Mr Syed Naeem v Boroondara City Council

[2017] FWC 2142

[2017] FWC 2142

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Syed Naeem
v
Boroondara City Council
(U2016/15270)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 19 APRIL 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Naeem was employed by Boroondara City Council as a full time Asset Field Rater from April 2011 until his dismissal on 9 December 2016. Mr Naeem was paid four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and an additional two weeks’ pay upon termination.

[2] Boroondara is a large national system employer and it is not suggested that the termination of employment was a genuine redundancy. There is no dispute and I am satisfied that Mr Naeem is protected from unfair dismissal.

[3] The central issue in this case is whether or not there was a valid reason for Mr Naeem’s dismissal. Mr Naeem was absent from the workplace due to illness from 2 September 2016 until the termination of his employment. Mr Naeem exhausted his personal leave entitlements. Mr Naeem made a workcover claim in respect to his illness which has not been accepted at this stage. Boroondara dismissed Mr Naeem because they say that his absence from the workplace was no longer temporary and he was unable to perform the inherent requirements of his position. Mr Naeem says that he would have been able to return to work if reasonable adjustments were made by Boroondara and Boroondara should have made these adjustments and that it was unfair to dismiss him in these circumstances.

[4] In deciding whether or not the dismissal was unfair I am required to consider the following:

“387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.”

[5] In respect to Section 387(a) the existence of a valid reason is a matter of contention.

[6] In respect to Section 387(b), if I find that Mr Naeem was unable to perform the inherent requirements of his position then it is accepted that Mr Naeem was advised of the reason for termination in advance of the decision having been made.

[7] In respect to Section 387(c) it is accepted that Mr Naeem had an opportunity to respond to the reason for dismissal which was related to his capacity or conduct. Mr Naeem had the opportunity, and took that opportunity, to respond in writing to the reasons for his proposed dismissal. The correspondence of 17 November 2016, 25 November 2016 and 9 December 2016 all dealt with the proposed reasons for dismissal. Mr Naeem responded by correspondence on 23 November 2016. Given the circumstances of this case it is accepted that Mr Naeem had an opportunity to influence the decision maker prior to the decision to dismiss.

[8] In respect to Section 387(d) it is accepted that there was no refusal to allow a support person but the fact that the dismissal discussion took place by correspondence there were limited opportunities.

[9] In respect to Section 387(e) it is accepted that the reason given for dismissal was not unsatisfactory performance. The issue of prior warning is not relevant in this case.

[10] In respect to Sections 387(f) and (g) it is accepted that Boroondara is not a small business and it does have dedicated human resource management personnel or expertise. There is no contention about the procedures adopted for the dismissal; the dispute in this case relates to whether or not there was a valid reason.

[11] In respect to Section 387(h) Boroondara suggest that the additional two weeks’ paid at the time of termination suggest that the termination was not harsh. I reject that submission. If the dismissal was not for a valid reason the payment of an additional two weeks’ would not mean that the termination was not harsh. Of course the payment is relevant to the issue of remedy if I find the dismissal was unfair. Both parties raise the issue of whether Boroondara had taken adequate steps to resolve the underlying historical issues which contributed to Mr Naeem’s illness. Mr Naeem submits that termination of employment was harsh in circumstances where inadequate steps were taken to deal with this injustice. Boroondara submit that they took all reasonable steps to resolve these historical issues.

[12] The decision in this matter will turn on four questions:

a. Was Mr Naeem dismissed in breach of Section 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009? (Section 387(a) and (h))

b. Did Boroondara take reasonable steps to resolve Mr Naeem’s complaint about his supervisor? (Section 387(a) and (h))

c. Could Mr Naeem have returned to work if Boroondara made reasonable adjustments to his work? Was the failure of Boroondara to make such adjustments reasonable? (Section 387(a))

d. Was Mr Naeem able to perform the inherent requirements of his job? (Section 387(a))

[13] Before turning to these questions it is necessary to understand the background concerning the complaints made by Mr Naeem about his supervisor.

