Palmer & Anor v The State of Western Australia & Anor; Mineralogy Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Queensland; Travel Essence Pty Ltd & Ors v Young & Anor

[2020] HCATrans 88

[2020] HCATrans 088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane  No B26 of 2020

B e t w e e n -

CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER

First Plaintiff

MINERALOGY PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

and

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First Defendant

CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAWSON

Second Defendant

Office of the Registry

Brisbane  No B29 of 2020

B e t w e e n -

MINERALOGY PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

DANIEL JACOBSON

Second Plaintiff

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Defendant

Office of the Registry

Sydney  No S87 of 2020

B e t w e e n -

TRAVEL ESSENCE PTY LTD ACN 143 823 590

First Plaintiff

MERMAID 007 PTY LTD ACN 621 539 295

Second Plaintiff

SUPER SERVICES GROUP PTY LTD ACN 617 650 138

Third Plaintiff

PAUL JEFFREY

Fourth Plaintiff

ZALI BURROWS

Fifth Plaintiff

and

JEANNETTE YOUNG, THE CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

First Defendant

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Second Defendant

Directions hearing

KIEFEL CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO PERTH AND SYDNEY

ON TUESDAY, 16 JUNE 2020, AT 2.15 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

____________________

MR P.J. DUNNING, QC:   May it please the Court, with my learned friends, MR R. SCHEELINGS and MR P.J. WARD, for the plaintiffs in B26/2020 and B29/2020.  (instructed by Jonathan Shaw)

MR G.O’L. REYNOLDS, SC:   I appear with my learned friends, MR R.W. HADDRICK and MR D.P. HUME, for the plaintiffs in S87/2020.  (instructed by Mahoneys)

MR J.A. THOMSON, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia:   May it please the Court, with MR J.D. BERSON I appear on behalf of the first and second defendants in B26/2020.  (instructed by State Solicitor’s Office WA)

MR G.A. THOMPSON, QC, Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland:   May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS F.J. NAGORCKA, on behalf of the defendants in B29/2020 and S87/2020.  (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))

HER HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  I have read the parties’ submissions in relation to the further directions.  It seems clear the matters cannot be ready for a 30 June hearing by the Court and are unlikely to be ready for some time.  The parties in Palmer v Western Australia and Mineralogy v Queensland are talking about a hearing by a Justice of this Court, which I will discuss shortly.

It does not seem that in the matter of Travel Essence that things are really very much different, Mr Reynolds.  I see that there is a faint cry of optimism in some further directions in a day or two but really today is the last chance to have this matter set down for 30 June.  Whilst I note your comments about the defendants putting forward facts which are somewhat conclusory, it does not seem that you have been able to produce a draft which they can agree with.

I think it just highlights the impossibility in each of these cases of the parties being able to agree facts, not the least because, as I think you and others have pointed out, the parties are talking about measures being addressed to different risk - that is one of the points.  So should we be talking about Travel Essence being put on the same track as the others in relation to a determination of the issues necessary for a hearing by the Court?

MR REYNOLDS:   Does your Honour want me to address the matters we have raised in our submissions or is your Honour indicating that your Honour has formed a view, in which case ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I have formed a preliminary view, but only because I cannot see that Queensland’s position with respect to your case is any different from its position with respect to the Mineralogy Case.  So it would seem to me that both will require the same treatment with respect to the facts arising on what is essentially the same defence brought by Queensland as to whether the measures are reasonably necessary for the purposes of the border closure direction.

MR REYNOLDS:   Yes.  Well, can I deal with that briefly, your Honour?

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR REYNOLDS:   I do not want to belabour a point if it is – if there is no point in doing so.  I am not suggesting there is anything inappropriate about your Honour having reached a view on the basis of the submission.  I think your Honour should have the document, the special case in its current formulation, if we can put it that way.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, I do.

