Neville Gilbert and Australian Postal Corporation
[2014] AATA 483
•17 July 2014
[2014] AATA 483
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2012/4231
Re
Neville Gilbert
APPLICANT
And
Australian Postal Corporation
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President K Bean
Professor P Reilly AO, MemberDate 17 July 2014 Place Adelaide The Tribunal:
(a)sets aside the reviewable decision of 30 August 2012 and in substitution for that decision decides that between 3 July 2012 and the date of this decision, and as at the date of this decision, Mr Gilbert’s ability to earn for the purposes of s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) is and has been equal to what he actually earned;
(b)reserves liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings; and
(c)orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act.
.......... [Sgd] ....................................
Deputy President K Bean
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Entitlement to incapacity payments under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 19 – Whether applicant able to work normal weekly hours – Further modified duties not offered to applicant – Applicant’s ability to earn equivalent to what he actually earned in relevant period – Decision under review set aside.
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, s 19
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President K Bean
Professor P Reilly AO, Member17 July 2014
Apart from a short break of a few years, the applicant, Mr Gilbert, has been employed by the respondent, Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post), for about 30 years. During that time he has suffered a number of work-related medical conditions and Australia Post has relevantly accepted compensation liability for “bilateral plantar fasciitis”[1] and a condition affecting Mr Gilbert’s left knee, namely “left knee patello-femoral syndrome”[2].
[1] Exhibit 1, T38/52.
[2] Exhibit 1, T69/119.
By reference to his accepted conditions, as at June 2012, Mr Gilbert was certified fit to work six hours per day, four days a week, and was working those hours. However, on 3 July 2012, having reviewed the evidence, Australia Post issued a determination[3] that, providing certain restrictions were observed, Mr Gilbert was able to work full-time in duties which were available to him, and therefore had no ongoing entitlement to incapacity payments.
[3] Exhibit 1, T227/415.
On 15 August 2012, Mr Gilbert requested a reconsideration of that determination, however on 30 August 2012, Australia Post made a reconsideration decision affirming the determination under review. [4]
[4] Exhibit 1, T239/434.
On 20 September 2012, Mr Gilbert lodged an application with this Tribunal seeking review of the reconsideration decision and giving rise to these proceedings.
For completeness, we should note that on 10 July 2013, Mr Gilbert agreed to increase his working hours to include four hours of work on a Wednesday in addition to his existing hours of six hours per day on the other four days of the week. Accordingly, from 10 July 2013, Mr Gilbert has been working 28 hours per week, and he agrees that he continues to have capacity to work those hours. However, he maintains that his compensable conditions prevent him from working his full normal hours, namely 36.75 hours per week.
We will first set out the applicable statutory provision and define the issues, before addressing those issues by reference to the evidence before us.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND ISSUES
The applicable Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) relevantly provides that an employee’s entitlement to incapacity payments by way of compensation is determined by reference to their normal weekly earnings before the relevant injury, less their ability to earn in suitable employment.[5] The SRC Act also specifies particular factors to which regard must be had in determining the amount an employee is “able to earn in suitable employment”,[6] including whether the employee failed to accept an offer of suitable employment and, if so, what they would be earning if they were engaged in that employment. Subsection 19(4)(g) also provides that regard should be had to any “other matter” considered relevant.
[5] See subs 19(2) of the SRC Act.
[6] See subs 19(4) of the SRC Act.
As there is no dispute between the parties that Mr Gilbert continues to suffer the effects of his compensable injuries and these limit his working capacity to some extent, it follows that the issues before us include:
(a)whether and to what extent Mr Gilbert is nevertheless able to earn his normal weekly earnings in suitable employment; and
(b)to the extent Mr Gilbert is or has been able to earn his normal weekly earnings, from what date or during what periods he has been able to earn his normal weekly earnings.
We note that these issues involve consideration of both the hours Mr Gilbert is or has been able to work, and the duties which are or have been available to him.
Before addressing the question of Mr Gilbert’s ability to earn more directly, however, we will first set out the background facts which are not in dispute.
FACTS WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
It is clear from the evidence that during the relevant period and as at the date of the hearing, Mr Gilbert’s duties involved essentially the same four tasks each day.
