Khan and National Australia Bank Limited (Compensation)
[2018] AATA 4094
•2 November 2018
Khan and National Australia Bank Limited (Compensation) [2018] AATA 4094 (2 November 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2016/6878
Re:Muneer Khan
APPLICANT
AndNational Australia Bank Limited
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A Poljak
Date:2 November 2018
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has failed within a reasonable time to proceed with the application for review. Pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal dismisses the application.
......................[sgd]..............................................
Senior Member A Poljak
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for dismissal of substantive application – whether Tribunal satisfied that Applicant has failed to proceed with the application within a reasonable time – whether substantive application has no reasonable prospects of success – Applicant failed to proceed with claim in timely manner – substantive application dismissed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 42A(5)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A, 14
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member A Poljak
2 November 2018
The Applicant commenced proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 20 December 2016 for review of a decision dated 7 December 2016, which affirmed the initial determination dated 7 November 2016, whereby the Respondent, National Australia Bank Limited, denied liability to worker's compensation pursuant to 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the SRC Act”) in respect of 'major depressive disorder' allegedly sustained from workplace bullying, harassment, coercion and humiliation during 2015 and 2016 (“alleged injury”). The Respondent denied the claim on the basis of the exclusionary provisions under section 5A(1), namely, that the Applicant's condition was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action, taken in a reasonable manner as follows:
(i)the suspension of the Applicant's license as a Financial Advisor;
(ii)the resulting suspension of the Applicant's transfer to Coffs Harbour; and
(iii)the suspension of the Applicant's employment with the Respondent on 31 August 2016.
Despite the Applicant's allegations dating back to 2015, the Applicant first lodged his claim for worker's compensation on 9 September 2016.
These proceedings concern an application for a dismissal pursuant to section 42A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”). The Respondent claims that on the current evidence, the Applicant has poor prospects of success on the substantive application and alternatively, that the Applicant has failed to proceed with his claim in a timely manner and therefore it ought to be dismissed pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act. The Applicant claims that the matter should not be dismissed. Both parties have filed written submissions on the dismissal application.
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to proceed with his application in a timely manner.
Chronology
To assist the Tribunal, the Respondent provided a chronology of the substantive proceedings in its submissions on the dismissal application. I reproduce the chronology below for context:
1. Since 21 December 2016, these proceedings have been the subject of approximately 9 telephone conferences, 3 Directions Hearings and 1 conciliation conference which was vacated as follows:
i.9 February 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd
ii.28 March 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd
iii.2 May 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Ingall
iv.14 June 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd
v.26 September 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd
vi.19 October 2017 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd (converted from a conciliation conference)
vii.31 January 2018 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Shepherd
viii.14 June 2018 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Richardson
ix.8 August 2018 – Directions Hearing by telephone (Applicant's non-compliance) before Senior Member Griffin QC
x.17 September 2018 - Telephone conference before Conference Registrar Richardson
xi.24 September 2018 - Directions Hearing by telephone (follow up on Applicant's previous non-compliance) before Senior Member Griffin QC
xii.18 October 2018 – Directions Hearing by telephone (Applicant's non-compliance) before Deputy President Constance
2. At the commencement of the proceedings the Applicant was initially represented by Slater and Gordon Lawyers. Throughout the course of their representation, Slater and Gordon attended numerous telephone conferences advising the Tribunal that they either did not have instructions or were having significant difficulties obtaining instructions from the Applicant to progress the application. This included the Applicant not attending an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist arranged by Slater and Gordon resulting in the matter being further delayed. Slater and Gordon also contacted the Respondent's solicitors on numerous occasions seeking consent to vacate telephone conferences is due to lack of instructions to which the Respondent opposed.
3. In addition to the application before the Tribunal, the Applicant simultaneously commenced proceedings in the Fair Work Commission relating to Respondent's decision to suspend his employment whilst under investigation for his conduct as a Financial Advisor prior to commencing employment with the Respondent. It became quite evident that the Applicant was focusing his attention on the Fair Work proceedings hence the current application was not making much progress. As noted by Conference Registrar Shepherd at the telephone conference on 28 March 2017, this application was unlikely to progress until such time that the Fair Work dispute was resolved. A conciliation conference before the Fair Work Commission took place on or around 13 April 2017 whereby the matter did not resolve. The Applicant then terminated the services of his solicitors Freeman's Lawyers.
