Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Lee v Lee

[2021] FCCA 1614

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Lee v Lee [2021] FCCA 1614

File number(s):

ADG 512 of 2019
ADG 513 of 2019

Judgment of:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment:

16 July 2021

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for order dismissing proceedings for failure to prosecute proceedings   with due diligence after the applicant trustee in bankruptcy was deregistered and therefore had no standing to maintain the proceedings on behalf of the bankrupt estate – whether there has been a failure by the trustee to prosecute proceedings after he was deregistered – whether the trustees who have been appointed in place of the deregistered trustee have failed to diligently prosecute the proceedings – matter set down to receive evidence and hear submissions from the current trustees on why proceedings should not be dismissed on the ground that the proceedings have not been prosecuted with due diligence

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth), rr 2.03, 10.1

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), r 15

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr 13.03A(1), 13.03B

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 9.09(1)(b)

Number of paragraphs:

35

Date of hearing:

2 July 2021

Place:

Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant in his personal capacity:

Mr D Craven of Andreyev Lawyers, by video

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr J Johnson, by video

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Anderson Lawyers

ORDERS

ADG 512 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF UNJU LEE

BETWEEN:

PETER IVAN MACKS AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF UNJU LEE

Applicant

AND:

HYE JIN BACK LEE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding is listed before Judge Manousaridis at 10:00 am on 30 July 2021 for the purpose of receiving evidence and submissions from Daniel Ivan Cvitanovic and Stephen John Hundy in their capacity as trustees of the bankrupt estate of Unju Lee (Trustees) on the following questions:

(a)why the proceeding should not be dismissed pursuant to r 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) on the ground specified in r 13.03A(1)(e) of those rules; and

(b)assuming the proceeding is not dismissed, why proceeding CAG27/2021 the Trustees commenced in the Canberra Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Court) should not be transferred to the Sydney Registry of the Court, and why the application made in that proceeding should not be determined by the Judge to whom proceeding ADG512 of 2019 has been docketed.

2.By 19 July 2021 the respondent serve by email on the lawyers for the Trustees a sealed copy of these orders together with the reasons for judgment on the basis of which these orders have been pronounced.

3.The costs of the application to dismiss the proceeding are reserved.

ORDERS

ADG 513 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF UNJU LEE

BETWEEN:

PETER IVAN MACKS AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF UNJU LEE
Applicant

AND:

DONG SIK LEE
First Respondent

KYUNG HEE LEE
Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding is listed before Judge Manousaridis at 10:00 am on 30 July 2021 for the purpose of receiving evidence and submissions from Daniel Ivan Cvitanovic and Stephen John Hundy in their capacity as trustees of the bankrupt estate of Unju Lee (Trustees) on the following questions:

(a)why the proceeding should not be dismissed pursuant to r 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) on the ground specified in r 13.03A(1)(e) of those rules; and

(b)assuming the proceeding is not dismissed, why proceeding CAG27/2021 the Trustees commenced in the Canberra Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Court) should not be transferred to the Sydney Registry of the Court, and why the application made in that proceeding should not be determined by the Judge to whom proceeding ADG513 of 2019 has been docketed.

2.By 19 July 2021 the respondents serve by email on the lawyers for the Trustees a sealed copy of these orders together with the reasons for judgment on the basis of which these orders have been pronounced.

3.The costs of the application to dismiss the proceeding are reserved.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The respondents in two separate proceedings commenced by Mr Ivan Macks, the former trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ms Unju Lee (bankrupt), apply for an order under r 13.03B of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (FCC Rules) that each proceeding be dismissed on the ground that each proceeding has not been prosecuted with due diligence. Mr Macks opposes those applications, and he applies for an order that he be added, in his personal capacity, as an interested party in each proceeding.

2. To be in a position to identify the grounds on which the applications are made, it will be necessary to set out the nature of the proceedings.