The first task generally undertaken by Mr Gilbert is to sort express post articles into relevant delivery groups.[7] The evidence before us was to the effect that, although he had previously been required to scan each item of mail before it was sorted, this procedure had changed such that currently Mr Gilbert is only required to scan mail addressed to Post Office boxes, using a small hand-held scanner. A tall swivel chair is provided to Mr Gilbert to allow him to sit as required whilst undertaking this task, although Mr Gilbert’s evidence was to the effect that he found it necessary to stand for approximately half of the time whilst undertaking this task. There was no dispute on the evidence that there is an initial “drop” of express mail to be sorted at around 5:00 am and generally a further drop later, at approximately 6:50 am, and there might also be an additional “drop” of express post mail later in the day. Accordingly, it may be necessary for Mr Gilbert to perform this task up to three times on any given day.
[7] Exhibit 8, [3].
Another task undertaken by Mr Gilbert is processing mail known as “cash on delivery articles”, international express post articles and international articles addressed to Post Office boxes.[8] There was no dispute that this task is largely clerical and involves recording deliveries in a journal, whilst sitting down, and placing some mail on a trolley.
[8] Exhibit 8, [9].
The third task undertaken by Mr Gilbert is sorting mail for the Tea Tree Plaza and Tea Tree Plus shopping centres in Adelaide, which involves placing articles into a sorting frame. Mr Gilbert is able to perform most of this task while seated, although his evidence was that he needed to stand in order to reach some of the slots in the sorting frame.
A further duty undertaken by Mr Gilbert on a daily basis is to place the Tea Tree Plaza and Tea Tree Plus mail into tubs and take the tubs in his car to the relevant shopping centres, before placing the mail into a bank of delivery boxes at each centre.[9]
[9] Exhibit 8, [10].
Mr Gilbert also undertakes additional miscellaneous administrative duties, which can largely be undertaken whilst seated at a desk. In his evidence, Mr Gilbert also indicated that he would sometimes help postal delivery officers to do their “re-directs” and that he also sorted re-direction slips, as well as going through what he described as “re-direction check sheets”.
Mr Gilbert’s evidence was that his express post sorting duties occupied approximately an hour and a half each day, staggered through the day. He said sorting mail for the shopping centres and driving to Tea Tree Plaza occupied roughly an hour in total, with the other duties referred to occupying the remainder of his day. The evidence of Mr Gilbert’s supervisor, Mr Juzulenas, was broadly consistent with Mr Gilbert’s evidence as to these matters, including the time spent on various tasks.
Although it was not expressly addressed in the oral evidence, it is implicit from the evidence before us that Mr Gilbert undertakes less general administrative work on Wednesdays, when he only works four hours per day.
Importantly, Mr Gilbert does not dispute that he is managing his current duties and hours, albeit with some difficulty and discomfort, particularly when it comes to sorting the express post articles. Mr Gilbert said that there was some twisting and bending involved in carrying out this task, which caused significant discomfort in his left knee. His evidence was that he could not undertake these duties for any longer than he is currently doing.
As we have indicated above, however, Australia Post contends that Mr Gilbert can work his usual full-time hours. The main area of dispute between the parties therefore relates to whether Mr Gilbert can work extra hours in duties which are available to him.
CAN MR GILBERT WORK EXTRA HOURS, AND, IF SO, UNDERTAKING WHAT DUTIES?
The Evidence
Evidence of Mr Gilbert
Mr Gilbert’s evidence as to why he did not feel able to work any more hours than he was currently working included the following:
34. When I return home from work for the day, I usually eat lunch and then take a nap for a couple of hours to give my knee some rest and to help with the pain. When I am at home I try as much as I can [sic] rest, and I usually keep my leg raised on the couch.
35. At night I find it difficult to sleep. I used to sleep in the foetal position which I can [sic] longer do. My leg is stiff when I get up of a morning. I drive to work which takes approximately 40 minutes and because I cannot move my leg, by the time I get to work, I am already experiencing pain which increases as the day goes on. By the end of the day, I would not consider my pain unbearable, but it always feels as if I have pushed it to the limit.
