Micallef and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

[2016] AATA 974

Micallef and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2016] AATA 974 (30 November 2016)

Division	TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2015/4760-3
Re	Paul Micallef
APPLICANT
And	Commissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President Bernard J McCabe
Date	30 November 2016
Place	Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.

.........................[sgd].................................

Deputy President Bernard J McCabe

CATCHWORDS

TAXATION – amended assessments – whether excessive – where unexplained income – where applicant contended monies were repayments of a loan – where inconsistent evidence – where burden of proving that amended assessments were excessive not discharged – decision under review affirmed.  

LEGISLATION

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s 14ZZK

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Bernard J McCabe

30 November 2016

1. The Commissioner of Taxation suspects the applicant did not accurately declare all of the assessable income he earned during the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 income tax years. The Commissioner’s officers decided a number of transactions in the applicant’s accounts uncovered during an audit were not satisfactorily explained. The Commissioner issued amended assessments in due course. The applicant says the amended assessments were excessive because he has a good explanation for the disputed transactions. He has identified what he believes to be the correct figures for his assessable income.

2. The outcome of the case turns on a factual dispute. The applicant says the money flowing into his accounts that excited the interest of the auditors was connected with a loan the applicant made to a con-man. Some of the loan monies were repaid – which accounts for the cash transactions in the applicant’s accounts – but most of the monies were lost.

3. The Commissioner says the applicant’s story does not stack up. The Commissioner argues I should not be persuaded the amended assessments were excessive, or that a different, lower figure should be preferred. I am not satisfied the suspect payments should be regarded as payments of a loan. The objection decision must therefore be affirmed. I explain my reasons below.

   The applicant’s story

4. The applicant provided a statement: exhibit two, which is dated 2 March 2016. The Commissioner also tendered a draft statement in the applicant’s name which is unsigned and date-stamped 17 November 2015: exhibit 10. The draft statement was prepared by a Mr Andrew Ferguson, a lawyer who had provided some sort of assistance to the applicant: see transcript at p 97.  Both statements cover similar ground, and the applicant did not disavow the contents of the unsigned statement. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing in April and at the resumed hearing in July. At the hearing, he provided another unsigned and undated document which was described as a précis of his evidence: exhibit three. The précis referred to a number of other documents the applicant relied on (exhibits 3.0-3.17).

5. The applicant conducted a fitness business on the Gold Coast. The applicant said he and his business partner were considering a property investment and they needed finance.  On 9 September 2010, the pair was introduced to Mr Peter Liva at a café in Broadbeach. (Mr Liva apparently went under a number of different aliases, although the applicant says he was unaware of that at the time.) The introductions were made by a mutual acquaintance (exhibit two) although the applicant in cross-examination said the mutual acquaintance did not attend the meeting: transcript at p 93. The applicant said he drew comfort from the acquaintance’s endorsement of Mr Liva. The applicant explained he was “sort of just happy to be sort of [in] the same company, borrowing money off the same person”: see transcript at p 95.

6. In exhibit two, the applicant confirmed Mr Liva said his company, Facultus Pty Ltd, would be able to assist the applicant and his partner with finance for their investment. After offering that assurance at the meeting, Mr Liva mentioned he anticipated he would shortly have access to a massive loan facility provided by a major European bank. Mr Liva said he was close to finalising the negotiations with the bank to provide $800,000,000 in funding that he could loan to his Australian clients: exhibit two. (I should interpolate that the applicant was less certain of some of the details of this meeting when pressed about them during cross-examination. He was unsure whether there was one meeting with Mr Liva at which all this was discussed, or whether there may have been two meetings: transcript at p 94. His uncertainty on this point was one example of his poor recollection of detail, even allowing for the fact the events in question happened six years earlier.)

7. The applicant recalled Mr Liva said there was only one obstacle in the way of this deal. Mr Liva said he was struggling to pay the stamp duty on the transaction. He asked if the applicant and his partner might be interested in helping him out with a temporary loan. If the stamp duty were paid, the money from the facility would begin to flow. To sweeten the deal, Mr Liva agreed he would offer the applicant an advance of $1,000,000 on a low interest rate from the new facility in return for the applicant’s assistance: exhibit two.