   BACKGROUND

3. On 2 June 2014 Ms Unju Lee became a bankrupt on her own petition. On 12 December 2014 Mr Macks was appointed trustee of Ms Lee’s bankrupt estate. (I will use “Trustee” to refer to Mr Macks in his capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt’s estate.)

   Claims in relation to the 4-6 Tangarra property

4. On 17 December 2019 the Trustee commenced a proceeding against Mr Dong Sik Lee, the bankrupt’s brother, and Ms Kyung Hee Lee, the bankrupt’s sister in law. The Trustee alleges the bankrupt transferred to Mr Dong Sik Lee and Ms Kyung Hee Lee (collectively Mr and Ms Lee) her interest in a property at 4-6 Tangarra Street Croydon, New South Wales (4-6 Tangarra property) for a consideration that was less than its market value. The alleged factual premises of that claim are as follows:

   (a)On about 6 August 2012 Mr and Ms Lee agreed to purchase from the bankrupt the 4-6 Tangarra property for $1 million.

   (b)Mr and Ms Lee were unable to complete the purchase because they could only pay $700,000 of the purchase price.

   (c)On about 21 November 2012 the bankrupt’s lawyer wrote to the lawyers for Mr and Ms Lee stating that the purchase price for 4-6 Tangarra property would remain at $1 million, but the bankrupt would lend Mr and Ms Lee $300,000 on terms that the loan would be payable on the giving of six months’ notice; interest would be charged at the rate charged by National Australia Bank on investment loans, and would become payable 12 months after the loan is made; and the loan would be secured by a mortgage.

   (d)The sale of the 4-6 Tangarra property was completed on 10 January 2013 by Mr and Ms Lee paying $700,000 to the bankrupt.

   (e)Mr and Ms Lee have not paid the outstanding balance of $300,000.

5. On the basis of these premises, the Trustee claims:

   (a)the transfer of the 4-6 Tangarra property is void against the Trustee under s 120(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act) because it occurred in the period beginning 5 years before the commencement of the act of bankruptcy; and Ms and Ms Lee gave consideration for the transfer that was less than the market value of the 4-6 Tangarra property;

   (b)further, or in the alternative to (a), the transfer of the 4-6 Tangarra property is void against the Trustee under s 121 of the Act because it was a natural and probable consequence of the bankrupt’s transferring the property with $300,000 of the purchase price remaining unpaid that the bankrupt’s creditors would be defeated or delayed; and

   (c)in the alternative to (a) and (b), Mr and Ms Lee are liable to repay the Trustee the loan of $300,000 on the giving of six months’ notice; the Trustee gave such notice; but Mr and Ms Lee failed to pay the $300,000.

6. The Trustee also claims a tracing remedy in relation to money Mr and Ms Lee received on their selling the 4-6 Tangarra property in January 2015 (Proceeds of Sale), and assets they acquired by use of the Proceeds of Sale. The basis of that claim is that a charge arose over the 4-6 Tangarra property when the bankrupt transferred it to Mr and Ms Lee; and the charge attached to the Proceeds of Sale and subsequently to the asset or assets Mr and Ms Lee may have acquired by use of the Proceeds of Sale.

7. In their defence Mr and Ms Lee admit they purchased the 4-6 Tangarra property from the bankrupt for $1 million; that they paid $700,000 of the $1 million on settlement of the purchase; and that the bankrupt agreed that the $300,000 balance of the purchase price would be treated as a loan on the terms the Trustee alleges. Mr and Ms Lee, however, say they paid the $300,000 to the bankrupt. Mr and Ms Lee have filed an affidavit made by Mr Lee in which he deposes he made a series of cash payments to the bankrupt from 24 January 2014 to 10 March 2014 totalling $299,999.70.