36. After my shift ends, I usually stop for a coffee on the way home so I can have a stretch and a seated rest for a short while. I find that this helps provide me with some relief after a day’s work.
…
43. It is different at work because even though I am required to be sedentary, it is not always possible to do so as people are reliant on me to get the work done regardless of my pain and distress. At home I can take my time with things and move chairs or positions if my leg starts playing up and I can put my leg up on the sofa or bed.[10]
[10] Exhibit 2, pp. 3-4.
In the course of his oral evidence Mr Gilbert elaborated further, indicating that on the days when he worked six hours he would generally get home by approximately 12:45 pm, and from about 1:30 pm onwards he would lie down on the bed and have a sleep until approximately 5:00 pm. He explained that by the time he got home, his knee was generally painful and his feet were aching. He essentially indicated that this was his preferred way of managing his knee pain. He further indicated that by Friday afternoon his knee was generally quite painful due to the cumulative effects of the week, and that when he had recently seen his treating occupational physician, Dr Tschirn, on a Friday afternoon, he had indicated to Dr Tschirn that if the following day had been a work day, he would not have been able to attend work.
In relation to pain relief, Mr Gilbert indicated that if his knee was painful first thing in the morning or became painful during the day, he would take up to two Panadol tablets, but did not utilise other pain relief. He indicated that he would have trouble working full-time hours because he would be required to do “more things” in the extra hour and 20 minutes during which he would be at work. He also explained that working an extra hour and 20 minutes on the days when he currently works six hours would necessitate him remaining at work for almost an extra two hours, because after working six hours employees were required to take a mandatory half hour break.
In relation to the effects of his plantar fasciitis, although this still caused him discomfort, Mr Gilbert conceded in the course of his oral evidence that this condition would not prevent him from working full-time.
The medical evidence
We have been assisted by the evidence of a number of doctors in this matter, some of whom gave evidence concurrently.
Evidence of Dr Chase and Dr Tschirn
Dr Chase and Dr Tschirn are both occupational physicians and gave evidence before us concurrently. Dr Tschirn is Mr Gilbert’s treating occupational physician, whilst Dr Chase has seen Mr Gilbert on one occasion at the request of Australia Post, on 28 May 2012. Dr Tschirn has provided a number of reports, the most relevant of which is his report dated 24 April 2012.[11] Dr Chase has provided two reports dated 30 May 2012[12] and 16 January 2013[13] respectively.
[11] Exhibit 1, T207/362.
[12] Exhibit 1, T220/389.
[13] Exhibit 4.
Dr Tschirn’s evidence was supportive of the limitations reported by Mr Gilbert. In his report of 24 April 2012, he indicated that he did not “see Mr Gilbert being able to increase his hours of work” within the near future.[14] Whilst he acknowledged that Mr Gilbert was working increased hours from those he had been working in April 2012, he considered that, having regard to his pain levels, Mr Gilbert was working at his maximum capacity. He saw the change in Mr Gilbert’s ability to work between July 2012 and July 2013 as referrable to the fact that less scanning had been required after July 2012, with the result that the sorting of the express post items could now be done by Mr Gilbert more quickly. Under questioning from the Tribunal however, Dr Tschirn did concede that the ability to lie down, or at least elevate his left leg for 30 minutes during his shift may increase Mr Gilbert’s work tolerance.
[14] Exhibit 1, T207/364.
Dr Chase did not dramatically disagree with Dr Tschirn and accepted that Mr Gilbert had pain in his left knee which caused limitations on what he could do at work. However, he considered that if Mr Gilbert was provided with suitable duties which allowed him to sit or stand, he could work full-time. He also indicated that he believed Mr Gilbert would have a level of knee pain at home or at work, and the fact that he had some discomfort in his knee whilst at work was not necessarily a reason why he could not work full-time providing appropriate limitations were observed. In particular, he thought that the following restrictions should be observed with respect to Mr Gilbert:
▪ Restricted kneeling and squatting.
▪ Sit or stand according to pain tolerance.
▪ Sedentary duties that allow him to get up and down as necessary.[15]
[15] Exhibit 4, p. 1.
He further indicated that he saw no difficulty with Mr Gilbert undertaking tasks such as:
▪ Sorting and throwing in mail.