Mr Naeem’s grievances

[14] The initial complaint was made using Council’s Grievance Lodgement Form on 6 July 2015. The grievance was:

● That additional duties had been assigned to Mr Naeem which he believed were outside his position description. However, he had reached an agreement with his supervisor to perform the additional work and the supervisor would arrange for Mr Naeem to be promoted to Band 5.

● He performed the additional work for the next two years but the promotion did not happen. His supervisor changed because the supervisor he had discussed the matter with retired. “Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to discuss my case with him, who is not fully aware of the whole case, is not open to listening is abrupt and comes with a mindset to snub me.”

[15] On 20 August 2015 Mr Naeem was advised in writing of the outcome of the investigation into his grievance. Mr Davies a human resources employee of the Council, met with Mr Naeem as part of the investigation. The outcome of the investigation was that the former supervisor and another manager both acknowledged that they had stated that they would work towards Mr Naeem becoming a Band 5. The relevant managers also confirmed that Mr Naeem was required to perform the additional duties. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Davies advised that the position of Asset Field Rater was appropriately classified at Band 4 level and that the additional duties were a reasonable requirement for the role. The staffing levels were also found to be generally adequate although additional resources may be required from time to time.

[16] In September 2015 Mr Naeem made an application to the Fair Work Commission concerning his grievance. The application was subsequently withdrawn.

[17] In March 2016 Mr Naeem raised complaints with Mr Elson, Manger Asset Management, about his supervisor. Mr Elson summarised the concerns raised by Mr Naeem as follows:

● believed he was being harassed and intimidated in the workplace by Mr Dickins;
● felt that Mr Dickins did not listen to him;
● believed there had been a lack of consultation regarding changes to the Position, specifically in relation to the incorporation of lane inspections with footpath inspections;
● considered that the removal of a responsibility from his Position, specifically the recording of P4 defects, did not compensate for the additional work of the lane inspections which had been incorporated into the Position;
● calculated that changes to the inspection cycle he was required to undertake in the Position would require him to walk a further 19 kilometres over six months than the other Asset Field Rater;
● was walking between 5 kilometres and 10 kilometres per day, which he considered was near the limit of what is reasonable;
● felt that Mr Dickins did not support his ideas for job shadowing; and
● believed that he, rather than Mr Dickins, was expected to find out details of any training courses that Mr Naeem could do.

[18] Mr Naeem also sought a copy of a report from a visit he made to the Council supported physiotherapist in December 2015. Mr Naeem said that his report that his injuries were related to Mr Dickins’ actions were contained in that report. The correspondence reveals that Mr Naeem was particularly agitated about this issue and raised it repeatedly with management. In my view the report of a physiotherapist could not amount to an investigation report into whether or not Mr Naeem had been subjected to bullying or harassment by Mr Dickins. At its highest all the report could be is evidence that Mr Naeem raised the allegation that his injuries or aspects of them were related to alleged conduct by Mr Dickins. I am prepared to accept that Mr Naeem raised these issues and that they were noted by the physiotherapist in December 2015.

[19] Mr Elson investigated the grievances and responded on 6 April 2016. Mr Elson found that the emails sent by Mr Dickins to Mr Naeem were reasonable and did not constitute harassment or intimidation. He also rejected the claims related to lack of consultation about work changes and excessive work load. He said that the physio report had not been provided to Council officers. In his response Mr Elson said that “what I did find was evidence of your unsatisfactory behaviour in the performance of your job and insulting and offensive comments by you to your team leader in contravention of Council’s Code of Behaviour and Ethics.” Mr Naeem was required to attend a meeting on 15 April to discuss this.

[20] Mr Naeem re-raised his July 2015 grievances with human resources management on 8 April 2016 and sought that alternative personnel deal with the allegations against him. Human Resources management responded that the grievances had been appropriately investigated and the matter was closed.