   Claims in relation to 8-10 Tangarra property

8. On 17 December 2019 the Trustee commenced a proceeding against Ms Hye Jin Back Lee, the bankrupt’s sister in law. The Trustee alleges the bankrupt transferred to Ms Hye Jin Back Lee her interest in a property situated at 8-10 Tangarra Street Croydon, New South Wales (8-10 Tangarra property) for a consideration that was less than its market value. The alleged factual premises of that claim are as follows:

   (a)On about 12 October 2012 Ms Hye Jin Back Lee agreed to purchase from the bankrupt the 8-10 Tangarra property for $650,000.

   (b)Ms Hye Jin Back Lee completed the purchase and became registered proprietor of the 8-10 Tangarra property on 23 January 2013.

   (c)Ms Hye Jin Back Lee only paid $550,000 of the purchase price, and she has not paid the balance.

9. On the basis of these premises, the Trustee claims:

   (a)the transfer of the 8-10 Tangarra property is void against the Trustee under s 120(1) of the Act because it occurred in the period beginning 5 years before the commencement of the act of bankruptcy; and Ms Hye Jin Back Lee gave consideration for the transfer that was less than the market value of the 8-10 Tangarra property;

   (b)further, or in the alternative, to (a) the transfer of the 8-10 Tangarra property is void under s 121 of the Act against the Trustee because it was a natural and probable consequence of the bankrupt’s transferring the property with $100,000 of the purchase price remaining unpaid that the bankrupt’s creditors would be defeated or delayed; and

   (c)in the alternative to (a) and (b), Mr and Ms Lee are liable to pay the Trustee the $100,000.

10. The Trustee also claims the bankrupt’s estate holds a charge over the 8-10 Tangarra property to secure Ms Hye Jin Back Lee’s indebtedness to the bankrupt under the contract for sale.

11. In her defence Ms Hye Jin Back Lee admits she purchased the 8-10 Tangarra property from the bankrupt for $650,000; and that on settlement she paid only $550,000 of the purchase price. Ms Hye Jin Back Lee does not admit, however, that the balance of the $100,000 had never been paid. In an affidavit filed in the proceeding, Ms Hye Jin Back Lee deposes to an agreement with her mother-in-law (the bankrupt’s mother) in which her mother in law said that Ms Hye Jin Back Lee did not need to pay the bankrupt $100,000 if Ms Hye Jin Back Lee agreed to allow the mother in law to remain in the house until she dies, and “that will cover the $100,000 you owe to [the bankrupt] and that she owes to me”.

    COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

12. On 3 November 2020 I made orders in each proceeding for discovery and the filing of evidence, and I set both proceedings down for hearing for five days commencing on 22 March 2021. I also listed the matter for directions on 3 March 2021.

13. On 2 March 2021 the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy sent a letter to the Registrar of this Court stating that as “a result of the deregistration of the previous Trustee, the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy became the trustee of the bankrupt pursuant to section 160 of the Bankruptcy Act”. The letter further stated that the Official Trustee was still in the process of collecting the file from Mr Macks, and, therefore, was not in a position to make a determination in relation to the proceedings.

14. The proceedings came before me for directions on 3 March 2021. Mr Thomas, barrister, appeared for Mr Macks; Mr Johnson, barrister, appeared for the respondents; and Mr Ng appeared for the Official Trustee. I ordered that the hearing be vacated, and, in addition to making other orders, I listed the proceedings for further directions on 20 April 2021.

15. On 19 March 2021 Mr Ng, on behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, sent the following email to Mr Aspite, the lawyer for the respondents, and to Mr Meister, the lawyer for Mr Macks:

    Please be advised that the Official Trustee has made a decision to transfer this estate to a registered trustee pursuant to section 181A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

    Stephen Hundy and Daniel Cvitanovic from Worrells have agreed to take on this matter. This estate will be transferred to the proposed trustees on 1 April 2021. I note that the directions hearing was adjourned until 20 April 2021 and I confirm that the incoming trustees have knowledge of this.

    I will provide you their contact details next week.

16. By email sent on 1 April 2021 Mr Ng informed Mr Aspite and Mr Meister the contact details of Mr Hundy and Mr Cvitanovic (Current Trustees), noting that the transfer to the Current Trustees will take effect on 1 April 2021.