8. The applicant said he had some misgivings about offering an unsecured loan to Mr Liva, but the opportunity looked good and Mr Liva seemed genuine. The applicant recalled Mr Liva offered to prepare a formal loan agreement between Facultus and the applicant. Mr Liva said he would provide copies of his drivers’ licence and passport and offer a personal guarantee. He added he would be able to (re)pay $40,000-60,000 into the applicant’s account within a few days: exhibit two.

9. The applicant recalled the loan agreement and the other documents identifying Mr Liva as the borrower arrived by email on 11 September 2010. A further email was received later the same day. That email said the agreement document had been signed by Mr Liva. It included instructions on how much to pay, and to whom: exhibit two.

10. The applicant transferred a total of $US191,000 ($A211,166.56) to an account in the name of Globe Master Consultancy Services Ltd on 13 September 2010. The payment was described as a ‘consultancy - logistics payment’ at the request of Mr Liva (exhibit 3.1 – email dated 11 September 2010). The applicant was asked about the identity of the designated payee – Globe Master – and the description of the payment in cross-examination. In the applicant’s draft statement (exhibit 10), it was suggested Globe Master was introduced into the transaction “because it was a bank requirement”. The applicant was unable to explain in cross-examination how he arrived at that understanding. When questioned, he replied: “I apologise, I’m not a banker and it’s not my industry…” (transcript at p 98). Mr Nicholas, counsel for the Commissioner, also pointed out the applicant had said the ‘loan’ was supposedly to cover stamp duty; there was nothing in the applicant’s other evidence to suggest it was a consultancy fee of any kind. The applicant was unable to explain in cross-examination why the description was applied: transcript at p 98.

11. In any event, a copy of the telegraphic transfer receipt dated 13 September 2010 recording the details of the transaction was tendered in evidence: exhibit 3.2. A copy of the applicant’s bank statement recording a transfer in that amount on that date from that account was also tendered: exhibit 3.3.

12. The applicant went on in exhibit two to explain he thereafter noticed the agreement was not signed by Mr Liva despite what was said in the email of 11 September 2010. The applicant said he contacted Mr Liva who assured him the contract was binding on Facultus and Mr Liva. Mr Liva also said he would arrange for an associate to organise the deposit of some funds into the applicant’s account. The associate was a finance broker in Adelaide. (Curiously, the finance broker volunteered in a letter dated 29 January 2015 that he had known the applicant “personally for over 7 years”. He added the applicant “is of very good nature”: exhibit 3.6. The applicant’s evidence did not refer to a pre-existing personal relationship with the broker; I note the letter from the broker was signed using a different surname. I was not sure what to make of this in retrospect. Unfortunately, none of this evidence could be explored in cross-examination because the witness was not made available.)

13. The applicant said an amount of $55,000 was paid into his account on 15 September 2010. The transfer came from an account linked to the sister of Mr Liva’s associate. A document from the applicant’s bank confirms that $55,000 was paid on that date with the notation “Jarod [the first name of the associate] loan for Peter”: exhibit 3.4. The applicant’s bank statement shows the money being credited the same day: exhibit 3.5.

14. The applicant said he and his business partner proceeded with their property investment in the first week of October. In exhibit two, the applicant indicated they expected to settle the purchase using monies advanced under the promised loan from Mr Liva. But Mr Liva contacted the applicant on 26 October 2010 and said there was a delay in obtaining the funding he was trying to organise. Mr Liva offered to arrange alternative finance in the short term and cover any additional costs. The applicant said he and his partner obtained finance from Mr Liva’s contact in December 2010 (exhibit 10) but Mr Liva did not make good on his promise to compensate the applicant for the higher cost of the short term loan. The applicant and his partner ultimately refinanced through another company: exhibit two.

15. The applicant said he was becoming concerned by this point that he had been cheated: exhibit two. Oddly though, he did not immediately take active steps to recover the money. The applicant’s draft statement (exhibit 10) suggests the applicant and Mr Liva remained in regular contact after 26 October 2010, and after Mr Liva failed to make good on his promises to fund the more expensive short term loan arrangement. The statement records Mr Liva’s repeated assurances that the loan facility was close to finalisation – in January 2011, and then (when nothing happened on that date) at later points. The next contact recorded in exhibit two was a letter from a solicitor acting for Mr Liva and Facultus Pty Ltd on 24 June 2011. A copy of the letter was included in a bundle provided by the applicant. The letter (document A7 in the bundle) confirmed:

    …we have been privy to information which confirms the existence of substantial funds in Belgium to be made available to our client for the purpose of approved lending subject to the finalisation of some legal mechanisms to which we are currently attending.