[21] Mr Naeem was issued with a first written warning on 24 May 2016 in respect to unsatisfactory performance and he was required to participate in a performance improvement process. Mr Naeem objected to this on the grounds that he had a grievance against his supervisor. He failed to attend the scheduled performance improvement meeting. A direction was issued in correspondence of 24 June 2016 and Mr Naeem was required to respond in writing. Mr Naeem was on leave due to illness from 23 June 2016 until 15 August 2016. On 25 August 2016 Mr Naeem provided a response in which he continued to refuse to participate in the performance improvement process and stated:

“Grievances lodged on 6 July 2015 have not been resolved. If they had been resolved Mr Douglass Dickins would have not continued to snub me; who had in fact increased harassment and bulling leading to my health condition mentioned by the physio. In fact as a reaction to this David Elson and Douglass Dickins fabricated false case against me by raising the issues mentioned in the e-mail thread exchanged between me and Douglass Dickins. Grievance dated 8 June 2016 has not been resolved and I am still entitled to resolve the dispute through Fair Work Commission.”

[22] In response on 31 August 2016 Mr Naeem was issued with a final written warning concerning his failure to follow a reasonable direction and was directed to attend a performance review meeting on 7 September 2016.

[23] Mr Naeem was then on leave due to illness from 2 September 2016 until his dismissal. He was on unpaid leave from 5 September 2016 due to the exhaustion of paid leave entitlements.

Was Mr Naeem dismissed in breach of Section 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009?

[24] Mr Naeem makes reference to the requirements of the Fair Work Regulations 2009, Regulation 3.01 concerning the requirement in Section 352 of the Act that an employer not dismiss an employee because the employee is temporarily absent from work because of illness or injury of a kind prescribed by the regulations. Mr Naeem has provided evidence which establishes that the illness meets the requirements of Regulation 3.01(2), (3) and (4). Regulation 3.01(5) provides:

“An illness or injury is not a prescribed kind of illness or injury if:

(a)  either:

(i)  the employee’s absence extends for more than 3 months; or
(ii)  the total absences of the employee, within a 12 month period, have been more than 3 months (whether based on a single illness or injury or separate illnesses or injuries); and

(b)  the employee is not on paid personal/carer’s leave (however described) for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 97(a) of the Act for the duration of the absence.”

[25] I am satisfied that the period of illness or injury extended for a period of more than three months during which Mr Naeem was not on paid personal leave for the duration of the absence (5 September to 5 December 2016). Therefore, I accept that Mr Naeem was not dismissed because he was temporarily absent from work because of illness or injury of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

Did Boroondara take reasonable steps to resolve Mr Naeem’s complaint about his supervisor?

[26] Having read the documents provided I cannot find any detailed allegations of bullying, harassment or intimidation of Mr Naeem by Mr Dickins. To the extent that they are before me they are mainly vague and generalised allegations of being snubbed or not listened to. Mr Dickins was not Mr Naeem’s supervisor at the time that the changed duties and the proposed promotion became an issue. Mr Naeem later alleged that the criticisms of his own conduct and performance which were the outcome of Mr Elson’s investigation of his complaints in March 2016 were fabricated and were retaliation for his complaint. I accept that Mr Naeem strongly feels that Mr Dickins and others did not take his grievances about workload and failure to deliver on expectations about promotion seriously. I accept that he was given an expectation that he would be promoted to Grade 5 and Council then dashed that expectation. I also accept that the fact that the criticism of his own conduct and performance arose directly from an investigation into his March 2016 complaints would have reasonably led Mr Naeem to believe that this was retaliation. However, that was action by Mr Elson and not by Mr Dickins. There are no allegations before me which detail particular incidents of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Dickins towards Mr Naeem.

[27] I can see no reason to challenge the finding of the human resources department when they were asked to review the earlier investigation into the 2015 grievance, that there was no basis for reopening the matter. Mr Elson’s investigation of Mr Naeem’s March 2016 complaints appears to lack dispassionate objectivity. However, there is nothing before me which suggests that further investigation of Mr Naeem’s complaint about his supervisor is warranted.