17. The proceedings came before me for directions on 20 April 2021. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Current Trustees. Mr Thomas, however, appeared on behalf of Mr Macks, and Mr Johnson appeared for the respondents. I adjourned the matter to a further directions hearing on 25 May 2021.

18. On 23 April 2021 Mr Aspite sent a letter to Mr Macks’ lawyers, Meister Legal, noting that they remain on the record as the legal representatives of Mr Macks, and asking whether Meister Legal had any objection to Mr Aspite communicating directly with the Current Trustees. By letter dated 13 May 2021 Mr Aspite sent another letter to Meister Legal noting that he had received no response to his letter dated 23 April 2021, but that, too, was met with no response from Meister Legal.

19. At the directions hearing on 25 May 2021 Mr Thomas appeared for Mr Macks, and Mr Johnson for the respondents. There was, again, no appearance by or on behalf of the Current Trustees. I directed that by 1 June 2021 the respondents file and serve an application in a case for orders dismissing the applications, and set down that application for hearing on 2 July 2021. The respondents filed and served their applications in a case on 2 June 2021.

20. On 16 June 2021 Mr Macks filed and served an interim application in each proceeding seeking:

    (a)an order pursuant to r 2.03 of the Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Rules) that Mr Macks be heard in the proceeding;

    (b)an order that within seven days of the Current Trustees obtaining the approval of a court pursuant to subdivision 100-5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Act (Bankruptcy Insolvency Schedule) to the assignment of the causes of action the Trustee is advancing in the proceedings, Mr Macks file an order giving the approval; and

    (c)an order under r 10.1 of the Bankruptcy Rules that, on the filing of the orders, Mr Macks as trustee be substituted as the applicant in each proceeding.

21. Mr Macks supported the interim application with an affidavit. He deposed that on 1 April 2021 the Current Trustees had been appointed trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt’s estate; Mr Macks has had communications with the Current Trustees “with a view to taking an assignment of the rights to sue that form the basis of the Proceedings”; Mr Macks has “agreed terms with” the Current Trustees, and that a “deed of assignment will shortly be executed” that is conditional on a court giving approval under subdivision 100-5(2) of the Bankruptcy Insolvency Schedule; and the Current Trustees are “applying to a competent court to obtain” court approval. Mr Macks further deposed that he intends to receive the assignment as trustee for the Macks Lee Trust of which Mr Macks says he is “the individual trustee of that trust”; and that, because of his removal as trustee, it would not be appropriate for Mr Macks to continue as the applicant in the proceedings “as currently framed”. Mr Macks also said:

    The Current Trustees do not consider it is appropriate to bring the Application for the Court Approval in the Proceedings as the matters the court would be required to consider may prejudice the prosecution of the actions and therefore the intended benefit of the assignment.

22. On 17 June 2021 Mr Aspite sent a letter to Mr Macks’ new lawyer, Ms Andreyev, in which he said that the respondents had not heard from the Current Trustees; and Mr Aspite requested that Mr Macks produce documents evidencing the assignment of the causes of action to which Mr Macks referred in his affidavit, together with details of the court to which application was being made for approval of the assignment. On the same day Mr Aspite sent a letter to Meister Legal, and to the Current Trustees. Mr Aspite referred to Mr Macks’ affidavit, and noted that “no one has indicated how in any way a disclosure would prejudice the prosecution of the actions”. After asserting that the Current Trustees owed the Court a duty of full disclosure, and that the assignment will affect the respondents, Mr Aspite requested that the Current Trustees provide the respondents with a copy of any application and supporting affidavit in relation to any application the Current Trustees proposed to make for the approval of any assignment.