4. Following multiple telephone conferences, the current application before the Tribunal was listed for a conciliation conference on 19 October 2017. The Respondent was contacted by Slater and Gordon on or around 16 October 2017 advising that they would be seeking to have the conciliation vacated as the Applicant was not in a position to attend. The Respondent wrote to the Applicant's solicitor on the same date advising that it was still awaiting on the Applicant's IME report from the examination in August 2016 as well as the details of the scope of his claim (attached as Annexure B).
5. On 17 October 2017 Slater and Gordon wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the conciliation conference be vacated and relisted for another date (attached as Annexure C). The Tribunal vacated the conciliation and converted it into a telephone conference to discuss the matter.
6. At the telephone conference on 19 October 2017 Slater and Gordon advised the Tribunal that they had not filed or served the medical report of Professor Michael Robertson, psychiatrist, obtained behalf of the Applicant because they did not have instructions to do so. Conference Registrar Shepherd therefore proceeded to issue a Direction to compel the Applicant to progress the matter. The Direction provided that on or before 10 November 2017 the Applicant was to file and serve his medical evidence or advise that he would not be relying on any further medical evidence (attached as Annexure C). Conference Registrar Shepherd also noted that there would be no further exceptions and the matter would be listed for a conciliation conference in early 2018.
7. On 17 November 2017, Slater and Gordon wrote to the Tribunal advising that effective immediately they ceased to act for the Applicant and nor did they have instructions to file and serve the report of Professor Michael Robertson in accordance with the Tribunal's Direction dated 19 October 2017 (attached as Annexure D).
8. The Respondent subsequently made numerous attempts to contact the Applicant directly to discuss the matter and follow up his outstanding medical evidence. The Applicant did not respond and the Tribunal did not list a non-compliance Directions Hearing.
9. Due to the lack of response, the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 13 December 2017 highlighting the Applicant's continued non-compliance and requested that the matter be listed for a telephone conference (attached as Annexure E).
10. The matter was then listed for a telephone conference on 31 January 2018. The Respondent continued to request that the Applicant provide his medical evidence as previously directed as well as details of the scope of his claim to assist with any potential settlement discussions. This information had not been forthcoming whilst Slater and Gordon had been acting the Applicant. The Tribunal issued a second Direction for the Applicant to give to the Tribunal and Respondent any further evidence and submissions on which he intended to rely (attached as Annexure F).
11. On 14 February 2018, the Applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal (proceeding no: 2018/0708) for a decision made by ASIC permanently banning him from providing financial services after finding that he was not of good fame or character, and that he had acted unethically. On 2 March 2018 ASIC issued a media release (attached as Annexure G).
12. The Applicant did not respond to the Respondent's prior requests for his evidence but rather proceeded to lodge a formal complaint with Minter Ellison on 8 March 2018 in relation to alleged improper conduct by the Respondent's solicitor Ms Elizabeth Mason. The complaint resulted in Minter Ellison undertaking an internal review of the matter. On 19 April 2018 Minter Ellison advised the Applicant that following a review it found that all correspondence from Ms Mason was professional and courteous and that she had acted honestly and fairly at all times. It was also reiterated to the Applicant that the Respondent had been awaiting for his medical evidence and the details of the scope of his claim since the commencement of the proceedings. Ms Mason's requests for these were simply repeats of what had been discussed and formally directed to be provided by the Tribunal at the previous 7 telephone conferences.
13. The Applicant then commenced agitating the Respondent by requesting that NAB provide all medical evidence it had obtained in relation to his claim dating back to 2016. The Respondent advised the Applicant that this evidence had already been provided by way of the Tribunal documents which were provided to Slater and Gordon at the commencement of the proceedings. He was encouraged on numerous occasions to contact his former solicitor to obtain a copy his documents.
