Kim v Naum BBQ Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1627

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Kim v Naum BBQ Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1627

File number:

MLG 289 of 2023

Judgment of:

JUDGE SYMONS

Date of judgment:

7 October 2025

Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – applicants seeking declarations of contravention of civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – application for default judgment against respondents in circumstances where they failed to comply with Court orders and to appear at hearing – default judgment entered in respect of applicants’ claim – respondents’ defence struck out and cross-claim dismissed – declarations of contravention – compensation awarded for underpayments and loss of entitlements – issue of penalty to be determined on the papers

Legislation:

 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 44, 45, 90, 117, 323, 535, 536, 545, 570

Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), regs 3.33, 3.34, 3.36, 3.37, 3.40, 3.42

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth), rr 5.07, 5.09, 5.11

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 5.23

Cases cited:

Kidd v Kwek (No 2) [2024] FCA 194

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

58

Date of last submissions:

6 October 2025

Date of hearing:

6 October 2025

Place:

Melbourne

Counsel for the applicants:

Mr A Jenshel

Solicitor for the applicants:

Mann Lawyers

Solicitor for the respondents:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the first or second respondent

ORDERS

MLG 289 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

JUNGHUN KIM

First Applicant

JIHYUN KYE

Second Applicant

AND:

NAUM BBQ PTY LTD (ACN 628 027 850)

First Respondent

BYOUNGWA LEE

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE SYMONS
DATE OF ORDER:	7 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.Upon admissions deemed to have been made by reason of the first and second respondents’ default pursuant to r 5.09 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) there be judgment for the applicants against the respondents.

2.During the period from 1 April 2019 to 6 November 2022, the first respondent contravened the following civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in relation to the first applicant:

(a)contrary to s 535(1) of the FW Act, failed to make or keep records as prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (Regulations):

(i)Reg 3.34;

(ii)Reg 3.36(1);

(iii)Reg 3.37(1);

(iv)Reg 3.40(a); and

(v)Reg 3.33;

(b)contrary to s 535(3) of the FW Act and reg. 3.42 of the Regulations, failed to provide a copy of the records on request by the first applicant on 13 December 2022;

(c)contrary to s 536(1) of the FW Act, failed to provide payslips to the first applicant;

(d)contrary to ss 117 and 44 of the FW Act and clause 35.1 of the Restaurant Industry Award (MA000119) (Award), terminated the first applicant’s employment without notice and without payment in lieu of notice;

(e)contrary to clause 23 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay for overtime at applicable rates;

(f)contrary to clause 24 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay for work performed by the first applicant on public holidays at applicable rates;

(g)contrary to s 323 of the FW Act, failed to pay the first applicant’s earnings in the two months prior to the termination of his employment;

(h)contrary to ss 90(2) and 44 of the FW Act, failed to pay the first applicant his accrued annual leave entitlements;

(i)contrary to clause 25.3 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay leave loading on the said annual leave entitlements; and

(j)contrary to clause 22.2 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to make superannuation contributions to a superannuation fund for the benefit of the first applicant.

3.During the period from 28 March 2019 to 6 November 2022, the first respondent contravened the following civil remedy provisions of the FW Act in relation to the second applicant:

(a)contrary to s 535(1) of the FW Act, failed to make or keep records as prescribed by the Regulations:

(i)Reg 3.34;

(ii)Reg 3.36(1);

(iii)Reg 3.37(1);

(iv)Reg 3.40(a); and

(v)Reg 3.33

(b)contrary to s 535(3) of the FW Act and reg. 3.42 of the Regulations, failed to provide a copy of the records on request by the second applicant on 13 December 2022;

(c)contrary to s 536(1) of the FW Act, failed to provide payslips to the second applicant;

(d)contrary to ss 117 and 44 of the FW Act and clause 35.1 of the Award, terminated the second applicant’s employment without notice and without payment in lieu of notice;

(e)contrary to clause 23 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay for overtime at applicable rates;

(f)contrary to clause 24 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay for work performed by the second applicant on public holidays at applicable rates;

(g)contrary to s 323 of the FW Act, failed to pay the second applicant’s earnings in the two months prior to the termination of her employment;

(h)contrary to ss 90(2) and 44 of the FW Act, failed to pay the second applicant her accrued annual leave entitlements;

(i)contrary to clause 25.3 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to pay leave loading on the said annual leave entitlements; and

(j)contrary to clause 22.2 of the Award and s 45 of the FW Act, failed to make superannuation contributions to a superannuation fund for the benefit of the second applicant.