23. On 18 June 2021 the respondents’ lawyers received an email from Ms Hogan, the lawyer for the Current Trustees. Ms Hogan said it was not clear to her why the respondents contended they could be materially affected, or why the respondents contended they were entitled to be served with “any section 100-5 application”. Further correspondence passed, but it is unnecessary to set out everything that was said in that correspondence. I need only refer to four things. First, it appears that Mr Macks and the Current Trustees entered into a “confidential, conditional assignment deed dated 25 June 2021” (Confidential Deed of Assignment). Second, on 30 June 2021 the Current Trustees filed an application for approval of the assignment (Approval Application) with the Canberra Registry of this Court. That application is returnable on 2 August 2021. Third, on 30 June 2021 Ms Hogan informed Mr Aspite that the Current Trustees filed the Approval Application. Ms Hogan further said:

    Regarding Friday’s listing [that is, the listing of the respondents’ application to dismiss each proceeding]. As you are aware, Mr Macks is no longer trustee of the bankrupt estate and, therefore, presently lacks standing to appear as applicant. Meister Legal has, we understand, recently provided to you a copy of their notices of ceasing to act . . . Our clients cannot appoint solicitors to appear, or appear in their own right, as they are not named as parties. We understand that Mr Macks may currently be preparing a rule 11.02/11.03/11/04 application, to address these procedural issues. However, we do not presently know where that application is up to.

24. Fourth, on 1 July 2021 the Current Trustees lodged for filing in the proceedings before me an interim application in which they claimed the following orders:

    1.Pursuant to rule 2.03 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth), leave be granted to Daniel Ivan Cvitanovic and Stephen John Hundy (the Current Bankruptcy Trustees) to be heard in this proceeding.

    2. Pursuant to section 14 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), this proceeding be stayed pending final orders in proceedings CAG 27/2021.

    3. The Current Bankruptcy Trustees must notify all parties and the Court in writing of the outcome in proceedings CAG 27/2021, within 7 days of final orders. Thereupon, this proceeding shall be listed for further directions at a date and time to be notified by the Registry.

    4. The 2 July 2021 hearing date for the respondent’s dismissal application be vacated.

1. Although lodged on 1 July 2021, there is nothing to suggest that the Current Trustees, by themselves or by their lawyer, attempted to appear at the hearing on 2 July 2021; and the application is not supported by any affidavit. Thus, the Current Trustees have not taken any active step to oppose the respondents’ application to dismiss each proceeding for want of prosecution. That was left to Mr Macks who appeared by his solicitor, Mr Craven.

   PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

2. The respondents, by their counsel, Mr Johnson, submitted the Current Trustees failed to engage with each of the proceedings, and, for that reason, have manifested a lack of regard for their responsibilities as registered trustees to this Court. Mr Johnson criticised the Current Trustees for not disclosing to the respondents and to the Court the terms of any conditional assignment between the Current Trustees and Mr Macks; and Mr Johnson criticised the Current Trustees for having commenced a separate proceeding in the Canberra Registry of this Court without providing any evidence or explanation for their having decided to do that.

3. Mr Craven accepted there had been delay in the prosecution of the proceedings; but he submitted that delay was due to Mr Macks having been deregistered as a trustee, and to the time taken with Mr Macks discussing with the Current Trustee the terms of the assignment of the causes of action that are the subject of the proceedings. In those circumstances, Mr Craven submitted the appropriate order would be for the proceedings to be stayed until such time as this Court determines the Approval Application.

   STATUTORY PROVISIONS

4. In the interim application filed in each proceeding, the respondents apply for an order that the proceeding be dismissed pursuant to s 15 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (FCC Act) and r 13.03B of the FCC Rules. Relevant to the applications before me is r 13.03B(1)(a) of the FCC Rules which provides:

   (1)If an applicant is in default, the Court may order that:

   (a)the proceeding be stayed or dismissed as to the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant . . . .

5. An “applicant is in default” in the circumstances provided for in r 13.03A(1) of the FCC Rules. One set of circumstances is that identified in r 13.03A(1)(e), namely, where the applicant “fails to . . . prosecute the proceeding with due diligence”.