14. On 24 April 2018 the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal advising that he would be unable to respond to any requests by the directed date of 27 April 2018 and requested a 4 week extension. He noted that he had been quite unwell for a number of weeks. The Applicant also wrote to the Respondent on 26 April 2018 also requesting an extension of time stating that he had not yet been granted pro-bono legal representation (attached as Annexure H).
15. The Respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 26 April 2018 consenting to an extension until 22 May 2018 but noted that it would not consent to any further extensions of time given the significant delays to date (attached as Annexure I).
16. Following the Respondent's consent, both parties received an email from Conference Registrar Richardson on 10 May 2018 advising that the telephone conference listed for 11 May 2018 would be vacated and relisted and that a formal direction would be issued for the Applicant to provide his material by 22 May 2018 (attached as Annexure J).
17. On or around May 2018, the Respondent received a telephone call from Conference Registrar Richardson advising that she had now taken over conduct of the matter on behalf of the tribunal as the Applicant had made some form of a complaint regarding Conference Registrar Shepherd.
18. On 21 May 2018 the Respondent received an email from the Tribunal advising that the Applicant had now retained new lawyers, being Mr Chanaka Senanayake from SBC Lawyers (attached as Annexure K).
19. On 13 June 2018 the Respondent received a telephone call from the Applicant’s solicitor requesting that the telephone conference scheduled for 14 June 2018 be vacated as the Applicant had been in a car accident and was unwell such that the conference could not proceed. The Respondent objected to the request and advised that given the delays to date and the fact that the prior telephone conference had already been vacated, the matter needed to proceed.
20. On 14 June 2018 a telephone conference proceeded before Conference Registrar Richardson. Upon the Respondents further inquiry as to whether the Applicant was intending on filing and serving any evidence, Mr Senanayake advised that he had not received any documents from the Applicant, that he was yet to contact the Tribunal to obtain documents on the record including a copy of the Tribunal Documents and nor did he have any instructions from the Applicant. Mr Senanayake also advised that the Applicant was unwell following a recent car accident and was unsure when he would be well enough to provide instructions or attend an IME which he intended on arranging. Conference Register Richardson expressed disappointment with Mr Senanayake that he had attended the conference unprepared particularly noting the matter had been on foot since December 2016 and that he had been acting for the Applicant since 7 May 2018. Conference Registrar Richardson issued a Direction for the applicant to advise the Tribunal and the Respondent of any scheduled medical examinations by 28 June 2018 (attached as Annexure L). The Respondent requested that the Applicant's medical evidence be filed and served as soon as received as the Respondent may need to arrange a re-examination of the Applicant given how long the matter had been on foot. The Respondent also requested that Mr Senanayake provide details of the scope of the Applicant's claim to assist with any future conciliation conference.
21. On 25 June 2018 the Respondent received an email from the Applicant’s solicitor advising that a medical examination had been arranged for Tuesday 7 August 2018 (attached as Annexure M).
22. On 27 June 2018 Conference Registrar Richardson issued a further direction that on or before 7 September 2018, the Applicant must file and serve any additional medical reports with a copy of the briefing letter on which the Applicant intends to rely (attached as Annexure N).
23. Due to no information forthcoming from the Applicant's solicitor as to the scope of his claim, the Respondent wrote to Mr Senanayake on 2 July 2018 with a list of questions seeking responses. The letter also noted that the Applicant had still not provided the report of Professor Michael Robertson and it was requested that the report be provided as a matter of priority (attached as Annexure O).
24. Given the lack of the medical evidence from the Applicant to date, the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 3 July 2018 requesting a further for summonses to be issued including to the TAC.
25. On 4 July 2018 the Respondent received an email from the Applicant's solicitor advising that they oppose the summons to the TAC on the basis that it was irrelevant to the proceedings and an invasion of the Applicant's right to privacy regarding any previous interactions with the Commission (attached as Annexure P).