[28] Mr Naeem himself raised on a number of occasions the option of taking the matter further pursuant to the disputes settlement procedure of the collective agreement. He did not take that step.

Could Mr Naeem have returned to work if Boroondara made reasonable adjustments to his work? Was the failure of Boroondara to make such adjustments reasonable?

[29] The certificates of capacity provided by Mr Naeem to his employer during the period of his illness stated that he was “unfit to RTW pre-injury employer. Fit to seek alternative employment different employer”.

[30] The certificates also indicated that Mr Naeem did have capacity for suitable employment throughout the periods in question.

[31] Boroondara, Mr Naeem and to some extent his medical practitioner were in communication throughout this period concerning a return to work plan. The Council proposed a period of two weeks when Mr Naeem would report to a different supervisor from the person he had earlier complained about and then a process of mediation to restore the relationship with the supervisor with a view to return to normal duties. Mr Naeem’s treating psychologist suggested a four week period reporting to a different supervisor but this suggestion was not accepted by Boroondara. Mr Naeem told Boroondara that he could only return to work if there was a “suitable reporting line” and that his psychologist “had reservations against the restoration of relationship with my supervisor”. 1

[32] Boroondara wrote to Mr Naeem’s doctor on 25 November 2016 asking for clarification of the two statements – that Mr Naeem did have capacity for suitable employment and that he was unfit to return to work with Boroondara. Boroondara stated that they understood this advice to mean that “no reasonable adjustments are able to be made that would allow Atif to perform the duties listed in his position description.”

[33] The doctor, Dr C-Ong responded to the request. He stated that:

“at present his work situation that created his psychological symptoms appear to have not been removed fully or adequately addressed. The patient reports that the alleged offender or the person he has the altercation with remains at his work place hence causing him anxiety about RTW.”…

“It seems to me that there are a lot of unresolved issues at his work place with regards to the patient. He is not happy to RTW at the same place and feels anxiety and gets depressed thinking about it... I accept that there may be another side/story/explanation to this situation. I can suggest that a case conference between myself, the patient and the employer be carried out in due course to try define the issues further and work out a long term sustainable solution. I am happy to facilitate such a case conference if agreeable to all parties.

Obviously there needs to have been a proper investigation by the employer into the alleged claims of work place harassment, and proper procedural process being actioned to either correct, resolve or improve the concerns raised, so that this incident will not happen again.

If the matter can be corrected and resolved with a proper review and monitoring plan in place to assist this worker to eventually RTW at his current employment, I would be supportive of exploring initially light duties at reduced hours and work up towards a full return if successful. Obviously this may not work if the workplace problems and the patient’s psychological concerns are not adequately addressed.”

[34] The next correspondence between Boroondara and Mr Naeem was the letter of termination dated 9 December 2016. In that letter Boroondara described the response of Dr C-Ong discussed above as follows:

“Council received a report from Dr C-Ong dated 30 November 2016. Among other things, Dr C-Ong confirmed Council’s initial interpretation of your medical certificates. Additionally the report:

• Advised that it would be detrimental for you to return to the workplace as you still consider that your concerns relating to your employment at Council have not been adequately investigated and addressed; and



• Provided no reasonable adjustments that council may be able to make to support you.

After considering the report, Council’s position remains:

• That concerns raised by you in the course of your employment have been investigated, found to be unsubstantiated and closed; and



• That Council and its employees have acted in an appropriate, fair and reasonable manner in relation to management of your performance.”

[35] During the proceedings Mr Naeem confirmed that:

● It was his belief that his medical practitioners did not believe that he could return to work in a situation where he had to “collaborate” with Mr Dickins.
● It was his belief that reasonable adjustments to enable him to return to work would be a situation where he would not have to collaborate with Mr Dickins. This could be achieved by removing Mr Dickins or by transferring Mr Naeem’s team to another area such as the depot or by having Mr Naeem report to another team leader.

