Oldham and Oldham
[2008] FMCAfam 959
•3 September 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| OLDHAM & OLDHAM | [2008] FMCAfam 959 |
| FAMILY LAW – Property – undefended – husband has failed to participate in proceedings. |
| Family Law Act 1975 |
| Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705 C & C (2000) FLC 93-220 In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595 In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335 In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626 |
| Applicant: | MS OLDHAM |
| Respondent: | MR OLDHAM |
| File number: | SYC 8036 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Sexton FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 September 2008 |
| Date of last submission: | 2 September 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Orange |
| Delivered on: | 3 September 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Jones Rolfe Rudd |
| Respondent | No Appearance |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Applicant wife’s solicitor forthwith serve a copy of the proposed property orders on the Trustee of AustralianSuper with a letter requesting the Trustee to notify the wife’s solicitors as soon as practicable but within 28 days whether or not the Trustee objects to the proposed orders or any of them.
Prior to the adjourned date the wife’s solicitors file and serve an affidavit verifying compliance with Order (1).
In the event the Trustee objects to all or any of the proposed Orders, the wife’s solicitors notify the Trustee of the adjourned date.
The matter be adjourned to 16 October 2008 at 9.30a.m before me for further mention noting that if these Orders have been complied with by Friday 5 September 2008 at 9:30 a.m. the matter be re-listed before me in Orange at that time.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Oldham & Oldham is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 8036 of 2007
| MS OLDHAM |
Applicant
And
| MR OLDHAM |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This case concerns property adjustment. The parties finally separated on 2 August 2006 after approximately 9 years of cohabitation. There are two children of the marriage, [X] aged 10 years and [Y] aged
8 years, both of whom live with the wife. To the best of the wife’s knowledge, the husband is living with his brother and his brother’s family in Ireland.The wife seeks orders that the husband transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home at Property [O] to her and that she indemnify the husband in relation to any claims arising in relation to the property. The wife seeks an order that at the time of transfer, she discharge the existing loan in the joint names of the parties, secured by way of mortgage on the property. The wife seeks orders that each party retain all other assets held by each of them, including proceedings of bank accounts, shares and household contents. She seeks an order that she retain her super entitlement in First State Super and that the husband retain his superannuation entitlements with the exception of his interest in AustralianSuper. The wife seeks an order that 100% of the husband’s interest in that Fund be rolled into a Fund nominated by her.
The wife is 38 and the husband 41 years. They started living together in August 1996 and married in November 1996. The parties separated in November 2003, resumed living together in November 2004 and finally separated in August 2006. The wife lives in the former matrimonial home in [O] with the two children and works 4 days a week as a [omitted] administrator. The husband is living in Ireland.
History of Proceedings
The wife commenced these proceedings for property adjustment by application filed in this Court on 20 November 2007. The matter was listed in this court for the first time on 20 February 2008 before His Honour Federal Magistrate Kemp. The wife appeared by her solicitor but there was no appearance for the husband. The court noted that the husband had written to the court from Ireland on 18 February 2008 to say he had left Australia and returned to Ireland and was seeking legal aid to assist him in the proceedings. His Honour directed the husband to file his responding documents, directed the wife’s solicitors to notify the husband of the orders made on that day and the likely consequences of the husband failing to appear on the adjourned date of 19 May 2008.
On 16 April 2008 the matter came before me in the pre-circuit video call-over for the May sittings in Orange. The wife was represented by her solicitor and there was no appearance for the husband. The court ordered that the documents forwarded by the husband be accepted by the Sydney registry for filing. The matter was adjourned to 20 May 2008 in the Orange sittings for hearing and the court made trial directions. The court noted that an affidavit from the valuer of the former matrimonial home had been filed and that the valuation would be accepted by the court unless the husband filed further valuation evidence. The court noted that in the event the husband failed to appear on 20 May 2008, either by his solicitor or himself in person, the wife’s application may be heard on an undefended basis in that week. The court noted that the husband must make all arrangements necessary to participate in the proceedings by phone by communicating directly with the wife’s solicitors.