26. On 9 July 2018 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant's solicitor explaining the reasons for summons to the TAC including its relevance. On 11 July 2018 the Respondent received an email from the Applicant’s solicitor advising that they had received instructions from the Applicant to continue to oppose the summons (attached as Annexure Q). The Tribunal proceeded to list the matter for an Interlocutory Hearing for 8 August 2018.
27. On 18 July 2018 the Respondent received a response to its letter dated 2 July 2018 which did not satisfactorily address the questions raised (attached as Annexure R).
28. On 24 July 2018 the Respondent received an email from the Tribunal advising that The Hills Clinic to whom a summons to produce had been issued, had no records of the Applicant. The Respondent also received a telephone call from The Hills Clinic advising of same and that they had conducted 2 thorough searches for both of The Hills Clinic Hospital as well as their affiliated Medical Centre both of which had no records relating to the Applicant.
29. On 23 July 2018 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant solicitor advising that it was not satisfied with the Applicant's lack of response to the letter dated 2 July 2017. It was further noted that the Applicant had still failed to file and serve the medical report of Professor Michael Robertson. The Hills Clinic Hospital's response to the summons was also noted whereby the Respondent requested the Applicant's solicitor take instructions again as to his medical providers (attached as Annexure S).
30. On 8 August 2018 a Directions Hearing proceeded before Senior Member Griffin QC in relation to the summons to the TAC. The Applicant's solicitor advised that they were instructed to object to the summons on the basis it was 'irrelevant'. When Senior Member Griffin QC requested the Applicant's solicitor to elaborate further on the submission he was unable to do so and simply reiterated his instructions.
31. The Respondent informed the Tribunal of the history of the application to date (as noted above) and noted that the Applicant had failed to provide any medical evidence to support his claim to date nor had he adequately responded to any of the Respondent's letters. In relation to the summons to the TAC, the Respondent stated that throughout the course of these proceedings, the Applicant referred to being involved and adversely effected by numerous car accidents. We submitted that having regard to the Applicant's own comments the summons was relevant and appropriate in the circumstances. It was also noted that the Applicant remained non-compliant with the Tribunal's previous Directions including the filing of the medical report of Professor Michael Robertson. Senior Member Griffin QC rightly expressed his concerns as to the conduct of the Applicant and put his solicitors on notice of the consequences of further non-compliance, which included a potential dismissal of the application. Senior Member Griffin QC then issued a further Direction that the Applicant file and serve the report of Professor Robertson on or before 17 August 2018 and that the summons to the Transport Accident Commission be issued (attached as Annexure T). A further directions hearing was also listed for 24 September 2018 to ensure the Applicant's compliance.
32. At the telephone conference on 17 September 2018, the Applicant's solicitor advised that the Applicant would not be producing further evidence and the matter was ready to be listed for hearing of approximately half a day's duration. Conference Registrar Richardson explained the Tribunal's processes to the Applicant's solicitor very clearly including the preliminary steps that needed to be taken to proceed to hearing. This included the requirement that the Applicant provide a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions as well as witness statements including the Applicant's own statement. A direction was issued accordingly on (attached as Annexure U). The Respondent noted that this matter required potentially 5 days for hearing, not half a day as suggested by the Applicant's solicitor.
33. On 19 September 2018, the Applicant’s solicitor wrote to the Tribunal requesting the Directions Hearing listed for 24 September 2018 be vacated due to no representative from SBC Lawyer's being available to attend the hearing (attached as Annexure V).
34. On 20 September 2018, the Tribunal advised that Senior Member Griffin QC had declined the Applicant's solicitors request and that the Directions Hearing would proceed as listed.
35. At the Directions Hearing on 24 September 2018, it was noted that the Applicant had filed his medical evidence in accordance with the Direction. The Applicant's solicitor again stated that no further evidence would be filed. The Respondent advised the Tribunal that Conference Registrar Richardson specifically issued a Direction that the Applicant provide all remaining evidence including witness statements by 5 October 2018 and it was imperative that this was received including the Applicants own statement given the inconsistent version of events and alleged bullying he has recounted to his treating doctors (as reflected in the summonsed records and subsequent IME reports served). Senior Member Griffin QC agreed with the Direction made and noted that the Applicant's statement in particular would be one of the primary documents the Tribunal would be relying upon when making its decision following a hearing. He reinforced the need for compliance with the Applicant's solicitor to which Mr Chanaka Senanayake responded that the evidence would be filed in accordance with the Direction.