4.The second respondent was involved in each of the first respondent’s contraventions identified in declarations 2 and 3 above.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 545(2)(b) of the FW Act, the respondents jointly and severally pay to the first applicant:

(a)the sum of $131,971.35; and

(b)interest thereon in the amount of $27,965.99.

2.Pursuant to s 545(2)(b) of the FW Act, the respondents jointly and severally pay to the second applicant:

(a)the sum of $62,273.18; and

(b)interest thereon in the amount of $13,196.28.

3.The defence be struck out.

4.The cross-claim be dismissed.

5.The respondents jointly and severally pay to the applicants theirs costs of and incidental to the cross-claim to be fixed in the amount of $30,000.

6.To the extent that any of the above orders require leave pursuant to s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), leave be granted.

7.The respondents file and serve written submissions on the issue of pecuniary penalties no later than 4.00pm on Thursday, 16 October 2025 with judgment on the question of penalty to be determined on the papers after this date.

8.The applicants serve a sealed copy of these orders as well as a copy of these reasons for judgment on the respondents by 4.00 pm on Thursday, 9 October 2025.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE SYMONS

INTRODUCTION

1. This proceeding relates to an application filed on 23 February 2023, and an amended statement of claim filed on 8 May 2023 by Mr Junghun Kim, and his wife Ms Jinyun Kye (together the applicants) against the first respondent Naum BBQ Pty Ltd (Naum BBQ), and the second respondent Mr Byoungwha Lee.

2. The applicants allege that Naum BBQ and Mr Lee contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and Fair Work Regulations (2009) (FW Regulations) across the period of 2019 up to 2022.

3. Throughout their employment with Naum BBQ the applicants were subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Restaurant Industry Award (Cth) (the Award).

4. The claims that the applicants advance against Naum BBQ and Mr Lee are as follows:

   (a)a claim under s 535(1) of the FW Act that Naum BBQ failed to make, or keep records of various kinds in accordance with the FW Regulations;

   (b)a claim under s 535(3) of the FW Act and reg 3.42 of the Regulations, that Naum BBQ failed to provide a copy of employee records on the request by the applicants;

   (c)a claim under s 536(1) of the FW Act that Naum BBQ failed to provide payslips to the applicants throughout the employment period;

   (d)a claim under ss 117 or 44 of the FW Act that Naum BBQ failed to give the applicants the requisite notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice;

   (e)a claim under s 45 of the FW Act that Naum BBQ failed to pay the applicants for all their overtime worked at overtime rates as it was required to do under cl 23 of the Award, and failed to pay the applicants for hours worked on public holidays at penalty rates as it was required to do under cl 24 of the Award;

   (f)a claim under s 323 of the FW Act that Naum BBQ failed to pay the applicants for work performed during the final two months of their employment;

   (g)a claim under ss 90(2), 45 and 44 of the FW Act that following termination of employment Naum BBQ failed to pay the applicants their accrued annual leave entitlements and associated annual leave loading as it was required to do under cl 25.3 of the Award;

   (h)a claim that Naum BBQ failed to make superannuation contributions to a superannuation fund for the benefit of the applicants as it was required to do pursuant to cl 22.2 of the Award.

5. On 23 December 2024, Naum BBQ filed a cross-claim which contained allegations that Mr Kim was liable for:

   (a)any underpayments owing to himself and Ms Kye;

   (b)the making of improper payments to himself and Ms Kye;

   (c)breach of a loan agreement entered into with Naum BBQ;

   (d)breach of an advance provided by Mr Lee for the purpose of acquiring new equipment for Naum BBQ.

   PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. This matter has been in the Fair Work Division in this Court since February 2023 and was set down for trial on 6 October 2025 on an estimate of four days.

7. On 8 September 2025, I made orders which provided that in the event the respondents were in default of orders requiring them to by 19 September 2025 file and serve any affidavit on which they intended to rely in relation to their cross-claim and by 29 September 2025, file and serve an outline of written submissions, then in accordance with r 5.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules), the cross claim be dismissed with costs, and there be judgment for the applicants on the claim, with pecuniary penalties to be assessed and determined on the papers.

8. The respondents did not file any material responsive to the orders made on 8 September 2025 and were absent at the hearing at which the orders were made.  They have not taken any active step in the proceeding since at least August 2025.  They declined to participate in a Court ordered mediation and in August 2025, their lawyer ceased to act for them.  Neither respondent filed a notice of address for service after this occurred which has particular consequences for a corporate respondent.

9. On one view, and in circumstances where the Rules now make provision for self-executing orders on default (see r 5.07), there was no necessity for the Court to convene a hearing before making orders on default.

10. However, despite this and reflecting the fact that it is a serious matter to make orders on a parties’ default and without affording them a further opportunity to participate, the original listing of 6 October 2025 was maintained.

11. When the matter was called on for hearing, both applicants were represented by Mr Jenshel.  There was no appearance by or on behalf of either respondent.  The applicants invited the Court to make the foreshadowed orders on default. 

12. In pressing this application, the applicants relied upon the following material:

    (a)Application filed on 22 February 2023;

    (b)Amended statement of claim filed on 7 May 2023;

    (c)Affidavit of Junghun Kim filed on 19 September 2025;

    (d)Affidavit of Jihun Kye filed on 19 September 2025;

    (e)Affidavit of lawyer, Charlize Wu, filed on 29 September 2025;

    (f)Written submissions filed on 30 September 2025; and

    (g)Supplementary written submissions filed on 5 October 2025.

    BACKGROUND

    Employment arrangements and operation of Naum BBQ

13. The applicants’ affidavit material records the following matters.

14. Mr Kim is a chef who has worked at a number of establishments in Melbourne.

15. Between 2014 and 2018, Ms Kye (who is Mr Kim’s wife) was employed as a manager at Oriental Spoon Restaurant and completed a Management Operations course at the William Angliss Institute.

16. In around 2018, Mr Kim met Mr Lee while they were both working in the hospitality industry. Mr Lee operated a business “Seoul Meats”, which supplied meat to a restaurant in which Mr Kim was employed. Soon after, Mr Kim facilitated an introduction between Mr Lee and Ms Kye.

17. Between March and May 2018, Mr Lee and Mr Kim entered into discussions with the intention of establishing a Korean restaurant.

18. In or around May 2018, Mr Kim and Mr Lee met at the Crown Casino and made the decision to set up the restaurant, Naum BBQ through the company with the same name (the first respondent).  Mr Lee established the company and appointed himself as the sole director, secretary, and shareholder.  It is Mr Kim’s evidence that the joint venture agreement included terms that he (Mr Kim) would work as executive chef and the restaurant would be owned by Mr Kim and Mr Lee on a 50/50 share.

19. On 12 February 2019, Mr Kim entered into an employment contract with Naum BBQ for the role of a chef.  The contract (which was titled “Letter of Appointment”) contained terms including that Mr Kim would be paid an annual salary of $55,000 per year plus superannuation and that Mr Lee or Mr Kim may terminate the contract with the provision of one month’s notice.[1]

    [1] Annexure JK-2 to the Kim affidavit.

20. Also in February 2019, Mr Lee offered Ms Kye a full-time position as operations manager of Naum BBQ.  The terms of her employment were formalised through oral discussions and were not recorded in a written contract.  Mr Lee offered to pay Ms Kye the same salary as Mr Kim (being $50,000 per annum) plus superannuation.

21. In March 2019, Naum BBQ started trading.

22. On or about 28 March 2019, Ms Kye commenced employment with Naum BBQ as operations manager. The role of operations manager included responsibility for the supervision and training of food and beverage staff, ordering and stock control.

23. On or around 1 April 2019, Mr Kim commenced employment with Naum BBQ. In addition to the usual duties of a chef, Mr Kim was responsible for the supervision and training of kitchen staff, together with ordering and oversight of kitchen stock.

24. On 6 November 2022, Mr Kim received a telephone call from Mr Lee, in which he (Mr Lee) informed him that the applicants’ employment with Naum BBQ had been terminated effectively immediately and they were not required to attend work from 7 November 2022.

25. Mr Lee lodged a debtor’s petition with the Australian Financial Security Authority, which was accepted for filing on 20 September 2025.

    THE APPLICANTS’ CLAIMS

    Failure to make, keep and provide records and payslips

26. During the employment period, Mr Kim provided information and dates regarding time sheets to Naum BBQ’s account keeper Mr Dong-Keun Lee and/or Mr Mitchell Kim.

27. It is Mr Kim’s evidence that he had regular discussions with Mr Lee regarding employment records and payslips and other matters relating to the operation of Naum BBQ.  

28. Mr Kim says that during the employment period, he requested payslips from Mr Lee on a quarterly basis and that despite these requests, he did not receive any payslips.

29. On 13 December 2022, Mr Kim and Ms Kye instructed their law firm, Mann Lawyers to issue a letter to Naum BBQ and Mr Lee, requesting the provision of a copy of the employee records.

30. On 12 April 2023, I made orders for the respondents to provide discovery of employee records and payslips to the applicants. There has been no compliance with these orders.

    Failure to give notice or pay in lieu

31. The applicants were terminated from their employment position effective immediately and therefore were not provided any notice.  Neither were they paid an amount in lieu of notice. 

    Failure to pay earnings

32. It is the applicants' evidence that they both routinely worked overtime and on public holidays, and that no payments were received in line with applicable overtime or penalty rates for work performed during those periods.

33. It is Mr Kim’s evidence that Mr Lee had instructed the applicants to work overtime and on public holidays, including through telephone conversations, and face-to-face discussions in which Mr Lee advised Mr Kim that he was required to stay late to supervise staff or to open Naum BBQ on public holidays.

34. Further, Mr Lee instructed Mr Kim that labour costs needed to be reduced, and that it was better for him to work additional hours, so the extra wages could be paid to him. Mr Kim says he was advised that the additional payments of wages for his work would be provided at a later date, but this payment never occurred.

35. Mr Kim calculates the amount of money owing as a result of a failure to pay earnings as follows:[2]

    (a)$98,380.96 for unpaid overtime;

    (b)$7,322.36 for unpaid public holiday wages;

    (c)$8,897.60 (before tax) for the final two-month period prior to termination.

    [2] Annexure JK-5 to the Kim affidavit.

36. Ms Kye calculates her entitlements with respect to the same categories of entitlements as follows:

    (a)$30,083.62 for unpaid overtime;

    (b)$7,131,65 for unpaid public holiday wages;

    (c)$8,897.60 (before tax) for the final two-month period prior to termination.

    Annual leave entitlements

37. During the employment period, the applicants took annual leave on one occasion from 30 December 2019 to 22 January 2020.

38. The applicants claim that they did not receive any payment on termination for their annual leave entitlements.

39. Mr Kim calculated his leave entitlements as follows:

    (a)$10,977.14 for accrued but untaken leave of approximately 406 hours;

    (b)$1,924.49 for unpaid leave loading based on the 17.5% applicable award rate applied to these leave hours.

40. Ms Kye calculates her leave as follows:

    (a)$11,132.24 for accrued but untaken leave of approximately 412 hours;

    (b)$1,948.14 for unpaid leave loading based on the 17.5% applicable award rate.

    Superannuation entitlements

41. The applicants’ affidavit material contains evidence that they had provided information and dates relating to their superannuation fund to Naum BBQ’s accountant.

42. Naum BBQ did not make any superannuation contribution to either applicant’s superannuation fund during the employment period.

    Mr Lee’s involvement

43. The applicants contend that because Mr Lee was the sole director, secretary and shareholder of Naum BBQ, and had complete control over the operations of the business, including but not limited to recruitment, payroll and staff management he was accessorily liable pursuant to s 550(1) of the FW Act, for the various contraventions that have been described earlier in these reasons and which are specified in the amended statement of claim.

1. Illustrating this control, it is the applicants’ evidence that Mr Lee gave instructions to his accountants to oversee the accounting, payroll and tax records of Naum BBQ and that he would on occasion instruct Mr Kim to withdraw money from the till to pay Mr Kim, Ms Kye and other staff as instalments of wages.  Mr Lee would tell Mr Kim that he would reconcile the amounts at a later time.  Mr Kim said that he never made any payments to himself or anyone else, without Mr Lee’s instructions or approval.

   County Court Proceedings

2. On 7 July 2023, Mr Kim filed an application in the County Court of Victoria to enforce the joint venture and loan agreement with Mr Lee.

3. On 22 May 2025, Judge Ryan delivered judgment in favour of Mr Kim, and on 13 June 2025 her Honour ordered Mr Lee to transfer 50% of the shares in Naum BBQ to Mr Kim.

4. On 27 June 2025, Mr Lee transferred the shares to Mr Kim.  Mr Kim’s attempts to call a general meeting of Naum BBQ have been futile because Mr Lee did not attend, despite being notified.

   THE LAW

5. The Rules deal with the powers of the Court in circumstances of default of a respondent. Rule 5.11 provides:

   5.11Orders on default – respondent

   If a respondent is in default, the Court may:

   …

   (c)if the proceeding was started by an originating application supported by a statement of claim, or an alternative accompanying document referred to in rule 8.04, or if the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings – give judgment against the respondent for the relief claimed in the statement of claim or alternative accompanying document to which the Court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled; or

   …

6. This Court has the benefit of the new rule mirroring the equivalent provision in the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), namely, r 5.23(2)(c)), which has been the subject of extensive judicial commentary.

7. In Kidd v Kwek (No 2) [2024] FCA 194, McEvoy J made observations about the operation of r 5.23 at [21]-[23] as follows:

   21The Court retains a discretion as to whether or not to make any order or an order of a particular kind in relation to an application pursuant to r 5.23, and whether that discretion should be exercised depends, inter alia, upon “the nature of the default itself, any explanation provided for the default, the manner in which the party in default has conducted the proceeding to-date and whether the Court could have any confidence that a proceeding would henceforth be conducted in an orderly and proper manner”: BJ International Limited v Asghar (No 2) [2013] FCA 580 at [13] (Flick J). An order may be made entering default judgment against a respondent in circumstances where the default is such as to manifest an intention on the part of the respondent not to comply with orders which have been made with a view to preparing a case for hearing; a single act of default may be sufficient; and in other circumstances a single act of default may not warrant an order being made: BJ International at [14].

   22Whatever a defaulting party’s state of mind or resources, where the non-compliance is continuing and occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice to the other parties, it may be appropriate for the Court to make orders for default judgment: Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Limited (1990) 27 FCR 388 at 396 (Wilcox and Gummow JJ).

   23In Maylord Equity Management Pty Ltd v Parazelsus Ltd [2014] FCA 979, Gleeson J recorded the following relevant principles at [10]-[14]:

   [10]The condition in rule 5.23(c) of the Rules, that the Court be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to relief before judgment is entered against the respondent, does not require proof by way of evidence of the applicant’s claim, although evidence may be adduced: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline Net AU Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 665, [2006] FCA 1427 at [44]; Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd, Re Beachwood Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1129 at [9].

   [11]However, the applicant must demonstrate, on the face of the statement of claim:

   a.a claim for relief sought; and

   b.that the court has jurisdiction to grant that relief.

   See Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd v Bose [2006] FCA 94 at [20].

   [12]An applicant will appear to be entitled to the relief sought in the statement of claim if each element of the relevant civil wrong is properly and discretely pleaded: Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle [2005] FCA 1239; (2005) 146 FCR 400 at [24]; Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle (2008) 79 IPR 7, [2008] FCA 1417 at [20].

   [13]The Court may permit recourse to further limited evidence but cannot admit evidence that would alter the case as pleaded: Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 at [25] (“Speedo”).

   [14]If an order for relief under rule 5.23(2)(c) is made, it gives the applicant a special privilege to gain judgment without proof of the applicant’s claim – a severe disadvantage to the respondent.  As a result, the rules governing default judgment are strictly construed and the discretion must be exercised cautiously: Clayton v Thomas C Denton & Co Pty Ltd [1972] VicRp 5; [1972] VR 46 at 49; Speedo at [20].

   DISPOSITION

8. I am satisfied that I have the power in this case to make orders on default and that the power should be exercised.  This reflects my satisfaction that the respondents have engaged in acts of default (identified earlier in these reasons) and have provided no explanation to the Court (or to the applicants) that might justify their lack of engagement. 

9. The proceeding has been on foot now for a considerable period and the applicants have incurred significant costs in an attempt to vindicate their rights as employees.

10. The Court has the benefit of a set of pleadings that comprehensively identifies each element of the different categories of underpayment and contravention of workplace laws.  The statement of claim also annexes four schedules that allow the Court to discern the precise figures to be attributed to the different contraventions, including by reference to the underlying calculations, which are also provided.

11. The applicants have gone into evidence as to the circumstances of their employment by Naum BBQ and this evidence contextualises and supports the claims for relief that are set out in the statement of claim.

12. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Court to make orders requiring the respondents to pay to each applicant, a lump sum amount that corresponds to the figures identified in these schedules and which is contained in the prayer for relief.

13. I am further satisfied that in circumstances where the respondents have taken no recent steps to prosecute their cross-claim, including by filing affidavit material in support, that there should be an order dismissing this claim with costs, fixed in the sum of $30,000. Proceeding on the basis that s 570 of the FW Act applies to the cross-claim, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a costs order because the failure of the respondents to prosecute the cross-claim and to participate in the proceeding constitutes an unreasonable act or omission for the purpose of s 570(2)(b) which justifies a departure from the usual rule that the parties are to bear their own costs in proceedings in the Fair Work Division.

14. The applicants seek pecuniary penalties for the various contraventions of the FW Act, the Regulations and the Award and have filed written submissions directed at this issue.

15. I will give the respondents a period of one week in which to file any responsive submissions after which time judgment on the question of penalties will be reserved and determined on the papers.

I certify that the preceding fifty-eight (58) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Symons.

Associate:

Dated: 7 October 2025