On 20 May 2008, the wife appeared with her solicitor and the husband appeared by telephone from Ireland. The husband was given a further opportunity to file his responding documents, the wife’s solicitor being requested to forward the husband blank copies of the relevant forms. The parties were referred to a conciliation conference on 26 August 2008 and directions were made for the filing of any further affidavit material. The court noted its advice to the husband on the phone that in the event he failed to comply with the orders or failed to appear on the adjourned date, the matter would proceed on an undefended basis during these sittings and orders may be made as sought by the wife. The husband advised the court that he expected to return to Australia in July 2008 and would be available to attend the conciliation conference. The court further noted that the wife’s solicitors had advised the husband how to retain a solicitor for the proceedings, that unless the husband provided valuation evidence, the court would accept evidence as to values as asserted by the wife, and that any further valuation of the [O] property must be available before the conciliation conference on 26 August 2008, if it is to be taken into account.
On 20 August 2008, given the husband’s failure to communicate with the wife’s solicitors and the husband’s failure to comply with orders of 20 May 2008, the court vacated the conciliation conference and adjourned the matter until 1 September 2008, the first day of these Orange sittings. On 1 September 2008, the wife’s solicitor advised the court he had sent an email to the husband on 25 August 2008 and on the same day, attempted to make contact with the husband by telephone in Ireland and left a message advising him about the date of this hearing. The wife’s solicitor said the wife had attempted to communicate with the husband by email on 26 August 2008. At hearing today, the wife’s solicitor tendered the email correspondence from himself to the husband and between the husband and the wife of 29 and 31 August 2008.[1] I find the wife and her solicitors make it clear to the husband that the matter will be heard in the Orange sittings this week. The husband sent an email to the wife on 29 August 2008 stating he wanted to settle the matter out of court. He does not refer to the correspondence advising him of the hearing date. I am satisfied the husband is on notice of these proceedings and has had ample opportunity to participate, but has chosen not to do so. I therefore heard the matter on 2 September 2008 on an undefended basis.
[1] Exhibit 1.
The wife gave oral evidence at the hearing and she impressed me as an frank and honest witness. The wife’s responses to questions were given openly and thoughtfully, even when they did not assist her case. I accepted the wife’s oral evidence in its entirety.
The husband has not filed a sworn Financial Statement. I have read the husband’s affidavit filed 22 April 2008, the only material the husband filed in the proceedings. Given the husband’s evidence cannot be tested, where it contradicts the wife’s evidence, I give it minimum weight.
Issues
The approach to the determination of an application under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 is well established by authority (In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626; In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335; In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595) and involves consideration of these questions:
a)What were the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties and their values at the time of hearing?
b)What were the financial and non-financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of each party to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property of the parties?
c)What was the contribution made by each party to the welfare of the family including contributions made in the capacity of homemaker or parent?
d)What is the effect, if any, of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of each party?
e)What matters referred to in sub-section 75(2) of the Act are relevant and what adjustment, if any, should be made as a result of these factors?
f)Have there been any other orders made affecting a child or either party and is child support payable or likely to be payable in the future for the children of the marriage?
g)After consideration of these matters, is it just and equitable to make the actual orders?
What were the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of hearing and their values?
Having regard to the evidence of Mr H, licensed real estate valuer, in relation to the value of the former matrimonial home, to the wife’s Financial Statement sworn on 4 April 2008 and to the wife’s oral evidence as to the updated balance of the parties’ home loan, I accept the wife’s asserted values as to the known assets and liabilities of each party. There is no evidence before me as to assets accumulated by the husband since his return to Ireland in May 2007.
I accept the wife’s evidence that she has incurred legal fees of $8,931.75[2] and has paid the majority of those fees from her income since separation. I accept that this has been possible because the wife, by arrangement with the Bank, has reduced her monthly loan repayments to the Commonwealth Bank, pending the outcome of these proceedings. On the basis of the wife’s oral evidence at hearing, I accept that the wife still owes legal fees of approximately $1,000. In these circumstances I am not satisfied the wife’s legal fees should be added back to the pool of assets available for division between the parties.