36. On 7 October 2018 the Applicant's solicitor filed and served a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions on behalf of the Applicant. By email of even date, the Applicant's solicitor also advised that they were unable to summons Mr Chris Kelly as a witness as he no longer wished to be a witness for the Applicant (attached as Annexure W). No statement for the Applicant was received.
37. On 9 October 2018, the Respondent informed the Tribunal of the Applicant's further non- compliance as he had failed to file and serve his own statement in accordance with the Direction dated 17 September 2018 (attached as Annexure X).
38. The Tribunal listed a non-compliance Directions Hearing for 18 October 2018 due to failure to comply with paragraph 2 of the Direction.
39. On 15 October 2018, the Applicant's solicitors requested that the non-compliance Directions Hearing be vacated. The Respondent wrote to the Tribunal of even date opposing the request on the basis there was clear non-compliance with the Direction. It was also noted that the requirements on the Applicant to file all remaining evidence and statements were thoroughly explained to his solicitors by both Conference Registrar Richardson and Senior Member Griffin QC (attached as Annexure Y).
40. On 18 October 2018 the non-compliance Directions Hearing proceeded before Deputy President Constance. The Applicant’s solicitor failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the Applicant did not file his own witness statement in accordance with the Tribunal's Direction. The Applicant's solicitor stated that they had recently made enquiries with a Mr Chris Kelly who advised that he no longer wished to be witness for the Applicant therefore they were unable to obtain statement from him. When questioned as to its relevance to the failure of the Applicant to file his own statement, the Applicant's solicitor advised that the Applicant subsequently became unwell once advised that Mr Kelly was not prepared to be witness. Deputy President Constance noted that the Direction for the Applicant to serve his own witness statement was made on 17 September 2018 which was well before Mr Kelly's correspondence declining to be a witness.
41. The Respondent proceeded to inform the Deputy President of the background of the application, the significant delays to date and the Applicant's multiple non-compliance. The Respondent stated that the Applicant's solicitor had entirely missed the point of the non-compliance with the Direction, that the Applicant had yet again clearly failed to comply with the Direction and did not provide a proper reason for his failure to file his own witness statement. The Respondent also reiterated the explanations provided by Conference Registrar Richardson and Senior Member Griffin QC on the importance of the Applicant's compliance. Deputy President Constance rightly pointed out that the Applicant's solicitor did not even write to the Tribunal or Respondent notifying them of the Applicant's difficulties in providing a statement. Deputy President Constance noted that the Tribunal would not be ordering an extension to the Direction dated 17 September 2018 and would list the matter for an interlocutory hearing for dismissal as per the Respondent's request.
Consideration
These proceedings have been on foot for approximately 22 months and as outlined above in the Respondent’s chronology, it has been the subject of nine telephone conferences, three directions hearings (due to the Applicant's non-compliance) as well as eight directions to date. The Tribunal has been required to regularly intervene and exercise its powers to compel the Applicant to proceed with his claim. This has placed an excessive burden on the Tribunal's time and resources.
The Respondent has continued to be disadvantaged in its preparations for a potential hearing due to the Applicant's continued non-compliance, in particular his failure to provide his own witness statement. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s evidence to medical professionals to date has been inconsistent and in the absence of the Applicant's sworn evidence; the Respondent has been placed in a very difficult position in regards to obtaining evidence addressing the Applicant’s claims. I accept that it is a crucial piece of evidence in the proceedings.
At hearing, the Applicant’s solicitor submitted that a statement has not been filed by the Applicant because the Applicant’s witness, Chris Kelly, no longer wished to provide evidence in the matter. I fail to see how this has had any relevance as to why the Applicant has failed to file and serve his own sworn evidence in the proceedings. The Applicant’s solicitor claimed that he would file a statement for the Applicant within a week; however, as the Respondent rightly pointed out, similar submissions have been made on previous occasions; most recently in late September 2018.