MR REYNOLDS:   I think the corresponding…..find in paragraph 23(n), which appears on page 11, and the effect of that, we would say, is that it is to underline a problem that Queensland has got, clearly, that they cannot demonstrate on empirical evidence that these border closures made any difference to containing the spread of the COVID virus.  Now, that is effectively what is said there. 

We then get these very generalised statements in paragraphs 34 and 35 suggesting that – again paraphrasing it – the border closures materially assisted in containing the spread and then an even more vague paragraph about there being no obvious or reasonably practicable alternative.

We say it would be worth a shot to direct the Court’s point of view - or worth a try to direct them to particularise what the facts are that are relied on there in those two paragraphs and to explain particularly how paragraph 35 works, because we do not understand it.  Now, if they did that – and they must be in a position to do that, we submit, having prepared the special case and the Chief Health Officer who had to be satisfied of various…..before making the direction, plus having all sorts of experts in their team - if they were to provide that for us by Thursday, then we could at least have a look at it and it may be that we cannot take the matter any further.  We have to agree that there has to be a trial. 

But we say it would be worth a try to see if that will lead to us being able, for example, to say, well, we accept those facts for the purposes of this argument, or that the facts that they particularise do not meet the test.  They accept that they themselves must jump, something of that ilk.  If that occurred, then we submit we could be ready for a hearing on 30 June.  The alternative possibility of going to a trial, I respectfully submit, means that the case is probably likely to become moot, at least by 10 July and perhaps earlier, given various statements that have been made by the Queensland Premier.

HER HONOUR:   That is, of course, a possibility but it is not something upon which I can operate.

MR REYNOLDS:   No, but I am just perhaps explaining our attitude, your Honour.  It is our belief, rightly or wrongly on the basis of those statements, that there is a strong likelihood that the case will become moot towards the end of this month or early in July.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, that is unfortunate.  Mr Reynolds, is not the problem - if one puts the attempts at the special case to one side and reverts to the pleading, the defendants plead that there is a reasonable need for the border restriction to assist in containing the spread of COVID‑19 and to protect persons within Queensland from the health risks associated with it.  Now, that is in issue and it seems to me the only way to resolve it is for there to be expert opinion and the determination of that issue.  I just cannot see any way around it.

MR REYNOLDS:   The way they have particularised it in the special case, your Honour, is in paragraphs 34 and 35, and, as we say, if they were to lay out what the points are, the facts are from which those conclusions are drawn, there is some prospect that there would not be an issue and we could go forward in this Court at the end of June. 

Just to take one example.  If they said, your Honour, it is reasonably necessary because there is a five per cent likelihood that border closures may reduce ‑ or may have reduced the infection rate by one per cent - but let us say that is the argument, we might well be content to accept that if that is the basis for paragraphs 34 and 35 and say, well, yes, we are happy with that.  If that is the point you want to – factually you want to raise to suggest that this was reasonably necessary, then we are quite content. 

The difficulty is paragraphs 34 and 35 are – well, particularly 35 – there is not much more we can…..  It does not indicate even what the argument is and we cannot even follow it, as to what is being talked about.  Now, if that were to be made clear ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, really what it is is the reverse of what you plead, namely that there is an obvious and compelling alternative, which are the terms in which you pleaded.

MR REYNOLDS:   Yes, I think that is ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   In the statement of claim.

MR REYNOLDS:   Yes.  Well, that may well be so, your Honour.  We get back to the issue of onus.  We submit that does not make it clear what it is being said in paragraph 35.  So they say there is no obvious alternative and we say for what.  They say the alternative way.  Does that mean taking into account every measure that they have adopted or just this one measure of border closures?  We do not think that is what is said there.

So if they were to say, well, we are going with this measure, border closures, but all the measures and that there is no obviously compelling alternative other than all of the measures that we have adopted, then that may be one thing.  We doubt that they are going to say there is no obvious and compelling or equally effective alternative other than just simply shutting the borders.  So that is why I say we need to know what that point is.