[2] Exhibit 2
I am satisfied that each party’s superannuation interest was accumulated during the course of the parties’ marriage and since separation in August 2006. I am satisfied there is a modest net asset pool available for distribution. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the wife’s solicitor’s submission, I find it appropriate to adopt an integrated approach to the superannuation and non-superannuation assets of the parties. The majority of the Full Court in C & C (2000) FLC 93-220 said there is no binding principle as to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in deciding which approach should be adopted:
Nothing we have said in this judgment would prevent a Court in the exercise of its discretion from including a superannuation interest as an item of property in the list of property which is drawn as ‘the first step’ in the determination of proceedings under s79, whether or not a splitting order is sought in those proceedings.
The wife annexes documents to her affidavits sworn 3 April 2008 and
1 May 2008 verifying the values of the husband’s BT Super Plan, Plum Superannuation Fund, AustralianSuper Fund and Norwich Union funds as at the dates set out below. I am satisfied the known assets and liabilities of the parties available for division between them are as identified in the following table:
| Assets and liabilities at the date of hearing | $ |
| Property [O] (joint names) | 270,000.00 |
| 1996 Mitsubishi motor vehicle (wife’s name) | 3,500.00 |
| 1994 Peugeot motor vehicle (husband’s name) | 2,500.00 |
| Household contents (joint) | 5,000.00 |
| Wife’s bank proceeds | Negligible |
| Loan secured by way of mortgage to CBA | (132,000.00) |
| First State Super (wife) | 39,988.00 |
| BT Financial Group (husband) (at 1 April 2008) | 2,038.00 |
| Plum Super (husband) (at 10 March 2008) | 11,160.00 |
| First State Super (husband) (at 19 March 2008) | 4,587.00 |
| AustralianSuper (husband) (at 17 March 2008) | 17,825.00 |
| Norwich Union (husband) (at 4 May 2007) conversion at that date from 10,417.04 pounds to Australian dollars | 25,149.00 |
| Other assets held by husband | Not known |
| Total known net pool including superannuation | 249,747.00 |
Contributions
The court must consider all the contributions, both financial and non-financial to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the parties’ assets as well as to the welfare of the family before and after separation. The Full Court said in Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705 (at 83,437):
It is therefore necessary…[to] weigh and assess the contributions of all kinds and from all sources made by each of the parties throughout the period of their cohabitation and then translate such assessment into a percentage of the overall property of the parties
The court must consider the contributions in an overall sense both before and after separation.
Financial contributions. The wife sets out a short history of the marriage in her affidavit sworn 3 April 2008. She says neither party had assets of significance at the date of cohabitation. The parties purchased the former matrimonial home in October 1997 for $125,000. The wife says the parties had saved a deposit of $12,500 and borrowed the balance from the NRMA. It is not contested that at approximately this time, the husband received some funds from the sale of a property in the United Kingdom. The wife says the amount was not significant. The husband says he contributed 8,000 pounds towards the deposit on the home.
The wife deposes to working full time until the parties had their first child and to then working part-time, sometimes in two jobs. The husband also worked full time before studying at TAFE for an Advanced Diploma in [omitted] from 2001-2003 when he also worked part-time. I accept the wife’s evidence, based on each party’s taxation returns from 1997-2006[3] that until 2004, the wife mostly earned more than the husband and I accept that the wife largely supported the parties financially during the period the husband was an [omitted] student.
[3] Annexures to wife’s affidavit sworn 3 April 2008
From 2004 when the husband was employed in the [omitted] industry, I accept the wife’s evidence that the husband’s income increased and that he then earned more than she earned until separation in August 2006.
The wife says during the 12 month period of the parties’ separation from November 2003, the husband paid child support from approximately March 2004 of $200 a fortnight, later $220 a fortnight and the wife met all the outgoings on the Property [O] property including insurances and home loan repayments. The parties reconciled in November 2004. As the husband was working in the [omitted] industry by that time, his income increased and the parties then undertook some improvements to their home and purchased items of furniture. At around this time, the wife deposes to the parties redrawing on their loan account to fund the home improvements but also making extra repayments on that loan. The wife says the parties had made additional mortgage repayments of about $12,000 up to August 2006 while enjoying an increased standard of living.