▪ Redirections.
▪ Replied paid.
▪ Registered mail.
▪ Scanning and sorting Express Post.
▪ Mail delivery of boxes at Tea Tree Plus and Tea Tree Plaza.
▪ Administrative tasks.[16]
[16] Exhibit 4, p. 1.
Dr Chase further indicated in the course of his evidence that he had performed a large number of work site inspections at Australia Post sites and was very familiar with the various tasks performed by Australia Post employees. He also indicated that in order to work full-time, Mr Gilbert would need to have the ability to pace himself appropriately. He confirmed that he thought Mr Gilbert could do sorting duties for 1.5 hours, providing he had the ability to sit down. He further confirmed that even if Mr Gilbert was standing for half of the 1.5 hours during which he was doing sorting, he still regarded those duties as within his capacity and that he would be able to work full-time hours, including 1.5 hours of sorting each day. He also indicated that allowing Mr Gilbert to lie down or rest his leg for 30 minutes during his shifts with a view to increasing his work capacity was worth considering.
Evidence of Associate Professor Bauze and Dr Marshall
Associate Professor Bauze and Dr Marshall are each orthopaedic surgeons and they also gave evidence before us concurrently. They have each provided a number of individual reports, together with a joint report signed by Associate Professor Bauze and dated 1 November 2013.
In their joint report, they indicated that neither of them saw any indication that Mr Gilbert was exaggerating his symptoms. They further indicated that they both considered Mr Gilbert fit to work full-time in a sedentary job with no heavy lifting, squatting, or kneeling, and that he should also avoid much walking on uneven ground and a lot of stairs.[17]
[17] Exhibit 13.
Although they expressed some concerns about the way in which Mr Gilbert’s sorting duties were organised, Doctor Marshall and Associate Professor Bauze essentially confirmed in the course of their oral evidence that each of them thought Mr Gilbert could work full-time, provided he did not have to squat, kneel or twist to any significant extent. They each indicated that the most troubling aspect of his duties was the express post sorting work, and that very light duties would be best for him. Associate Professor Bauze also thought that Mr Gilbert was exhibiting some abnormal pain behaviour and that lying down in the afternoons for 3.5 hours was excessive and unlikely to be good for his knee.
In the course of his oral evidence, Dr Marshall resiled somewhat from the joint written report, indicating that rather than requiring Mr Gilbert to work full-time duties, a preferable alternative may be to allow him to work only four days a week, but require him to work a full day on each of those days, with the extra hours to be comprised only of sedentary work. Both Associate Professor Bauze and Dr Marshall further indicated that the use of a swivel chair in carrying out the sorting duties should help Mr Gilbert to avoid twisting.
Dr Brumby
Dr Brumby, Mr Gilbert’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, has also provided a report of surgery performed by him on 6 June 2011,[18] together with some earlier reports, and he also gave oral evidence at the hearing.
[18] Exhibit 6.
He explained that he had performed surgery to correct a tear of Mr Gilbert’s medial meniscus and had last seen him in July 2012. He indicated in the course of his oral evidence that he could not explain why Mr Gilbert had not been able to return to working five days per week with modified activities. He said that provided most of his duties were done at seated or bench level, he did not see why Mr Gilbert would not be able to perform those duties. He agreed with the proposition that if particular duties which were producing symptoms for Mr Gilbert were eliminated, he may be able to work longer hours. He also indicated that it was important for Mr Gilbert to use his knee to maintain strength in the surrounding muscles.
Evidence of Mr Juzulenas
Also before us is the evidence of the Delivery Manager of the Australia Post Modbury North Delivery Centre and therefore Mr Gilbert’s supervisor, Mr Paul Juzulenas. Mr Juzulenas has provided a summary of evidence[19] together with some photographs of the workplace, and also gave oral evidence before us.
[19] Exhibit 8.