If it is fleshed out it may be it is effectively demurral.  We suspect it will be, otherwise I would not…..because your Honour thought we were at complete loggerheads.  I would not waste your Honour’s time.  But we think if Queensland are compelled to outline – and they must be in a position to do that – how paragraphs 34 and 35 work, what the factual basis for them is, then there is a real prospect, we say possibly even a strong prospect, that we can go forward and have the matter determined at the end of this month, assuming the Court were minded to do so.

HER HONOUR:   I apprehend, Mr Reynolds, that almost all of the parties have been hampered particularising their pleadings, let alone the special case, because they have not been in a position to garner all the expert opinion they would want to be able to identify these issues with clarity.  Hence the change of direction into determining what expert opinion would conclude about these matters.

MR REYNOLDS:   We do not understand it to be a problem for Queensland.  It would be very surprising if they said that.  They have got some – quite a few experts, as we understand it, in particular, the Chief Health Officer who has already directed herself specifically to all of this, and all of those experts can give them instructions on this matter.  So, with all due respect, your Honour, we do not think there is a problem so far as the defendants in my matter are concerned and if we are asked for the matter to be expedited, then any difficulties we have will just have to be overridden.  So we say in the Queensland case, to which the parties that I represent are party, there is not any difficulty of that kind with expert evidence.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, thank you, Mr Reynolds.

MR REYNOLDS:   The bottom line, your Honour, if I may say one more thing, is that it is worth the time.  That is all I am saying.

HER HONOUR:   Mr Solicitor for Queensland.

MR THOMPSON:   Your Honour, you will have seen from our written submissions that we are working with Western Australia with a view to having a common expert really as a process for expediting the hearing.  I think as I said to your Honour on the last occasion, we have not yet particularised paragraphs…..3(h) or paragraph 22(f)…..our pleading actually in respect of…..  They are in the same terms that may involve essentially….. proportionality as an answer and implicit or embedded in that analysis is the balancing exercise which the Court will have to undertake as one step, which includes the question, for example, of whether there are reasonable alternative steps which were available in terms of ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I did not understand a balancing exercise to be really involved in your pleading in its present form.  I thought it was reasonable necessity.

MR THOMPSON:   Reasonably necessary or reasonably appropriate and adapted, I think ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I see.  That is alternating with proportionality.  That is the old‑fashioned approach.

MR THOMPSON:   That is old fashioned…..  Yes, your Honour.  But consideration of that issue – and perhaps it should be cast in terms of…..proportionality because I think the cases that dealt with section 117 are perhaps cast in the old language in some of the section 92 cases, your Honour.  But we would say the question involves looking at and considering whether there are alternative measures which were equally efficient to achieve a reduction in the risk of infection and so we recognise we do have a burden in respect of that.

In relation to providing particulars, as I said, we have not provided the particulars, as I said to your Honour on the last occasion.  We are proposing to provide those particulars, but we do want to talk to our experts to make sure that we are not bringing forward issues which ultimately have to be abandoned.  So it seemed to us that the most appropriate matter is to identify precisely what the expert evidence would be and provide that with…..particulars.

HER HONOUR:   So you are saying whatever course is taken, you more or less adopted Western Australia’s ‑ ‑ ‑

MR THOMPSON:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ suggestion that the matter needs – these matters need to be determined at a hearing?

MR THOMPSON:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   You would need some, then, leave to amend the pleadings.

MR THOMPSON:   I may need leave to amend the pleadings, yes, your Honour.  We recognise – and we have told our learned friends that we will be providing particulars.

HER HONOUR:   All right.  I should hear from the Solicitor‑General for Western Australia about the length of time, and from Mr Dunning – from the Solicitor first about the length of time that is proposed for hearing, how many experts we are talking about, days for hearing so I can get an idea of not only the hearing itself, but who should be hearing it.