In relation to special contributions by either party during the period of cohabitation, I am satisfied as to the following:
i)When the parties arrived in Australia together in August 1996, the parties lived rent free in a property owned by the wife’s parents for approximately 15 months. The wife deposes to the property having a rental value of $110 per week.
ii)The husband received approximately 8,000 pounds sterling (AUD $18,400.00) at the time of the purchase of the parties’ property at Property [O] from the sale of a family property in the United Kingdom. The husband contributed some, if not all of those funds to the purchase of the home.
iii)The wife contributed the whole of the contents of the parties’ home in [O] from contents her parents had held for her in storage.
iv)The wife’s parents supplied the timber and built a pergola at the former matrimonial home at the end of 2005.
The wife asserts and I accept, that the husband overspent on alcohol at times, despite her efforts to reduce his alcohol expenditure by preparing a home brew for the husband. I accept the wife’s evidence that the parties, by agreement, had separate accounts to accommodate personal expenditure, but that the husband often asked for extra funds to meet his entertainment expenses, including alcohol. I am unable to quantify the husband’s expenditure in this regard and do not conclude that it amounted to waste. I accept that the husband retained for his own purposes, funds he earned from the sale of his [omitted].
Non-financial contributions including tasks associated with the welfare of the children. I accept the wife’s evidence that although the husband gave her some assistance and performed some household tasks, she carried the majority responsibility for the day to day tasks of the household and the majority care of the two children during the period of cohabitation. I am satisfied the wife made the greater overall non-financial contributions during the course of cohabitation.
After separation. The parties separated on a final basis in early August 2006 when the husband moved out of the former matrimonial home. The parties withdrew $1,500 at that time from the home loan to meet immediate expenses and each withdrew $4,000 in December of that year. The wife corroborates this evidence with bank statements and I accept her evidence. The wife re-commenced meeting the whole of the home loan repayments and all other outgoings on the home and after a period of 4 months when the wife says she received no financial assistance of any kind from the husband, the husband re-commenced paying child support of $1312.46 a month.
The husband stopped making periodic child support payments after leaving Australia but appears not to have advised the Child Support Agency he is no longer working in Australia. The wife says, despite the Agency intercepting his employer termination payment and his taxation refund for the 2007 financial year, the husband’s child support arrears continue to accrue. As at 14 August 2008, the husband owed $18,287.26 in arrears.[4]
[4] Exhibit 3
On 31 October 2007, the husband sold his Newcrest shares receiving proceeds of $2,361.72. The husband says he used these funds for medical expenses. The wife’s solicitor does not submit the funds should be added back to the pool available for division and I do not find it appropriate to do so.
The wife earns a gross salary of $600 a week from her 4 day a week employment in [occupation omitted]. The wife also receives $253 a week in Centrelink benefits. Since the husband ceased child support payments the wife has been meeting all expenses for herself and the children and all the expenses relating to the former matrimonial home from this income. The wife has no savings.
The husband returned to Ireland in May 2007 and lived with his brother and brother’s wife and children. Apart from sending a Christmas card and birthday card to the children with gifts of $50, the husband has not had any direct communication with either of the parties’ two children since July 2007, when the wife rang the husband for his birthday so the children could speak to him.
The wife has cared for the children since separation without physical or emotional assistance from the husband. The wife has taken sole responsibility for the expenses of the children since the husband stopped making child support payments in mid 2007.
I am satisfied that the wife made the significantly greater contributions overall since separation.
The orders proposed by the wife do not affect either party’s earning capacity.
On an assessment of each party’s contributions during the period of cohabitation and since separation, I am satisfied the wife should receive 64% and the husband 36% of the overall superannuation and non-superannuation asset pool by way of contributions.
What matters referred to in sub-section 75(2) of the Act are relevant?
I have considered each of the relevant factors listed in section 75(2) of the Act.