It is plain that the Applicant’s delay in proceeding with his application has caused significant prejudice and unfairness to the Respondent. The Applicant's failure to proceed with his application in a timely manner has undoubtedly resulted in the Respondent incurring unnecessary legal fees over the last 22 months. It has resulted in medical evidence previously obtained by the Respondent going 'stale' such that the Respondent will now be required to incur further expenses by arranging a re-examination of the Applicant. A medical appointment is scheduled for 13 November 2018, however given the history of the Applicant's non-compliance to date, including his failure to attend a medical examination arranged by his own solicitors in the past, the Tribunal cannot be confident that the Applicant will attend.
For all of the above reasons, I have significant reservations as to whether the Applicant will comply with future directions. The reason for the Applicant’s failure to comply with multiple directions issued by the Tribunal has not been properly explained. This is despite the directions, including the consequences of non-compliance, being explained by the Tribunal to the Applicant's solicitors on numerous occasions, to which the Applicant has appeared to not take notice. I find that the Applicant has not proceeded with the current application in a timely manner. I am satisfied that the matter should be dismissed under section 42A(5) of the AAT Act.
The Respondent also contends that the Applicant has limited prospects of success in the substantive proceedings and that this is an additional ground upon which to dismiss the proceedings. The basis for this contention is that the Respondent intends to establish that the conduct of the Respondent towards the Applicant was ‘reasonable administrative action’ and as such, he is not entitled to compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act. As already stated, the Applicant has given inconsistent statements to medical professionals, raising concerns about his truthfulness and character. My attention was drawn to the fact that the Applicant currently has other proceedings on foot in the Tribunal relating to the review of a decision of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) permanently banning the Applicant from providing financial services after finding that he was not of good fame or character. The Respondent submits that the finding of ASIC will show that the Respondent’s actions taken towards the Applicant were reasonable administrative action. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that the Applicant’s prospects of success are very poor. In regards to prospects, the Applicant submits that the Applicant is unwell and that he should be entitled to compensation due to the nature of abuse endured by the Applicant at the hands of his supervisor. The question of reasonable administrative action was not addressed.
Based on the current state of the evidence, I am unwilling to make a finding as to prospects. The Applicant’s evidence has not yet been filed, updated medical evidence is pending following further examination and the decision of ASIC is currently under review by this Tribunal.
Other matters
I note for completeness that the Applicant’s legal representative contacted the Tribunal on a number of occasions following the conclusion of the hearing of the dismissal application. He firstly sought clarification about the directions made by the Tribunal in September 2018, and then requested an opportunity to respond to the written submissions filed by the Respondent just prior to the commencement of the dismissal hearing. This request was opposed by the Respondent. I rejected the Applicant’s request as the hearing on the dismissal application had properly concluded and my decision in the matter was reserved. In making this decision, I had regard to the fact that the Applicant was legally represented at hearing, had an opportunity (and did) file written submissions on the dismissal application and had ample opportunity to make oral submissions at hearing in reply to the Respondent’s submissions. I also note that the material contained in the Respondent’s written submissions would have been no surprise to the Applicant. The submissions set out a straightforward chronology of events and included all directions previously made by the Tribunal in the substantive matter which would already be on the Tribunal’s record as well as the Applicant’s solicitor’s file.
The Applicant’s legal representative then proceeded to file two witness statements; a witness statement of the Applicant and a statement of Chris Kelly, signed by the Applicant. I have not taken this evidence into consideration on the dismissal application. It was filed after the conclusion of the hearing without leave and was not properly before me in evidence on the dismissal application.
Decision
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has failed within a reasonable time to proceed with the application for review. Pursuant to section 42A(5) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal dismisses the application.
I certify that the preceding 15 (fifteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A Poljak
...........................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated: 2 November 2018
Date(s) of hearing: 30 October 2018 Solicitors for the Applicant: SBC Lawyers and Solicitors Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison
0
0