    It is anticipated that these mechanisms will be in place and finalised within the 7 to 14 days.

16. The applicant also produced a letter dated 29 June 2011 from the same solicitor addressed to Mr Liva.  It is document A8 of the same bundle provided by the applicant. It was not formally tendered into evidence. (The entire bundle was handed up but only selected documents from within the bundle were formally tendered.) The document purports to confirm Mr Liva was in the process of finalising the facility. It claims the solicitor who wrote the letter had seen the relevant documentation. The letter also says the solicitor had been instructed to act in relation to that transaction, and confirmed Mr Liva was required to make an upfront payment to the bank (referred to as a ‘mandatory transfer fee’) in order to bring about the immediate release of the funds.

17. The letter is an extraordinary document. The author expressly authorises Mr Liva to show the letter to “any interested party” – presumably so Mr Liva can prove his bona fides. It is unclear what role the document played in the applicant’s deliberations over how to deal with Mr Liva. In exhibit two, he refers only to the earlier letter from the solicitor dated 24 June 2011. In his unsigned draft statement (exhibit 10) the applicant refers to the second letter as well, but the statement does not explain how or when that document came into his hands.

18. The applicant said he decided not to take any further action against Mr Liva in the short term on the basis of the assurance he received from the solicitor in June 2011. Exhibits two and 10 record a series of exchanges between the applicant and Mr Liva or his associates over the six months that followed. The applicant recalled receiving repeated assurances that the facility was all but finalised, but events kept intervening. In exhibit 10, the applicant said he was in “almost daily” contact with Mr Liva.

19. The applicant’s bundle included an email from Mr Liva dated 18 November 2011. (It was not tendered but it is discussed in the applicant’s draft statement: exhibit 10.) In that email, Mr Liva explained the latest delay and said he would provide a repayment of $50,000-100,000 within two days. Mr Liva subsequently gave the applicant two cheques drawn on the account of Facultus Pty Ltd. The first cheque was for $50,000. It was dated 23 December 2011. The second cheque in the same amount was dated 29 December 2011. Both cheques were dishonoured. The letters notifying the applicant of the bouncing cheques are reproduced in exhibit 16. A further cheque in the amount of $100,000 dated 19 January 2012 was dishonoured on presentation. The letter informing the applicant of the dishonour is dated 23 January 2012: exhibit 16.

20. The applicant said he was angry about the bouncing cheques. He demanded that Mr Liva meet with him at the Grand Hotel in Labrador in January 2012 to discuss the situation.

21. The evidence of what happened at that meeting is important. In his précis of evidence, the applicant recalled the meeting was on 31 January 2012. The applicant said he was accompanied by his business partner and Mr Andrew Ferguson, a lawyer who had been assisting the applicant. I note the business partner did not mention the meeting in his statement (exhibit six) and he did not address the meeting in his oral evidence. The applicant initially recalled producing an unsigned copy of the original loan agreement at the meeting and prevailed upon Mr Liva to sign it: exhibit two. During cross-examination, the applicant agreed he was unsure whether the loan document Mr Liva signed was the copy sent under cover of the email of 11 September 2011. He suggested he may have asked the applicant to sign two copies that were not identical. He then wondered whether he already had a signed copy and simply asked Mr Liva to sign a second copy that he did not retain: transcript at p 101. He ultimately agreed the signed agreement in evidence (exhibit 3.0) was not the document signed at the Grand Hotel meeting: transcript at p 102. He was unable to explain the provenance of exhibit 3.0.

22. The applicant’s account of what occurred at the Grand Hotel meeting is, at a minimum, confusing. He was unable to clearly explain what happened with the loan documents (Was there one document or two? Was one of them already signed? Which document was signed at the meeting?) or what would be achieved by signing the document at that point. When pressed during cross-examination to explain the details of what occurred, he responded:

    You have to remember, yes, I was under a lot of pressure. I’ve lent $200,000 to someone. By that stage I’ve realised that I’ve probably been conned right? I’m out of pocket. I’m getting a bit distressed every day trying to get [Mr Liva]. [Mr Liva] took off to Brussels. [Mr Liva] went overseas. I was forever trying to chase [Mr Liva]. He’d stopped taking my calls. I went through a lot of dramas. Once again, I’m not – I know how it probably sounds to you guys, but I’m a landscaper, gardener, nursery owner, I’m not a bookkeeper. I’m probably the worst bookkeeper in the world, yes?

23. The applicant relied on the evidence of Mr Ferguson to corroborate his account. Mr Ferguson gave oral evidence and provided a statutory declaration (exhibit 3.10) and a statement (exhibit 3.11). In his statutory declaration, he explained that in January 2012 he was considering an offer of partnership from a firm of lawyers that had been engaged by the applicant. Mr Ferguson confirmed he did not have a practicing certificate at the relevant time so he was not permitted to act as a solicitor. (In his oral evidence, he said he was a company director during that period.) In any event, he was introduced to the applicant and took an interest in the applicant’s predicament with respect to Mr Liva. He said he attended the meeting at the Grand Hotel and attempted to apply some pressure. Mr Ferguson said he called Mr Liva a liar to his face and threatened to report him to “the relevant authorities”: exhibit 3.10.

24. Mr Ferguson’s statutory declaration dated 29 July 2014 (exhibit four) does not mention an unsigned loan agreement, nor does it say Mr Liva executed a loan agreement at the meeting at the Grand Hotel. Mr Ferguson’s subsequent statement (exhibit 3.11) dated 2 March 2016 recounts Mr Ferguson’s recollection of sighting an unsigned loan agreement prior to the meeting. Mr Ferguson said he told the applicant it was important to have the document executed. Mr Ferguson’s statement continued:

    6. I have now been provided with a signed copy of the loan agreement acknowledging the loan from [the applicant] to Mr Liva.

    7. Having now seen the loan agreement again, I can recall Mr Liva signing the loan agreement at the meeting at the Grand Hotel Labrador.

25. Interestingly, Mr Ferguson made no mention in his statements of the applicant receiving any money from Mr Liva before the meeting at the Grand Hotel. He did not adequately explain the omission when asked about it during cross-examination: transcript at p 75.

26. Mr Ferguson seemed less sure of his other evidence during cross-examination. He had difficulty recalling the information from the applicant he reviewed (not as a lawyer, he insisted, but as some sort of ‘consultant’: transcript at p 69). He initially referred to a few emails and some bounced cheques. He then remembered a loan agreement that was unsigned: transcript at pp 70-71.

27. Aspects of Mr Ferguson’s evidence were troubling. His explanation of the way in which he became acquainted with the applicant is not satisfying. While I accept he may well have been introduced to the applicant during a visit to the firm’s office, Mr Ferguson did not clearly explain why he became involved in the applicant’s affairs given he did not accept the offer of partnership in the firm. (Mr Ferguson said in cross-examination that he decided not to accept the offer of partnership shortly after a meeting with the firm in December 2011 – that is, before the meeting at the Grand Hotel in late January 2012: transcript at p 72.) Mr Ferguson insisted he was involving himself in the applicant’s affairs informally, but that does not explain why he would turn up to meetings with the applicant or call Mr Liva a liar, or take it upon himself to make threats, or why he would review documents or draw a draft statement. He also retained a number of the applicant’s documents in his possession: transcript at p 79. None of that is the behaviour of an otherwise disinterested recent acquaintance.

28. In his evidence, Mr Ferguson sought to downplay any suggestion he was acting as a solicitor – as well he might, given he did not have a practicing certificate. (That is not how the applicant saw the relationship. In cross-examination, he said Mr Ferguson was acting as his lawyer at the time: transcript at p 57. The applicant agreed Mr Ferguson drafted the statement at exhibit 10: transcript at p 56.) It may be that Mr Ferguson was tailoring his evidence to avoid admitting he had been acting as a lawyer without a practicing certificate, although he insisted that was not the case: transcript at pp 69, 77.

1. Mr Ferguson’s failure to mention in his first statement that the loan agreement was unsigned, or that a copy of the agreement was signed at the meeting, is also odd. One would have thought that evidence would have been obvious to a lawyer who had (by his own account) familiarised himself with the documents and taken a prominent role at the meeting. When questioned about the loan agreement in cross-examination, he confirmed he had sighted the unsigned document but was unsure about which of the unsigned documents he had seen: transcript at p 71. He also seemed unsure of whether he saw Mr Liva sign the loan agreement at the Grand Hotel meeting. He said only: “I believe I saw him sign it” (emphasis added): transcript at p 71. 

2. I am not satisfied I should accept Mr Ferguson’s evidence about the detail of what transpired at the Grand Hotel, or about his understanding of the applicant’s relationship with Mr Liva. At a minimum, Mr Ferguson appeared to be compromised as a witness by questions over whether he was acting as a lawyer. His account included a number of inconsistencies that suggest I should give limited weight to the detail of his evidence. Mr Ferguson did not become involved in the transaction until over a year after it commenced in any event. His evidence does not shed any clear light on how the underlying transaction should be characterised because he was not involved when that relationship was established. He was, at best, simply trying to assist the applicant to retrieve something from the disintegrating relationship.

3. Mr Liva is said to have paid the applicant $30,000 in cash within a day or two after the meeting at the Grand Hotel: exhibit two. The applicant recalled Mr Liva arriving at the applicant’s business premises on 1 February 2012. The applicant’s business partner says he was present when Mr Liva arrived. The partner confirmed Mr Liva handed over a parcel containing cash. The partner said he helped the applicant count the money after Mr Liva departed. There was $30,000 in the parcel: exhibit 3.12; see also exhibit two. The applicant said he drew on those funds to pay off his credit cards and meet other expenses.

4. The applicant said Mr Liva gave him another cheque shortly after the meeting in early January 2012. The cheque dated 10 February 2012 was in the amount of $20,000. It bounced: exhibit two. Mr Liva then deposited $30,000 into the applicant’s account on 23 February 2012. A copy of the deposit slip signed by Mr Liva was obtained from the applicant’s bank: exhibit 3.13.

5. In the meantime, the applicant had Mr Liva sign yet another document purporting to record the terms of a loan: exhibit 14. That document is dated 17 February 2012. It was witnessed by the applicant’s business partner. The document purported to acknowledge the total debt owed had grown to $400,000 (apparently as a consequence of loss and damage brought about by Mr Liva’s behaviour) and expressly provided for monthly interest to accrue. I note the amount of the debt does not appear to account for the payments the applicant said Mr Liva had already made to the applicant by that point. Curiously, the document was signed by Mr Liva but it suggests the original loan agreement was between the applicant, Mr Liva and Facultus Pty Ltd. Mr Liva was a director of Facultus. While Facultus was mentioned in some of the earlier correspondence and in what appears to be an unexecuted draft of a ‘confidentiality agreement’ reproduced in exhibit one at pp 472ff, none of the other versions of the loan agreement identified Facultus as a party to the agreement (although there is a tantalising but inconclusive reference to the company in clause 6.1.1(a) of the version of the agreement reproduced in exhibit one at pp 614ff). The applicant was unable to explain in cross-examination how Facultus came to be named as a party (exhibit 14). I note the agreement recorded in the document also provided for Facultus to provide security in respect of the debt.

6. The agreement recorded in exhibit 14 does not shed much light on the nature of the underlying agreement, and the document does not seem to provide a consistent account of that agreement in any event. I do not think it adds any weight to the applicant’s account.

7. The same could be said of the hand-written notes the applicant tendered at the hearing (exhibit 17). The notes were apparently prepared when the applicant consulted Mr James Lovell: that much seems clear because there is a reference at the top of the notes which reads “To James”. (Mr Lovell was previously employed as a clerk and then a solicitor at the firm which Mr Ferguson proposed joining.) The notes include references to loss and damage and set out some loose calculations of how much the applicant believed he was owed. But the applicant was unable to say for sure when he prepared the document; he was unable to say much about it when asked in cross-examination. The document does not shed any light on the underlying agreement, and there is no suggestion it was created contemporaneously. It is essentially self-serving, and may reflect what the applicant came to believe about the arrangement with Mr Liva.

8. I should mention the evidence of Mr Lovell. Mr Lovell left the firm that Mr Lovell had proposed joining and commenced work at another, but retained an informal relationship with the applicant. He subsequently resumed acting for the applicant. It seems he was dealing with the applicant before Mr Ferguson became involved – although his involvement with the applicant did not commence until after the applicant became concerned over his relationship with Mr Liva. Mr Lovell was not involved with the applicant when the relationship commenced. Like Mr Ferguson, he was trying to reconstruct what had occurred from the documents and from the applicant’s evidence in an attempt to retrieve something for his client.

9. Mr Lovell made plain in his oral evidence that he was uncomfortable with Mr Ferguson’s role. Mr Lovell left the employ of his former firm early in February 2012 but he retained contact with the applicant. Before his departure, he had been involved in the drafting of a statement of claim to be used in District Court proceedings against Mr Liva. The applicant commenced those proceedings in May 2012, after Mr Lovell had left the firm: exhibit seven.

10. The statement of claim is reproduced in exhibit one at p 494ff. It claims the sum of $261,166.39 plus interest. The statement of claim explained how the applicant arrived at that figure by reference to the unsigned loan agreement. (I note it did not refer to a signed agreement.) The amount claimed does not make any allowance for the $55,000 payment the applicant says he received from the finance broker in September 2011.

11. Taken together, I am satisfied the evidence of the applicant and Mr Ferguson about the meeting at the Grand Hotel does no more than establish there was a meeting involving the applicant, Mr Ferguson and Mr Liva; and that Mr Liva was pressed about an obligation to pay money.

12. I accept Mr Liva made a number of payments to the applicant in connection with some sort of arrangement, but I am not satisfied the evidence establishes that any obligation to pay arose out of the loan agreement tendered in evidence in these proceedings. I accept the applicant and Mr Liva were engaged in a business transaction, but the nature of that transaction is unclear. It might have been a loan to Mr Liva, as the applicant now contends, but it might also have been an investment in a business opportunity promoted by Mr Liva – or it might have been something else again. Even if I accept the applicant talked about the transaction as a loan at the time, that is not the end of the matter: the applicant is, by his own admission, an unsophisticated man and there is other evidence – the reference to the advance being a ‘consultancy - logistics payment’, for example – which raises the very real possibility that the parties were actually engaged in some sort of joint venture in which the applicant was an investor rather than a borrower. The applicant is a poor historian who was unable to accurately recall the detail of his relationship with Mr Liva. The fact some of the documents refer to a loan, or that there are several iterations of a loan agreement, does not necessarily mean that is what the parties were doing. The fact the applicant’s legal advisers subsequently proceeded on the basis their client had loaned money to Mr Liva does not actually assist me to characterise the underlying transaction when it was entered into.

    Discharging the burden in s 14ZZK

13. The Commissioner’s assessment assumed the monies paid into the applicant’s account were assessable. Section 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 effectively obliges the applicant to show the assessment was wrong, and by how much. The applicant has argued the suspect deposits were repayments of a loan. But I am not persuaded that is the correct characterisation of those payments. It is certainly possible there was a loan, but the nature of the agreement with Mr Liva is ultimately unclear. It may have been a joint venture of some kind.

14. If I am not satisfied there was a loan, there is no need to consider the applicant’s belated application to extend the grounds of objection so he could argue he was entitled to a deduction in the 2013 year of income in respect of a bad debt.

15. The applicant suggested late in the day that there might be an alternative ground upon which he could object to the assessment if I were not persuaded the underlying transaction was properly characterised as a loan. He asked for leave to amend the grounds of objection under s 14ZZK to argue he had experienced a capital loss.

16. The Commissioner did not oppose the granting of leave but pointed out the argument was only relevant to the 2013 income year when the loss (if that is what it was) occurred. But the applicant never got round to quantifying the loss in detail. Given the paucity of detail, I am not inclined to give leave to extend the grounds of objection.

    CONCLUSION

17. I am not persuaded the Commissioner’ assessment was wrong, so it must stand. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 45 (forty -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Bernard J McCabe

...................[sgd].....................................

Associate

Dated 30 November 2016

Date(s) of hearing	11-12 April and 5 July 2016
Date final submissions received	9 August 2016
Advocate for the Applicant	Mr S Russo
Solicitors for the Applicant	Premier Professional Partners
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr P Nicholas
Solicitors for the Respondent	Australian Government Solicitor