As we have indicated above, much of Mr Juzulenas’ evidence was consistent with that of Mr Gilbert, as to the nature of the tasks performed by Mr Gilbert in the workplace. Significantly however, he also indicated that if Mr Gilbert were to work his full-time hours of seven hours and 21 minutes per day, the extra hours could potentially be comprised of sedentary duties. He mentioned that a person who had been in an administrative role had recently resigned and the person who had been assisting them was likely to move into that role. He said this created scope for Mr Gilbert to move into the role of helping that person, although he would need to be trained in data entry. He said that providing Mr Gilbert undertook the training and was assigned to these duties, the duties involved would be sedentary duties at a keyboard. He said that the person who had been performing the administrative role had actually resigned effective on the day of the hearing, that is 6 November 2013.
Mr Juzulenas also gave evidence as to a modification he had devised to Mr Gilbert’s express post sorting duties, which involved sorting to a tub placed on a low “crab pot trolley” in place of the bottom shelf of a three-shelf trolley. He explained that he had devised this modification so as to reduce the need for Mr Gilbert to bend when sorting express post items. He thought this modification should also reduce the need for Mr Gilbert to twist or get off his stool whilst sorting the express post items.
Mr Juzulenas confirmed later in his evidence that Mr Gilbert was already doing approximately 1.5 hours a day of administrative duties and Mr Juzulenas thought he could find enough additional administrative or clerical hours for him so as to allow him to work full-time without taking on any additional sorting work. He also indicated that it would be feasible for Mr Gilbert to raise and rest his leg for 30 minutes during his meal break, in the lounge and kitchen area which was located upstairs at the mail depot.
Consideration
Having carefully considered and weighed all of the evidence before us, we accept that Mr Gilbert has significant discomfort in his knee, that his level of discomfort is increased by certain activities, particularly twisting and bending, and that activities at work can have a cumulative effect such that his knee pain is worse at the end of the week than it was at the beginning. We also accept that pain in his left knee disturbs his sleep and that, all things considered, his preferred way of managing his knee condition is to rest his knee for very long periods of time, including resting his knee and sleeping for up to 3.5 hours in the afternoon on work days. We also accept that he would prefer to leave the workplace after six hours without taking a meal break, rather than remain in the workplace for almost a further two hours, including a 30 minute meal break.
We further accept that both Doctors Tschirn and Marshall have reservations about Mr Gilbert working longer hours, although Dr Marshall has indicated that Mr Gilbert could work full-time on light duties, and Dr Tschirn has conceded that resting his leg for half an hour during a shift may increase Mr Gilbert’s work capacity. In effect however, there was broad agreement between all of the doctors that in order for it to be feasible for Mr Gilbert to work full-time, the additional duties would need to be comprised of essentially sedentary work. Certainly it was our understanding of their evidence that none of the doctors were supportive of Mr Gilbert undertaking more sorting work, although there was also broad agreement that sitting and being able to swivel while undertaking this work reduced its adverse effects. Nevertheless, Dr Chase was the only doctor who did not express clear reservations about Mr Gilbert undertaking additional sorting work, although he agreed that Mr Gilbert needed to minimise twisting and needed to be able to pace himself rather than working under time pressure. He also indicated that if sorting for 1.5 hours, Mr Gilbert would need to be able to sit for at least half of that time.
We also note however that up until approximately July 2013, Mr Gilbert was undertaking the sorting of express post articles for up to three hours per day, whereas after that time he has been performing these duties for up to 1.5 hours a day. This represents a very significant reduction in the amount of time he is required to spend undertaking the activity which both he and all of the doctors agree is most problematic for him.
Whilst in response to this change, Mr Gilbert increased his hours to include four hours on a Wednesday, there is nevertheless a real issue in our view as to whether his current duties accurately reflect his current working capacity. It is relevant in our view that the evidence indicates that additional clerical or administrative duties, possibly including data-entry type duties, are likely to be available to Mr Gilbert should he resume full-time hours. Therefore the additional hours required to allow him to work full-time could potentially be comprised of administrative or clerical duties. We also note that were he to work full-time, Mr Gilbert would be required to take a meal break after six hours, during which he could elevate and rest his leg for 30 minutes.
Having regard to that evidence, we sought further submissions after the hearing as to whether Mr Juzulenas’ evidence as to the duties which could be made available to Mr Gilbert amounted to an “offer of suitable employment” to which we could have regard in applying s 19. We sought those submissions because we had in mind the possibility of concluding that Mr Gilbert had capacity to work full-time on the proviso that the additional hours he worked were comprised of administrative or clerical duties of the type outlined by Mr Juzulenas.