   DETERMINATION

6. The applicant in each proceeding is Mr Macks. That remains so even though he has been deregistered. But his deregistration is significant. Mr Macks commenced and maintained each proceeding in his capacity as Trustee; and he has been denied that capacity from the time he ceased to be a registered trustee. That occurred before 2 March 2021. The consequence of this is that the proceedings have not been prosecuted by Mr Macks because he has had no capacity to do so. The only persons who have the capacity to prosecute the proceedings are the Current Trustees, and they have had that capacity since 1 April 2021 when they were appointed trustees of the bankrupt’s estate.

7. The Current Trustees, however, have taken no step to prosecute the proceedings. In particular, they have made no application under r 9.09(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for an order that they be substituted as applicants in each proceeding.[1] Nor have the Current Trustees attempted to explain to the Court why they have not taken any step to prosecute the proceedings. It is true the Current Trustees filed an application in each proceeding in which they seek an order that they be heard. That by itself, however, does not manifest any intention by the Current Trustees to prosecute the proceedings. The application was not supported by any affidavit, and the Current Trustees did not appear at the hearing on 2 July 2021. At most, the Current Trustee’s filing of the application seeking an order that they be heard indicates that their only interest in the causes of action that are the subject of the proceedings is to assign them to Mr Macks.

   [1] Paragraph (a) of r 9.09 of the Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) provides: “If the interest or liability of a party passes to another person during a proceeding, by assignment, transmission, devolution or by any other means, the party or the person may apply to the Court for an order for the joinder of the person as a party or for the removal of the party”. The FCC Rules does not contain an equivalent rule, but it is capable of applying under r 1.05(2) of the FCC Rules

8. The Current Trustees have filed the Approval Application in another Registry of this Court. They have done so, however, without notice to me, being the Judge to whom the proceedings have been docketed, and without giving any explanation to the Court why the Current Trustees have taken this step. Mr Macks purports to give an explanation in his affidavit of 16 June 2021, namely, that the Current Trustees “do not consider it is appropriate to bring” the Approval Application “as the matters the Court would be required to consider may prejudice the prosecution of the actions and therefore the intended benefit of the assignment”. That, however, is not an explanation. Mr Macks does not identify the matters the Current Trustees believe the Court would be required to consider when determining the Approval Application, or the prejudice the Court’s consideration of those matters might cause to the prosecution of the causes of action pleaded in the proceedings, or how the Court’s consideration of those matters could cause such prejudice. Further, even if there may be some potential prejudice in having one judge determine both the Approval Application and the causes of action pleaded in the proceedings, the Current Trustees do not explain why the appropriate manner of addressing such potential prejudice is by the Current Trustees commencing not only a separate proceeding, but a separate proceeding in a different registry of this Court to that in which the proceedings are being prosecuted.

9. In these circumstances, I am satisfied there are grounds for making an order dismissing both proceedings on the ground that they have not been prosecuted with due diligence, either by Mr Macks, because he has no legal capacity to do so, or by the Current Trustees, who do have the capacity to prosecute the proceeding but have taken no step to substitute themselves as the applicants for the purpose of prosecuting the proceedings.

   DISPOSITION

10. I will not, however, make an order dismissing the proceedings. Instead, I propose to list each proceeding before me at 10:00 am on 30 July 2021 for the purpose of receiving evidence and submissions from the Current Trustees on the following questions:

    (a)why I should not dismiss each proceeding pursuant to r 13.03B(1)(a) of the FCC Rules on the ground specified in r 13.03A(1)(e) of the FCC Rules; and

    (b)assuming the proceedings are not dismissed, why the Approval Application should not be transferred to the Sydney Registry of this Court, and for that application to be heard by me.

11. I will direct that the respondents provide the Current Trustees with a copy of the orders I propose to make. I will also reserve the question of costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Manousaridis.

Associate: 

Dated:       16 July 2021