MR THOMSON:   Yes.  We are considering two experts, as we put in our submissions.  The first expert will be the Chief Health Officer.  We would propose serving an expert report from him by the end of tomorrow.  But we also propose to have an independent expert.  We have identified that independent expert in our written submissions.  That independent expert is based in Canberra and we would hope that there would be a report available from that independent expert on Monday, the 22nd.  The proposal should not take anyone by surprise that we have both somebody from within government plus somebody independent verifying ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, I think you mentioned that at the last hearing.  I am more interested in the – well, the findings to be made by a judge hearing this matter and also the length of time that it is envisaged it would take for a hearing.

MR THOMSON:   Well, my own estimate – and this is without having seen any expert evidence from the plaintiffs – is that if you allocated two days that will…..sufficient.  As your Honour has said, there is a difference in approach and that is evident from the draft questions which we supplied over the weekend to our friends and the letter that we received back, I think it was this morning perhaps, setting out questions that my friends would propose.

My friends propose questions which identify various statistical probabilities in absolute terms in order that there might be some comparisons between the two statistical probabilities to be performed by the Court.  We have proposed a different approach which seems more consonant with a way in which an expert might actually address these things, and that is to ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   From the point of view of whoever hears the matter you would need to identify just what it is that is sought to be determined.  A list of questions for experts does not go very far towards that.

MR THOMSON:   No, no, that is ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   You have to identify part of the proceedings or a discrete question or questions to be determined.

MR THOMSON:   Yes, and that is why we, in our minute, have identified - in paragraph 8 of our minute - a trial of issues in respect of various paragraphs of the proceedings and we prepared that minute at a time when we had not seen the amended reply.  I can give you the paragraphs, if you would like, specifically in the amended reply which we think ought to be inserted.  They are 9(a), 10, 11, 12(c), 12(d), 15B and 16(c).  So we sought to identify those as the basis for trial of the issues.

HER HONOUR:   Well, the other question, of course, if we revert to where these matters always start, is why this matter now should not be remitted to the Federal Court, or at least that part of it which deals with a discrete aspect in the pleadings which could perhaps be defined as so much of the matter as concerns the claim by the defendants, adopting the words from the pleadings, “of the reasonable need for and efficacy of the community isolation measures contained in the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions for hearing and determination”.

It would not be a surprise to you all when I say that we are but seven Judges who in the August sittings will be sitting in a series of seven‑Judge matters.  There is going to be some difficulty with a Judge of this Court hearing this matter whereas the Federal Court will have available a larger number of judges and, of course, they are very experienced in determination of trials of fact and opinion.

MR THOMSON:   We are content with whatever course is one that finds favour with the Court.  We simply proposed it as a trial of issues before a single Justice because that might have been the quickest way and we would not be thought not to be trying to accommodate the expeditious hearing.  So if your Honour thinks that it is better that it be remitted and ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I am not sure it would be the quickest way.  The Court is about to embark upon some hearings, as you know, in the two weeks commencing 29 June and the Judges will be taken up with that in judgments and then preparation – from a short break and preparation for a rather heavy August sitting.

MR THOMSON:   Yes, well, I am perfectly content with whatever course your Honour sees as appropriate.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Solicitor.  Mr Dunning.

MR DUNNING:   Thank you, your Honour.  My optimism on Friday was misplaced. 

HER HONOUR:   Well, it is always good to be optimistic in times such as these.

MR DUNNING:   Indeed, because after that what Queensland had proposed, 34 and 35.....special case, but it made a difference and in those circumstances, your Honour will have seen from our written submissions that we accept in reality, as we must, that that factual inquiry will have to take – will have to take place ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   The area that – if as I am presently minded to do to remit this to the Federal Court to determine that part of the proceedings which is largely identified in the pleadings, the parties have at various points, as I have earlier mentioned, discussed various notions of risk and that seems to me a point where there is a large disagreement in determining what risk is relevant, what is sufficient – these are difficult questions.  But I apprehend that that would be covered in a global – by global identification of the issue arising from the pleadings, and that is a matter that the experts…..address, various types of risk and what measures are appropriate to it.