The wife is 38 and the husband is 41 years of age. The wife says she is suffering from anxiety and has been prescribed anti-anxiety medication by her general practitioner. She otherwise enjoys good health. The wife says, confirmed by various reports annexed to the husband’s affidavit, that the husband suffered from depression and mood swings during cohabitation which worsened immediately after separation. The wife says she encouraged the husband to seek treatment during cohabitation as he improved when compliant with the medication he was prescribed. However, the wife says the husband was frequently non-compliant with prescribed medication, though well able to function and to work. As the wife has not had any meaningful communication with the husband since he returned to Ireland over 16 months ago, the wife has no present knowledge of the husband’s condition. The latest medical report concerning the husband’s mental health status, annexed to his affidavit filed in April 2008, is 14 months old. To the best of the wife’s knowledge, on the basis of limited telephone communication with the husband, the husband is presently working for his brother in the [omitted] industry.
The wife earns a modest income. There is no evidence before the court as to the husband’s current earnings.
There is no evidence before the court as to any assets accumulated by the husband since he left Australia in May 2007. The husband has failed to file a Financial Statement in accordance with court orders. I make a small adjustment in favour of the wife as a result of this factor.
The wife has not re-partnered. There is no evidence before me as to whether or not the husband has re-partnered.
Have there been any other orders made affecting a child or either party and is child support payable or likely to be payable in the future for the children of the marriage?
As already noted, the husband has not paid periodic child support since over 12 months ago. The children are aged 10 and 8 years. The children have not spent any time with the husband since he left Australia for Ireland in May 2007. This means the wife carries the full responsibility, financially, emotionally, physically and intellectually for the parties’ two children, without respite and without assistance of any kind from the husband. I am not persuaded on the evidence before me that this situation is likely to change in the future. I make a significant adjustment in favour of the wife as a result of this factor.
In assessing the section 75(2) factors, given the modest size of the asset pool, I find a just and equitable result requires the wife to receive by way of adjustment in her favour a further 18% of the matrimonial assets. The wife will therefore receive 82% overall of the known net assets of the parties.
Is the result just and equitable?
Section 79(2) provides that:
The Court shall not make an Order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the Order.
The Court must be satisfied that the actual orders provide for a just and equitable distribution of the property of the parties.
This is a modest asset pool of $249,747.00. The wife says she has pre-approved finance to discharge the joint loan secured by way of mortgage on the home and to refinance the loan and to meet her outstanding legal fees.
For the wife to receive 82% of the available superannuation and non-superannuation assets, the wife will receive $204,793.00 overall. If she receives the former matrimonial home, subject to mortgage, items of property in her possession and the husband’s AustralianSuper fund she will receive $204,313.00, which is $480 less than 82% of the overall pool. The husband will receive his motor vehicle, any assets he has accumulated since living in Ireland and the balance of his superannuation entitlements. The assets each party will receive are set out in the following tables:
| Assets to be retained by wife | $ |
| Former matrimonial home | 270,000.00 |
| Mortgage to Commonwealth Bank | (132,000.00) |
| Mitsubishi motor vehicle | 3,500.00 |
| Bank proceeds | Negligible |
| Household contents | 5,000.00 |
| First State Super | 39,988.00 |
| Husband’s interest in AustralianSuper | 17,825.00 |
| TOTAL | 204,313.00 |
| Assets to be retained by husband | $ |
| Peugeot motor vehicle | 2,500.00 |
| BT Financial superannuation entitlement | 2,038.00 |
| First State Super | 4,587.00 |
| Norwich Union superannuation | 25,149.00 |
| Plum Super | 11,160.00 |
| All other assets held by the husband | Not known |
| TOTAL | 45,434 + NK |
The figure available to the court for the husband’s entitlement in AustralianSuper is dated 17 March 2008, over 5 months ago. I am therefore unable to make a precise finding as to the amount the wife will receive, net of costs, on the basis of a 100% splitting order in her favour in relation to this Fund. However, in all the circumstances I am satisfied that if the amount in AustralianSuper held by the husband is rolled into a fund nominated by the wife, the wife will receive approximately 82% of the known pool and this result is just and equitable.