In the event, however, both parties submitted that Mr Juzulenas’ evidence did not amount to an “offer of suitable employment” to which we could have regard, and we accept the correctness of their submissions in this regard. We further accept the respondent’s submission that the issue for the Tribunal is “whether the duties that the Applicant currently performs are duties that he is able to perform on a full-time basis.”[20]
[20] Respondent’s Further Submissions dated 10 April 2014.
The difficulty this raises for the respondent’s case, however, is that there is nothing before us which allows us to conclude that, if he was to work full-time, steps would be taken by the respondent to ensure that Mr Gilbert’s additional hours were comprised only of sedentary duties. We are satisfied that, as at the date of the hearing, such duties could potentially have been made available to Mr Gilbert. However, we also accept that those duties have not been offered to him. Further, as we understand the position, there is no guarantee that duties of the kind outlined by Mr Juzulenas would be offered to Mr Gilbert if he worked full-time. Indeed, there is nothing before us to indicate precisely what duties Mr Gilbert would be required to undertake in the additional hours he would be working if he worked full-time. Therefore it is not possible for us to be satisfied on the evidence that any additional hours worked by Mr Gilbert would meet the stipulation broadly agreed to by all the doctors (with the possible exception of Dr Chase) that any additional hours be comprised of sedentary duties. For that reason, we have concluded that we are not satisfied that Mr Gilbert has the capacity to work full-time in duties which have been or are available to him.
For abundant clarity, we consider that Mr Gilbert could work full-time if the additional hours were comprised of administrative or clerical duties of the kind outlined by Mr Juzulenas. However, both parties have agreed that those duties have not been offered to him and so do not amount to suitable duties which he has declined to take up. It follows that, as modified duties of that kind have not been offered to him, and we are not satisfied that Mr Gilbert can carry out his existing duties on a full-time basis, we have concluded that he is entitled to receive incapacity payments in respect of the difference between the amount he is currently earning, and his normal weekly earnings (subject to any applicable adjustment[21]). In other words, we consider that Mr Gilbert’s ability to earn is the same as the amount he is actually earning, and that that has been the case at all relevant times, including during the period from 3 July 2012 to 10 July 2013 when he was working less hours than he is currently.
[21] See s 19(3).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we accept that Mr Gilbert remains partially incapacitated for work by reason of the compensable injury to his left knee, and that by reason of the nature of the duties which are available to him, combined with the nature of his incapacity, his ability to earn in the period since 3 July 2012 has been the same as his actual earnings, and that remains the case currently. We therefore propose to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision which reflects that conclusion.
For completeness, we note that the determination of 3 July 2012 also ceased s 16 liability with respect to physiotherapy and hydrotherapy treatment.[22] However, that aspect of the determination was not challenged by Mr Gilbert either in his request for reconsideration[23], or before us, and nor was it addressed or referred to in the reconsideration decision. Accordingly, we have not addressed that issue and nor do we intend our decision to affect that aspect of the determination of 3 July 2012.
[22] Exhibit 1, T227/418.
[23] Exhibit 1, T236/431.
COSTS
As our decision is more favourable to Mr Gilbert than the decision under review, we note that a costs order would ordinarily be made in his favour, pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act. Accordingly, we also propose to make such an order, unless the respondent makes an application requesting that such an order not be made in the circumstances of this case.
DECISION
The Tribunal:
(a)sets aside the reviewable decision of 30 August 2012 and in substitution for that decision decides that between 3 July 2012 and the date of this decision, and as at the date of this decision, Mr Gilbert’s ability to earn for the purposes of s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) is and has been equal to what he actually earned;
(b)reserves liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings; and
(c)orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act.
I certify that the preceding 52 (fifty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President K Bean and Professor P Reilly AO, Member ........ [Sgd] ...........................
Associate
Dated 17 July 2014
Dates of hearing 6 and 7 November 2013 Date final submissions received 11 April 2014 Counsel for the Applicant Ms K Molloy Solicitors for the Applicant Slater & Gordon Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent Ms R Henderson Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0
0
0