MR DUNNING:   With respect, I agree.  Might I add this to that.  I suspect once the defendants have their expert evidence, the breadth of the present controversy about what risk we are talking about will narrow because ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I would be very surprised about that because they seem to be talking about the risk of spreading infection and other parties seem to be talking about the risk of it becoming uncontrollable.  That is a very long way between the two.

MR DUNNING:   That is true.  It is.  The point I was endeavouring to make was this.  One is effectively…..other is containments…..and ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   And whose decision is that?

MR DUNNING:   Well, that is a decision that is ultimately one that is best for the…..party to because at its abstract level it is not a decision that the State Government might make on the face of section 92 to decide that it eradicate this jurisdiction ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   But each of those measures, eradication or minimisation, whatever, are directed to certain levels of risk.  We keep coming back to them.

MR DUNNING:   I agree.  The point I was endeavouring to make, Chief Justice, was this.  Once we know that that is in fact what we are aiming at, we can then…..what is the risk of eradication of opening the borders, what is the risk to its alternative.

HER HONOUR:   You mean a question might ‑ ‑ ‑

MR DUNNING:   Correct, yes.

HER HONOUR:   You are still optimistic this process of remitter might be short circuited and you will come back to the Court quickly.

MR DUNNING:   I am, and I have a sneaking suspicion that once we are not being heard in the week of the 29th, it would be much…..to close…..

HER HONOUR:   In which case I will give liberty to apply.

MR DUNNING:   Yes. 

HER HONOUR:   So while I have you on your feet, the orders that I was proposing, and I will, of course, allow the parties the opportunity of considering them and making any other proposals by consent, which they may agree – well, apart from the, I think, this uncontroversial – the orders for amendment which were conveniently in the defendant’s minute of proposed orders numbers 1, 2 and 3, I would make orders in those terms and then proceed with the following order:

1.Pursuant to section 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) so much of this matter as concerns the claim by the defendants of the reasonable need for and efficacy of the community isolation measures contained in the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions (“the Western Australia Directions”) made on 5 April 2020 be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia for hearing and determination.

2.That part of the proceeding continue in that court as if the steps already taken in the proceedings in this Court had been taken in that court.

3.The Registrar of this Court forward to the proper officer of that court photocopies of all documents filed in this Court.

4.Liberty to apply.

5.Costs to date reserved.

The parties could consider that and if there is a need for further directions before the order is finalised, I will be happy to deal with it in the next day or so, otherwise I would expect the parties to indicate whether there are any further orders by consent they would make within 24 hours from today.  Mr Solicitor.

MR THOMSON:   …..that seems like a convenient course to us…..orders if your Honour read them out they seem sufficient to achieve the intended purpose, but if we do have that liberty to apply within 24 hours, that would be convenient.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  I will give you the opportunity of reviewing the transcript in relation to the orders.  Mr Dunning, you wanted to add something?

MR DUNNING:   Only one other matter that seemed to be an issue between ourselves and Queensland, and that is in relation to a number of matters asserted in the special case…..on paragraph 7 of our written submissions.

HER HONOUR:   I have not got to Mineralogy ‑ ‑ ‑

MR DUNNING:   My apologies.

HER HONOUR:   This was just Palmer because the pleadings are in slightly different language so I was ‑ ‑ ‑

MR DUNNING:   Sorry, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   So we will move on to Mineralogy.

MR THOMPSON:   Your Honour, before you do can I just ask one thing as a practical matter.  Does your Honour have any view about the location where ‑ the Federal Court registry that was intended that might hear this, and I am only asking that in case your Honour did.

HER HONOUR:   No, I would leave that to the Federal Court.

MR THOMPSON:   Yes, thank you.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, Mineralogy.  Mr Dunning, there was something in the ‑ ‑ ‑

MR DUNNING:   The only matter that in a sense is different in relation to the Mineralogy proceedings is this.  One, that the pleadings have not been amended with the position that Queensland takes in that regard and as we made clear in our written submissions and provided the pleadings were acceptable to the Court we were concerned ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I would not say that they are acceptable.  I would not go that far.  What do you want done with the pleadings?