I gave consideration as to whether the operation of the proposed orders should be stayed. The wife’s solicitor opposed any delay in the orders being implemented. He submits that the husband has delayed the proceedings by his conduct. He submits the evidence establishes that the wife is struggling emotionally and financially and needs finality. I accept Mr Rudd’s submission. I do not propose to stay the operation of the proposed orders.
Section 90MZD provides that a splitting order in relation to a superannuation interest may only be expressed to bind the Trustee of the eligible superannuation plan if the trustee has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to the making of the order. Rule 14.06 of the Family Law Rules 2004 provides that the party seeking the order must, not less than 28 days before the date fixed for trial, notify the trustee in writing of the terms of the order that will be sought at the trial to bind the Trustee. In the present case, the wife’s solicitor has not provided the Trustee of the husband’s AustralianSuper fund with notice of the orders sought. The court cannot therefore make orders, until it is satisfied the Trustee has been accorded procedural fairness. I have set out the orders I propose to make in this matter upon being satisfied the provisions of section 90MZD and rule 14.06 have been complied with. I have also made an order that the wife’s solicitors forward a copy of the proposed orders to the Trustee of the husband’s superannuation fund immediately and for the matter to be listed for mention to enable the matter to be finalised.
I am satisfied that the following orders I propose to make are just and equitable. The orders proposed are:
a)Within 21 days of Order, the wife’s solicitors forward to the husband by pre-paid post all documents necessary to transfer to the wife all the husband’s right, title and interest in the property situated at Property [O], being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier [5] (“the home”).
b)Within 42 days of order the husband sign the documents referred to in Order (1) and return the documents to the wife’s solicitors to enable the transfer to occur (“settlement”).
c)The wife’s solicitors hold all documents referred to in (b) until settlement.
d)At settlement, simultaneously with the transfer of the home from the husband to the wife, the wife discharge the loan in the joint names of the parties, secured by way of mortgage on the home to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and thereafter the wife indemnify and keep indemnified the husband in relation to any claims arising in relation to the home including but not limited to loan repayments and other outgoings on the home.
e)The wife be entitled to the whole of the contents of the home.
f)In the event the husband fails to comply with Order (b) by the due date, the Registrar of this Court at its Sydney or Dubbo Registry be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Act execute, in the name of the husband, all deeds and instruments necessary to give effect to the orders herein, or any of them, and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the said deeds and instruments.
g)There be no alteration to the interest of the wife in the First State Super Fund and the husband forego any claim against that interest.
h)Pursuant to section 90MT(1)(a) of the Act whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the husband’s entitlement in the Fund known as AustralianSuper, reference number [1], the wife be entitled to a payment of 100% of the husband’s entitlement in the fund and that there be a corresponding reduction to the entitlement of the husband that he would have had in the Fund but for this Order.
i)That, having been accorded procedural fairness in relation to the making of this order, this order binds the trustees of Australian Super.
j)The operative time for Orders is the date being 4 days from the date of service of the orders upon the Trustee of the Fund.
k)Except as otherwise provided in these orders, the husband and the wife retain all other items of property currently in the possession or control of each of them respectively.
l)Except as otherwise provided in these orders, the husband and the wife remain liable for any debts, howsoever arising, in their own name at the date of these Orders and in this respect shall indemnify, keep indemnified and hold harmless the other from any liability in relation thereto.
m)In the event the husband or the wife refuses or neglects to comply with any of the Orders herein, the Registrar of this Court at its Sydney Registry be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Act to execute, in the name of the husband or the wife as the case may be, all deeds and instruments necessary to give effect to the orders herein, or any of them, and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the said deeds and instruments.
n)Within 7 days from the date of these Orders the wife cause to be forwarded to the husband c/- [address omitted] Ireland, a sealed copy of these Orders and Reasons for Judgment.
o)All exhibits tendered in these proceedings be returned at the expiration of one calendar month unless an appeal is lodged.
p)No order as to costs.
q)All outstanding applications otherwise be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Sexton FM.
Associate: Skye Owen
Date:
0
0
1