[36] The Council submits that:

● There are no grounds to discipline or terminate the employment of Mr Naeem’s supervisor
● It would not be reasonable to permanently change team leaders and given the small size of the department Mr Naeem would still have contact with Mr Dickins even if this occurred. There are three people in Mr Naeem’s team and about 25 in the department.
● It would not be reasonable to require the Council to undertake a restructure and transfer the function performed by Mr Naeem’s team to another area such as the depot.

[37] Based upon the conclusions I reached that Council had taken reasonable steps to resolve Mr Naeem’s complaints about Mr Dickins I agree with Council’s submission about that matter.

[38] I am satisfied that:

● Council did not have a proper basis to conclude that the medical certificates meant that “no reasonable adjustments are able to be made that would allow Atif to perform the duties listed in his position description” and that he was therefore unable to return to work at the Council. In my view the medical certificates should properly be read as saying that he would be fit to work for another employer but not fit at that stage to return to work at the Council unless and until the issue of his grievance about the supervisor was resolved. Dr C-Ong confirmed this in response to the direct query by the Council.

● Council did not have a proper basis to conclude that Dr C-Ong in his response of 30 November 2016 “provided no reasonable adjustments that council may be able to make to support you” and “confirmed Council’s initial interpretation of your medical certificates”. Dr C-Ong specifically proposed that “a case conference between myself, the patient and the employer be carried out in due course to try define the issues further and work out a long term sustainable solution.” Dr C-Ong specifically foreshadowed that a return to work may be possible “if the matter can be corrected and resolved with a proper review and monitoring plan in place”.

[39] I can understand that Council rejected Dr C-Ong’s proposal because they believed that the concerns raised by Mr Naeem about his supervisor had been adequately investigated and Council did not believe that the complaints were substantiated. I am satisfied that both Mr Naeem and the Council believed that the matter could not be resolved because:

● Mr Naeem was of the view that he could not return to a situation where he would have to collaborate with Mr Dickins.
● Council was not prepared to make an adjustment to duties which involved Mr Naeem not working with Mr Dickins except on a very short term/interim basis.

[40] However, the position of Mr Naeem must be distinguished from that of Dr C-Ong. In my view Dr C-Ong does not state that Mr Naeem can only return to work at the Council if Mr Naeem is not required to work with Mr Dickins. Rather he is saying that a long term sustainable solution has to be discussed and that it may be that Mr Naeem’s view of the situation is not the only possible explanation. In all of the circumstances it is understandable that Council and Mr Naeem were highly sceptical of the possibility that a mutually acceptable solution could be reached which would involve Mr Naeem and Mr Dickins working together again.

[41] The parties had been trying to reach an agreement about an acceptable Return to Work plan for some time. I accept that such a process cannot be extended indefinitely but it seems to me that Dr C-Ong’s suggestion was a perfectly reasonable way of bringing that process to a conclusion. The proposed conference would have led to Council being in a position to reach a conclusion that either:

● Reasonable adjustments were not available to allow Mr Naeem to return to work in the foreseeable future because it would not be reasonable to separate Mr Naeem and Mr Dickins and Mr Naeem is not fit and is not likely to be fit to resume work under those conditions; or
● A return to work plan including reasonable adjustments is available to allow Mr Naeem to return to work within a reasonable time frame.

[42] I am satisfied that it was not reasonable for Council to conclude that reasonable adjustments were not available which could have enabled Mr Naeem to return to work at the Council without responding to the proposal made by Dr C-Ong.

Was Mr Naeem able to perform the inherent requirements of his job?

[43] Having concluded that it would not be reasonable to require separation of Mr Naeem and Mr Dickins on a long term basis, Mr Naeem would have been unable to perform the inherent requirements of his job unless a return to work plan could be finalised which enabled Mr Naeem to eventually return to work and collaborate with Mr Dickins.

[44] The Council reached the conclusion that Mr Naeem and his doctors were saying that unless there was a long term separation of Mr Naeem and Mr Dickins he was not able to return to work at the Council. For the reasons discussed earlier I am not satisfied that this is consistent with the advice of Dr C-Ong, a specialist medical practitioner. I am satisfied that the advice of Dr C-Ong was that such a conclusion could not be reached until after “a case conference between myself, the patient and the employer be carried out in due course to try define the issues further and work out a long term sustainable solution.”

[45] I am satisfied that it was premature to reach a conclusion that Mr Naeem was unable to perform the inherent requirements of his job.

Was there are a valid reason related to Mr Naeem’s capacity or conduct?

[46] I am satisfied that because it was premature to reach a conclusion that Mr Naeem was unable to perform the inherent requirements of his job there was no valid reason for the dismissal.

[47] The Council did not suggest that there was any other valid reason for the dismissal.

Was the dismissal unfair?

[48] As there was no valid reason for the dismissal and the other factors listed in Section 387 are either neutral factors or are not relevant in the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the dismissal was harsh and unjust.

Remedy

[49] Mr Naeem seeks reinstatement. However, I do not consider reinstatement to be appropriate. Mr Naeem’s behaviour in refusing to participate in the performance improvement process and his strongly stated view that there was no solution other than that he not have to deal with Mr Dickins leads me to conclude that the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties has been broken. Although there was a possibility that the situation may have been retrieved if the process suggested by Dr C-Ong had been adopted, I am satisfied that the views on both sides have become more entrenched and embittered in the period since the suggestion was made. A very difficult situation has essentially become impossible to fix.

[50] I consider it appropriate to make an order for compensation.

[51] I am required to consider the following matters in determining compensation (Section 392(2)):

“Criteria for deciding amounts

(1) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case including

(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and
(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and
(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.”

[52] There was no evidence before me that demonstrated that the viability of the Council will be adversely affected by any order I make. I am not satisfied that any order I may make is likely to affect the viability of the Council.

[53] The length of service of five years is significant.

[54] For the reasons discussed earlier I consider that the chances of a reasonable return to work plan being successfully negotiated were not high. However, I did not consider that they were remote and I consider that it was unreasonable for the Council not to try as suggested by Dr C-Ong before reaching a conclusion. In those circumstances I consider that employment would not have been likely to have continued for very long. I consider that one month would be a reasonable period to determine whether or not an acceptable return to work plan could be finalised. Taking into account the likelihood of that plan being achieved and that the employment would have successfully continued and the fact that Mr Naeem was subject to a final written warning, I consider that the employment would have continued for eight weeks.

[55] In the more than eight weeks since the dismissal Mr Naeem did not earn anything from employment.

[56] I accept his evidence that he has made reasonable efforts to find new employment but has been unsuccessful to date.

[57] I will deduct the two weeks additional payment made by the Council which was additional to Mr Naeem’s entitlements. I consider that Mr Naeem would still be entitled to the notice payment at the end of the period of employment I have estimated.

[58] I consider that Mr Naeem will not earn any further income during the short period between the order for compensation and the date of the actual payment of the compensation.

[59] As the earnings during the period of expected further employment are known I do not consider any deduction for contingencies are required as the only uncertainty lies in my estimate of the period of further employment.

[60] Mr Naeem was found by the Council to have engaged in misconduct when he refused to attend the performance improvement meeting and he was issued with a warning. I do not consider that this misconduct contributed to the decision to dismiss Mr Naeem. I am satisfied that this was purely because Council did not believe that Mr Naeem could perform the inherent requirements of the job. I will not make any deduction for misconduct.

[61] I have not included any amount for shock, distress or humiliation.

[62] Taking into account each of the factors specified in Section 392(2) I will therefore award six weeks compensation. This amounts to $2543.72 x 3 or a total of $7,631.16 from which taxation should be deducted according to law. The amount is payable within 14 days. An order to this effect is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr S Naeem appeared for himself.

Mr C Terry, Mr B Dobson and Ms A Cam appeared for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2017

Melbourne

April 11

 1   November 23 letter.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR591899>