MR DUNNING:   …..we do not ‑ we are disinclined to do anything in relation to – the only…..that was 7 in our outline because they seem to be the only matters of substance outside 34 and 35, as we have been calling them, that are not ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, I think if we are talking about remitter, we are looking at paragraph 23 of the pleadings.

MR DUNNING:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   I think that is the area that we are looking at, and reframing the order for remitter that I have just outlined in the Palmer v Western Australia case the order would be along these lines: “Pursuant to section 44 so much of this matter as concerns the claim by the defendants of the reasonable need for the Public Health Direction ‑ Border Restrictions (No 5) (“the Queensland Direction”) to assist in containing the spread of COVID‑19 and to protect persons within Queensland from the health risks associated with COVID‑19 be remitted to the Federal Court of Australia for hearing and determination.”

Now, that takes up the pleadings.  I am not sure that I have given the Solicitor‑General’s reference to “reasonably appropriate and adapted” - whether that would need to be factored in as well.  I think you had in mind a question, at least in relation to Travel Essence, of adding something in relation to whether there were obvious and compelling alternatives, which I was going to do in relation to that matter, but that is because it is specifically raised in the statement of claim.  It is not raised as an issue here unless it is thought to be caught up in what is – as it is, what is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the direction as alleged by the defendants.

MR DUNNING:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   Does that cover what you would think would be necessary?

MR DUNNING:   Yes, I think it does.

HER HONOUR:   Identify that part of the proceedings which would be the subject of the Federal Court.

MR DUNNING:   Yes, I think that is what that necessarily picked up, these particular facts…..

HER HONOUR:   I think those particular facts; you either ask for them to be particularised now in these directions or you leave them to the experts ‑ to be identified by the experts.  Which course do you ‑ ‑ ‑

MR DUNNING:   Our friends have indicated they were going to deliver…..deliver their expert reports.  We are not…..because they are likely to…..particulars.

HER HONOUR:   And one will feed into the other.

MR DUNNING:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   One certainly will.  I will not be making directions as to the expert reports.  If parties wish to proceed along that basis on the premise that they will be appearing before the Federal Court soon for directions and they will – if they have already taken themselves along that course they will be the directions which the Court may well make.

MR DUNNING:   Yes.  I do not think I have anything to add other than…..from the previous matter.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you.  Mr Solicitor.

MR THOMPSON:   I have nothing to add.  Those directions are satisfactory.

HER HONOUR:   All right.  Apart from that one amendment there are no directions I need to make about pleadings apart from those particulars.  Do you want me to make an order that particulars be furnished with the experts’ report?

MR ….…..:   Your Honour…..but we will tender that ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Furnish the particulars?

MR ……...:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   All right.  There will be orders in similar terms to those in the Palmer v Western Australia proceeding with the order for remitter altered in the terms outlined. 

Mr Reynolds, in the Travel Essence matter the order for remitter I would apprehend would follow that of Mineralogy – pick up the State of Queensland’s defence but to add to it the words “and whether there were the obvious and compelling alternatives to that measure” which picks up paragraph 42 to your statement of claim.

MR REYNOLDS:   Your Honour, we do not think that we need anything different from the order in the other matter.

HER HONOUR:   All right.  Are there any other orders in terms of leave to amend that is necessary at this point though to precede remitter?

MR REYNOLDS:   I do not believe so.

HER HONOUR:   No, I do not think so.  All right, then, in the Travel Essence matter there will also be orders of the kind outlined in the Palmer v Western Australia matter with the order for remitter being the same as that in the Mineralogy matter but with the addition which I have indicated and in each case there will be the additional orders for liberty to apply and costs to be reserved.  I would expect to hear from the parties by close of business tomorrow as to the final version of the orders, directions and remitter to be made.

Thank you.  The Court will adjourn.

AT 2.51 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED