Knight v RMYS
[2022] VMC 23
•11 August 2022
IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
Case No. M11266997
| MICHAEL KNIGHT | Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
| v | |
| MATTHEW SOLLY | Second Defendant by Counterclaim |
---
MAGISTRATE: | Magistrate T. W. Greenway |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne Magistrates’ Court (online) |
DATE OF HEARING: | 9 August 2022 |
DATE OF DECISION: | 11 August 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Knight v RMYS |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VMC 23 |
---
AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW – Alleged prohibited debt collection practices pursuant to s 45 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 – Additional remedy for contravention of section 45 – Damages.
---
APPEARANCES: | COUNSEL | SOLICITORS |
| For the Plaintiff | In person | |
| For the Defendant | Mr S Thomas | EC Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Mr Michael Knight (Knight) is a former member of the Royal Melbourne Yacht Squadron (RMYS). In late 2021, a dispute arose between Knight and RMYS in relation to alleged debts owing by Knight for renting a pen at RMYS and related expenses.
Mr Matthew Solly (Solly), is the general manager of RMYS.
In June 2021, RMYS commenced proceedings against Knight to recover the alleged debt (RMYS Proceeding). Knight counterclaimed against RMYS, Solly and three other defendants asserting, inter alia, contraventions of ss 45 and 46 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) (Act).
The RMYS Proceeding was subsequently resolved. In the counterclaim, Knight now only presses his claims against Solly. [1]
Relevant Provisions of the Act
[1] Knight confirmed he was confining his Counterclaim to the allegations in paragraph [11] - [15] as against
Solly.
Knight’s cause of action is founded in s 46 of the Act:
Additional remedy for contraventions of section 45
(1) A natural person who has experienced humiliation or distress due to a course of conduct of another person in contravention of section 45 with respect to a consumer debt may apply to a court or VCAT for an order that the person engaging in that conduct, or a person involved in that conduct, pay damages of up to $10,000 (or another prescribed amount)
(2) In subsection (1)—
“course of conduct” means conduct that occurs on at least 2 occasions;
Person involved has the meaning given by section 197.
Section 197 provides that a person involved in a contravention of this Act means a reference to a person who—
(a) has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention;
(b) has induced, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, the contravention;
(c) has been in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to, the contravention;
(d) has conspired with others to effect the contravention.
(3) Subsection (1) –
(a) applies in addition to any other available remedy;
(b) is not intended to affect any other available remedy.
…[2]
[2]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 46.
Section 3 defines a “consumer debt” as any debt that is incurred by a natural person wholly or predominately in connection with personal, domestic or household purposes.[3]
[3] Ibid, s 3.
To satisfy s 46 of the Act, Knight must establish that a person engaged, in trade or commerce, in a prohibited debt collection practice. Relevantly, the sub-sections of s 45 of the Act relied upon by Knight were as follows:
Prohibited debt collection practices
(1) A person must not in trade or commerce engage in a prohibited debt collection practice while—
(a) collecting or attempting to collect a debt[4]; or
[4] Debt in Part 4.1, including an alleged debt.
(b) repossessing or attempting to repossess goods.
(2) In subsection (1), prohibited debt collection practice means—
(f) doing or threatening to do any act that may expose to ridicule a person or a member of that person’s family.
Example
Parking a vehicle outside a debtor’s private residence that displays information that a person is engaged in debt collection.
(i) attempting to take possession of or threatening to take possession of any property to which the person, or the person’s principal, is not entitled to possession.
Example
Making a representation that immediate possession will be taken of a debtor’s home or other property when a debt is not secured by that property or the creditor has not obtained judgment for the debt.
(j) disclosing or threatening to disclose debt information, without the consent of the debtor, to any other person who does not have a clear and legitimate interest in the information.
Example
Disclosing debt information when contacting a person who is not the debtor while attempting to locate or identify the debtor.
(k) making a false or misleading representation in connection with—
(i) the nature of the debt; or
(ii) the extent of a debt; or
(iii) the consequences of not paying a debt; or
(iv) the method of recovering a debt.
Examples
1 Falsely representing that a debt is a fine or other pecuniary penalty, or that a person has committed an offence.
2 Using a letterhead which is liable to mislead the person to whom he letter is sent as to the identity, status or role of the person who used the letterhead.
3 Falsely representing to a person who is not a debtor that, in relation to a debt, the person must prove or make a statutory declaration that he or she does not owe the debt.
4 Threatening to give a credit reporting agency information that could affect a person’s creditworthiness that could not be given or that would, if given, be false or misleading. [5]
Plaintiff’s Evidence
[5]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45.
Knight gave evidence that the original dispute arose over monies he owed to RMYS (Debt). The dispute centred around whether RMYS was obliged to pass on certain rent reductions to its sub-tenants, including Knight. While Knight admitted that he owed monies to RMYS, he disputed the quantum.
RMYS ultimately appointed a company called E-Collect Pty Ltd as its agent to assist collection of the Debt. Despite exchanging correspondence, no agreement was reached and the RMYS Proceeding was commenced.
Knight agreed that he signed an ‘Application for membership 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020’ on 1 October 2019 to become a member of RMYS.[6] As part of that application, Knight acknowledged that:
[his] RMYS account is governed by RMYS Accounts and Credit Policy. A copy of the policy is available from the RMYS office. It is published in the RMYS “Red Book” and on the RMYS website.
[6] Exhibit D4.
The Accounts and Credit Policy contained the following highly relevant provision:
12. Sale of Members Goods
The Squadron is authorised by the Member to sell any of the Member’s goods (including boats) on the Squadron’s premises or within its area of management or control or in its custody; in the name of the Member or in the name of the Squadron, where:
· the Member’s account is in arrears beyond a Statement reporting date by more than 120 days;
· at least 3 statements have been sent to the last known address or communication address of the Member over a period of not less than 50 days;
· the Member has been notified in writing that:
o the specified goods will be sold if all the moneys owing to the Squadron are not paid within 14 days or any other specified longer period; and
o the amount of all moneys owing to the Squadron at the date of the notice; and
· the Member does not pay that amount (and any accruing amount specified in the notice) in that time.
…
The Squadron may do anything reasonable in relation to a sale including advertising, repairing and refurbishing the goods, taking and giving custody or possession, allowing access to the goods by third parties, relocating the goods, and signing a sale contract and any ancillary documents in the name of the Member or in the name of the Squadron. The Squadron may also dispose of the goods where they have no or little net value. [7]
[7] Exhibit D1.
Knight agreed that he signed a Marina Short Term Rental Application Form on 9 October 2019, which contained the following acknowledgment:
If my application is successful, I authorise Royal Melbourne Yacht Squadron to charge my membership account according to the published rates above. I acknowledge that I have read and will abide by the RMYS Marine Rules as published by time to time. [8]
[8] Exhibit D2.
Knight alleged that, during RMYS’ endeavours to recover the Debt, Solly’s conduct amounted to four contraventions of the Act – ss 45(f), 45(i), 45(j) and 45(k).
45(i) – threatening to take possession of Knight’s property.
45(k) – making a false and misleading representation.
Knight’s evidence was that on 26 April 2021, Solly, without authority, security interest or legal right, took possession of Knight’s yacht, Mistral IX, at the St Kilda Marina managed by RMYS. Possession was obtained by chaining Mistral IX to the marina.
In cross-examination, Knight said contrary to cl 12 of the Accounts and Credit Policy, he had only received one statement in June 2020. He said he has not seen three RMYS’ arrears statements for May, June or July 2021. [9]
[9] Exhibit D6.
In further contravention of cl 12, he denied receiving any written notice advising him that ‘specified goods will be sold if all the moneys owing to the Squadron are not paid within 14 days’ as stipulated by cl 12.
Knight also disputed that a “Notice of Intention to Dispose of Uncollected Goods” dated 9 June 2021 satisfied cl 12.[10] That notice required payment by 9 July 2021. However, Knight agreed that he was in arrears in June 2021.
[10] Exhibit D8.
Knight denied that he was bound by a document headed “Short Term Mooring Pen Sublease” stating that he did not sign it.[11]
[11] Exhibit D7.
Knight said that Solly’s email of 27 April 2021 contained false and misleading statements describing the method of recovery of the Debt and incorrectly claimed a right to sell Mistral IX without any legal right to do so. The 27 April 2021 email provided:
Dear Michael,
As your membership account is in arears in accordance RMYS terms and conditions your membership is now unfinancial. Please be advised your access to the marina and clubhouse is deactivated
Your boat name: Mistral IX, make: Cole40, sail number S1966, has been locked and secured to prevent removal.
The arrears as of date are $9,202.80 to prevent any further action which may include the sale of the vessel we require the full amount to be received into the RMYS account within five days. Failure to comply will result in RMYS taking the necessary steps to dispose of the vessel.
Please note: Fees will continue to accrue. Pen fee $815.67. [12]
[12] Exhibit P2.
Knight placed further reliance on an email sent by Ms Lou Woods, Senior Account Manager of eCollect to Knight on 9 June 2021. Knight said that the 9 June 2021 email contained the false representation that eCollect or Solly had the right to sell Knight’s yachts. That email stated:
Dear Michael
Re: Amounts owing to Royal Melbourne Yacht Squadron (RMYS) our ref RMYSR0077 Mr Michael Knight
Matt Solly from RMYS has asked me to take over the conduct of this matter on his behalf. Please direct all correspondence to me from this point on.
Matt has provided me with a copy of your repayment proposal.
This is acceptance on the basis that you sign and return the attached settlement agreement on or before Friday, 11 June 2021.
Attached with this email is a Notice to Pay and Collect Goods by way of service.
Please be aware that my instructions are to sell the yachts in the event that payment in accordance with the settlement agreement is not made.
Please direct payment to this office.
I note that the yachts Cole 40 Yacht Mistral IX Sail No 192 and Cole 24 Yacht Sail No A48 are currently advertised for sale.
My expectation is that a far better result will be achieved by you selling the yacht rather than me. So, I wish you the best of luck in obtaining a fast sale.
As your membership account is in arrears in accordance with RMYS terms and conditions your membership is now non-financial.
Please be advised your access to the marina and clubhouse is de activated.
Your yachts Cole 40 Yacht Mistral IX Sail No 192 and Cole 24 Yacht Hirondelle Sail No A48 have been locked and secured to prevent removal.
If you need to show a prospective purchaser over the boat, please contact Matt Solly to arrange access.
Of course, once the payment plan is completed, normal access arrangement can be resumed.
Please contact me on the numbers below, should you have any queries.
Thank you and regards. [13]
45(j) – disclosure of debt information
45 (f) – doing any act that may expose to ridicule
[13] Exhibit P3.
Knight gave further evidence that on 22 June 2021, Solly wrote an email to other yacht clubs[14] in Port Phillip Bay advising them of Knight’s Debt to RMYS. Knight did not give his consent to this disclosure.
[14] Including Hobsons Bay, Royal Yacht Club of Victoria, Sandringham and Blairgowrie.
The 22 June 2021 email read as follows:
Hello Everyone
Michael Knight is now an unfinancial RMYS member owing around $12,000. His boat (photo below) has been chained to the marina for six weeks and we are well progressed in the process of legally seizing the boat. The first one!
Unfortunately on Sunday morning, Mr Knight assisted by another former member (Richard he manages Primitive Cool) removed the chain which was around the shrouds. CCTV footage shows them securing the mast, unbolting the shrouds, lifting off the chain then reconnecting the shrouds.
While we will pursue judgment against Mr Knight, we are now unlikely to recover the $12,000.
He may have taken the boat to another YC, if Mistral IX is in your marina, please contact me for a not so glowing reference. [15]
Knight’s experience
[15] Exhibit P1.
Knight gave evidence that sailing was his principal sport and that, prior to these matters, he sailed several times every week. However, he has not sailed since the 22 June 2021 email. As a result, Knight gave evidence that he has been held to ridicule by RMYS members, as well as members from other yacht clubs. He described an incident where he was told words to the effect of “you must be going bad, if you can’t pay”. This comment occurred in the presence of his wife, and Knight was embarrassed.
Knight describes his inability to sail as having a huge impact on his life, as he is unable to enjoy his favourite pass time at any clubs on Port Phillip Bay. This caused him great distress. Knight’s evidence was that he has been unable to move his yacht to any of the clubs which have received the email. He said he was unlikely to be granted membership of those clubs as he is unable to secure the two requisite referees to make an application. Knight contends this was a result of the 22 June 2021 email.
Solly’s evidence
Solly has been the general manager of RMYS for approximately six and a half years. He first met Knight just before he became a member of RMYS in or around October 2019.
Shortly after the general committee approved Knight as a member, RMYS organised a ‘new members night’ which took place in late 2019. Solly said Knight attended this meeting and was given a folder of documentation which included the constitution, the Account and Credit Policy, parking permit and access fob.
Solly gave evidence that by early 2021, Knight was in arrears. In relation to the impact of COVID-19, Solly said that Parks Victoria, as RMYS’s lessor, had offered 100% rent relief or $51,000 reduction. RMYS then provided a $200 reduction in September 2020 to its sub-tenants by dividing the $51,000 across the 250 sub-leases. This was in the context of RMYS’ total annual income from marina rental being close to $600,000.
He explained that RMYS’ normal process of following up arrears was for the membership co-ordinator Ms Jan Hurst (Hurst), to contact the relevant member. Solly said that Hurst sent several emails about the debt to Knight around this time.
In or around late April 2021, due to a lack of response, Knight’s debt to RMYS was referred to eCollect, a recovery agent.
On 27 April 2021, Solly wrote the email set out at paragraph [19] above. Around the same time and upon advice from eCollect, Solly instructed RMYS’s operations manager to affix Mistral IX to the marina.
Solly gave further evidence that RMYS sent out monthly statements to its members. Those statements were sent out automatically to members’ email addresses by RMYS’ accounting system. He relied upon statements from May, June and July 2021 being sent to Knight’s email address.[16]
[16] Exhibit D6.
In relation to the 22 June 2021 email, Solly’s evidence was as follows:
[RMYS] is one of six similar Port Phillip yacht clubs that act cooperatively. We formally and informally assist each other where we can. Just prior to the email, Mistral IX was chained and secured to [RMYS’] marina. Without authorisation and without our knowledge, Knight removed the boat from the marina by removing the chain. I was interested to see where the boat might go and to assist the other clubs. If it arrived at another club, I was happy to share my information and experience with them.
Solly said he did not send the email to assist with debt recovery, but rather was a genuine attempt to cooperate and provide information to the other yacht clubs.
Submissions
Knight relied upon the 27 April 2021 email, the 9 June 2021 email, and the 22 June 2021 email to establish a course of conduct by Solly (conduct that occurs on at least 2 occasions) in contravention of section 45 of the Act.
Knight submitted that RMYS had not complied with cl 12 of the Accounts and Credits Policy in that:
(a) there was no evidence of at least 3 statements being sent to Knight’s address; and
(b) there was no written notice requiring him to pay the arrears within 14 days, failing which his specified property would be sold;
(c) Solly’s 27 April 2021 email had required payment within 5 days instead of 14; [17]
(d) the Notice of Intention to Dispose of Uncollected Goods did not constitute written notice under cl 12 as it formed part of a repayment proposal; [18] and
(e) the ‘Short Term Mooring Pen Sublease’ was not signed by Knight and therefore cannot be relied upon by RMYS by reason of s 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic). [19]
[17] Exhibit P2.
[18] Exhibit D8.
[19] s 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic).
In those circumstances, RMYS had failed to satisfy its own obligations pursuant to cl 12. By sending the 27 April 2021 email, Solly had therefore ‘threatened to take possession of property to which RMYS was not entitled to take possession’ in breach of s 45(i) and made ‘a false or misleading representation in connection with ‘the method of recovering a debt’ in breach of s 45(k).[20]
[20]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45(i), s 45(k).
Particular reliance was placed by Knight upon the following paragraphs of the 27 April 2021:
The arrears as of date are $9,202.80 to prevent any further action which may include the sale of the vessel we require the full amount to be received into the RMYS account within five days. Failure to comply will result in RMYS taking the necessary steps to dispose of the vessel. [21]
[21] Exhibit P2.
For the same reasons, the Woods’ 9 June 2021 email contravened ss 45(i) and (k) by asserting:
Please be aware that my instructions are to sell the yachts in the event that payment in accordance with the settlement agreement is not made.[22]
[22] Exhibit P3.
Knight submitted that Solly was responsible for this email as he had “asked [Woods] to take over the conduct of this matter on his behalf”.
Finally, Knight submitted that by sending the 22 June 2021, Solly had contravened ss 45(f) and 45(j) of the Act.[23] Such breaches were apparent as Solly had sent the 22 June 2021 in debt collection for the sole purpose of putting pressure on Knight to pay the Debt. Alternative, Solly sent the email to expose Knight to ridicule and humiliation.
[23]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45(f), s 45(j).
In response, Solly submitted that Knight had not established the elements of a cause of action under s 46(1) of the Act.[24]
[24]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 46(1).
First, there were no false or misleading representations in the 27 April 2021 and 9 June 2021 email. RMYS had a contractual right to take possession of Mistral IX under cl 12 of the Accounts and Credit Policy and take reasonable steps in relation to a sale. Accordingly, as RMYS was entitled to possession, there was no breach of s 45(i) by threatening to take possession.
Secondly, the 22 June 2021 email was not sent ‘while collecting or attempting to collect a debt’ from Knight. Given the community nature of the yacht club recipients, Solly also submitted that it was in their clear and legitimate interest to receive information as to unfinancial members of other clubs and to be informed of any member incidents that had occurred. Further, there was no statement in the 22 June 2021 that may expose Knight to ridicule.
Finally, it was submitted that Knight had not established that he had experienced humiliation or distress due to the alleged course of conduct. There was a lack of evidence in relation to the opprobrium allegedly suffered by him. Solly submitted that any ridicule, humiliation or distress was predominantly caused by his ongoing dispute with RMYS, his removal of Mistral IX from RMYS marina and his unwillingness to pay the Debt.
Determination
First, Knight must establish conduct of another person, on at least 2 occasions, that contravenes s 45 of the Act. Section 45 provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in a prohibited collection practice while:
(a) collecting or attempting to collect a debt; or
(b) repossessing or attempting to repossess goods. [25]
[25]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45.
No issue was taken by Solly that he was not acting ‘in trade or commerce’. Given the extent of RMYS business in renting out its marine pens, I am prepared to accept that Solly was acting ‘in trade or commerce’[26] when writing the 27 April 2021 and 22 June 2021 email.
[26]Re Ku-ring-gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) (1978) 22 ALR 621, 648 - 649; Shahid v Australasian College
of Dermatologists (2008) 168 FCR 46, 26 – 27.
However, Solly submitted that he had not sent the 22 June 2021 email while ‘collecting or attempting to collect a debt’. This is discussed further below.
Knight relies upon three emails to constitute a course of conduct – Solly’s 27 April 2021 email, Woods’ email of 9 June 2021, and Solly’s 22 June 2021 email.
Turning first to the Woods email of 9 June 2021.[27] In my opinion, that email cannot be said to be conduct of Solly. Plainly, Solly is not the author of that correspondence. It was an email written on behalf of RMYS by Woods as a Senior Account Manager at eCollect. The fact that Solly may have provided certain instructions or handed over carriage of a debt collection matter to eCollect does not contravene s 45 of the Act.
[27] Exhibit P3.
Moreover, I do not accept Knight’s central contention that RMYS did not have a legal right to possession of Mistral IX. In my opinion, that right was provided by cl 12 of the Accounts and Credit Policy.[28] The exercise of that right had preconditions, but the right itself had been created.
[28] Exhibit D1.
Further, the wording of the 9 June 2021 email informs Knight that eCollect had instructions to sell the yacht if payment was not made. Those instructions were based on cl 12.[29] Whether or not the preconditions of cl 12 had been satisfied is ultimately a matter of legal interpretation.
[29] Exhibit D1.
Accordingly, I consider that the 9 June 2021 email did not contravene s 45(i). Similarly, the 9 June 2021 email did not contravene 45(k) as there was no false or misleading representation made in the connection with the method of recovering a debt.
For the same reasons, Solly’s email of 27 April 2021 also did not contravene s 45(i) or 45 (k).
Given the above findings, Knight has not established a course of conduct (that is conduct on at least 2 occasions) by Solly that contravenes s 45 of the Act. The only remaining alleged breach relates to Solly’s email of 22 June 2021.[30] Although that email was sent to numerous recipients, it was conduct that only occurred on one occasion. It therefore does satisfy the definition of ‘course of conduct’ within the meaning of s 46(2) of the Act.
[30] Exhibit P1.
The fact that Knight relies on the 22 June 2021 email to evidence two contraventions of s 45 does not alter that conclusion.
However, if that interpretation is wrong, I will consider whether the 22 June 2021 email contravenes s 45(f) or 45(j).
To contravene s 45 of the Act, Solly must have engaged in a prohibited debt collection practice while collecting or attempting to collect a debt or repossessing or attempting to repossess goods.[31]
[31]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45.
Reading the email as a whole, I consider it was sent by Solly while he was collecting or attempting to collect the Debt. In my opinion, the 22 June 2021 email is analogous to the Example given under s 45(j) in that Solly is endeavouring to locate Knight and Mistral IX.[32] Such a conclusion is supported by the last paragraph which states: “He may have taken the boat to another YC [yacht club]. If Mistral IX is in your marina please contact me for a not so glowing reference”.
[32]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 45(j).
Next, the email plainly discloses Knight’s debt information to the recipients without his consent. As submitted by RMYS, the issue is whether the recipients had a ‘clear and legitimate interest’ in the debt information.
In my opinion, the recipients of the 22 June 2021 had such an interest. I accept Solly’s evidence that the yacht clubs on Port Phillip Bay act cooperatively. This cooperation extends to providing each other with information, formally and informally, about the happenings of their respective clubs.
Given the community nature of RMYS and the other yacht clubs, I consider that the recipients had a clear and legitimate interest in receiving information about the debts owed by Knight to RMYS. That information was relevant to the recipients’ decision whether to accept Knight as a prospective member. The reliability and suitability of a prospective tenant is relevant to that decision. This is reinforced by the fact that two referees are required to make a membership application to the yacht clubs in question.
Accordingly, I do not consider the 22 June 2021 email contravened s 45(j).
Furthermore, I am not satisfied that sending the 22 June 2021 email constitutes ‘an act that may expose Knight to ridicule’. Unlike the legislative example to s 45(f)[33], the sending of the email was private. Knight did not give evidence that he was a member of the yacht clubs which received the 22 June 2021 email or that he frequented them.
[33] Ibid.
Finally, I am not satisfied that Knight has proven experiencing humiliation or distress due to the course of conduct alleged. I accept Solly’s submission that Knight failed to sufficiently evidence this element of s 46 of the Act.[34] There was no evidence that Knight experienced humiliation or distress from the 21 April 2017 or 9 June 2021 email. His evidence on this element was confined to the 22 June 2021 email.
[34]Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 46.
In this regard, I consider the height of Knight’s evidence at [23] - [24] above was that he was embarrassed by a comment that ‘[he] must be going bad, if [he] can’t pay’. I find such evidence falls short of humiliation and distress.
Further, I consider that Knight has failed to establish that any ridicule he experienced at the RMYS or from members of the other yacht clubs was due to the 22 June 2021 email.[35] There is no evidence that that email was circulated more widely than its recipients. In the absence of specific incidents and people referring to the 22 June 2021 email[36], I am not satisfied that Knight has established this element.
Conclusion
[35] Exhibit P1.
[36] Ibid.
For the foregoing reasons, I will dismiss Knight’s counterclaim.
I will hear the parties on the questions of costs and any consequential orders.
MAGISTRATE GREENWAY
11 August 2022
0
3
6