hilton made certain misrepresentations in relation to the ownership of control of these various Cambodian mining tenements', and in the defamation proceeding '… there is effectively the flipside of that where Mr Hilton is suing Mr Kelly in defamation for allegedly making statements that there were misrepresentations made in relation to certain Cambodian mining tenements'.[14]
[13] ts 56 (31 October 2022).
[14] ts 56 (31 October 2022).
As to the overlap of facts, counsel also noted that there was an expectation that the documents discovered in this proceeding would likely be discoverable in the defamation action at some time in the future.[15]
[15] ts 55 (31 October 2022).
Fourthly, counsel noted that the application was not opposed by Mr Hilton.[16]
[16] ts 56 (31 October 2022).
Fifthly, counsel observed that the underlying purpose of the Harman obligation is to ensure that the court's coercive processes are not used in a way so as to impinge unreasonably upon the privacy and the confidentiality of materials, and are not used for the purposes of collateral processes or attacks. He submitted that in circumstances where there is an overlap of parties and legal representation, such risk is ameliorated to a large extent.[17]
[17] ts 57 (31 October 2022). Counsel referred to the decision of Kenneth Martin J in Augustson v AK Augustson as executrix of the estate of GF Augustson [2021] WASC 184 [19].
Finally, I note that during the course of the hearing, counsel for Mr Kelly stated that if the court held any concern in relation to the proposed extension of the relief to materials produced to the court or anticipated to be produced to the court pursuant to subpoenas issued, counsel had instructions not to press that part of the application.[18] Counsel stated that the relief sought by this application was not intended to extend to the materials produced to the court pursuant to the first subpoena issued to Riversgold Ltd on 18 February 2021, and conceded that the documents produced pursuant to the first subpoena did not appear relevant to 'key issues' in the defamation action.[19]
[18] ts 55 - 56 (31 October 2022).
[19] ts 56 (31 October 2022).
Disposition
As I informed counsel for Mr Kelly after hearing the application, I was persuaded that special circumstances had been demonstrated to support a grant of leave in relation to the materials produced on discovery in this action. I weighed in the balance the following.
First, I had regard to the position adopted by Mr Hilton to this application. No concern was raised by Mr Hilton as to the proposed use of materials discovered by him in this proceeding in the defamation proceeding by reason of commercial sensitivity, dissemination of personal data, or otherwise. Of course, the position adopted by Mr Hilton did not release Mr Kelly from his primary obligation of persuading the court that special circumstances existed which justified the grant of leave to release him from the Harman obligation.
Secondly, I had regard to the proposed additional use to which Mr Kelly intends to put the materials produced on discovery in this action in light of the rationale for the imposition of the Harman obligation. The Court of Appeal in Murray Riverside v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate at [71] described the rationale for the imposition of the obligation is follows:
Discovery is an invasion of the privacy and confidentiality of a litigant's affairs. The rationale for the imposition of the obligation in relation to discovered documents is to ensure that privacy and confidentiality are not invaded more than is necessary for the purpose of doing justice. The same rationale applies with equal force in the context of the production of documents on subpoena, as this is also an invasion of the privacy and confidentiality of the affairs of the subpoena recipient. (footnotes omitted.)
In the circumstances before me, I found that the commonality of the parties; their representation (save for the engagement of Mr MacLaurin SC by Mr Kelly in the defamation action); and some questions of fact that will arise in both proceedings, all favoured the exercise of discretion and the grant of relief. I was satisfied that in the circumstances deposed to, the proposed additional use of the discovered materials was not at odds with the underlying policy issues concerning the protection of privacy and confidentiality of the discovered documents.[20]
[20] Consistent with the reasoning of Kenneth Martin J in Augustson v AK Augustson as executrix of the estate of GF Augustson [19].
Thirdly, I considered the likely contribution of the materials produced on discovery in this action to achieving justice in the defamation proceeding. Mr Kelly deposed that a number of documents had been exchanged in the course of this proceeding which bear directly on the truthfulness of representations attributed to Mr Hilton. I accepted that if relief were not granted, the pleading of Mr Kelly's defence to the defamation action might be constrained and might cause him prejudice. This was a matter that weighed heavily in the balance.
Fourthly, I was comforted that the materials produced on discovery were identified with precision. The parties' combined list of documents discovered in this proceeding was annexed to Mr Kelly's second affidavit and marked AJK1. I would not have considered it appropriate to grant relief in relation to a class or classes of documents that could not be readily identified with precision, as it would not have allowed for a consideration of the matters that may be relevant to the exercise of discretion as identified in Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217, 225, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Murray Riverside v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate at [74].
Finally, I was comforted that the relief sought contemplated that the materials produced on discovery in this action might only be used for a limited additional purpose, being use in the defamation action. In this regard, the relief sought was appropriately curtailed in scope.
In the end, I was satisfied that Mr Kelly had established that the use of documents discovered in this proceeding was reasonably required for the purpose of his defence to the defamation action and would facilitate doing justice between the parties in the defamation action.[21] I was not however persuaded that relief ought to extend to materials produced in this proceeding by subpoena.
[21] Murray Riverside v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate [75], the Court of Appeal citing Springfield Nominees v Bridgelands Securities (225); and Australian Trade Commission v McMahon (1997) 73 FCR 211, 217; Minister for Education v Bailey [2000] WASCA 377; (2000) 23 WAR 149 [24]; Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd v Discovery Beach Project Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] QCA 345; [2011] 1 Qd R 145 [16]; Bedshed Franchising Pty Ltd v Battersby [No 2] [2015] WASC 281 [22]; State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1464 [7].
First, I was not satisfied that the documents produced to the court pursuant to the first subpoena issued to Riversgold Ltd on 18 February 2021 would likely contribute to achieving justice in the defamation proceeding. The relevance of the documents to the defamation action was not addressed by counsel and ultimately, the application was not pressed in relation to those documents.[22]
[22] ts 56 (31 October 2022).
Secondly, as to the other three subpoenas, I considered it to be premature for Mr Kelly to seek relief in relation to materials that may be produced in answer to the same. In advance of production, the court cannot properly consider the matters that may be relevant to the exercise of discretion identified in Springfield Nominees v Bridgelands Securities at (225), affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Murray Riverside v Toscana (WA) Ravenswood Estate at [74]. I was particularly concerned that the attitude of the author or authors of materials that may be produced was unknown, as was the prejudice that may be sustained.
Conclusion and orders
For these reasons, I accepted the essentially uncontradicted position of Mr Kelly, that is, the proposed use of the discovered documents by Mr Kelly in the defamation action was necessary to his defence and would likely contribute to achieving justice between the parties in the defamation action. There had been demonstrated a public interest in ensuring that all relevant material was before the court in the defamation action to enable it to discharge its function. I was not however prepared to release Mr Kelly at this time from the obligation not to use materials that may be produced to the court pursuant to the subpoenas issued at the request of Mr Kelly on 10 October 2022, or any future subpoena.
Consequently, orders were made at the conclusion of the hearing in the following terms:
1.The First Plaintiff, Mr Allan John Kelly, and the Defendant, Mr John Charles Hilton, be released from the obligation not to use the materials produced on discovery in this action for a purpose other than in connection with this action, and leave be granted, for the limited purpose of use in CIV 1802 of 2021.
2.The costs of this application be costs in the cause of CIV 1802 of 2021.
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
LP
Associate to the Honourable Justice Strk
3 NOVEMBER 2022
2