Pencev and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[2011] AATA 404
•14 June 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 404
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/0813
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Marin Pencev
Applicant
And
Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member Date14 June 2011
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and instead decides that Mr Pencev should be paid at the single rate of pension from
8 December 2008. However, due to the operation of section 152(4) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, he may only be paid arrears of payment from 30 October 2009.....................[sgd].......................
Ms N Bell, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS - SOCIAL SECURITY - family like relationship - assessment as living separated under the same roof - financial aspects - nature of the household - social aspects of the relationship - sexual relationship - nature of commitment - payment of arrears - notice of a decision – understanding of review process - difficulty with the English language - exercise a general discretion
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR. 546
Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 32 FCR 164
Re Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Mitchell
[2006] AATA 804REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms N Bell, Senior Member 1.Mr Marin Pencev and Mrs Rhoda Pencev signed a marriage contract in the Philippines in 1989. They have three sons. Their relationship has followed a rocky course over the years and they separated in 2003. Since 2004, Mr Pencev has been in receipt of disability support pension and later age pension, initially paid at the higher single rate. After Mrs Pencev filed with Centrelink a Change of Marital Status form in October 2006, signed by Mr Pencev and stating she and Mr Pencev had reconciled, Mr Pencev was paid at the lower married rate of pension.
2.In September 2008 Mr Pencev lodged forms with Centrelink for assessment as living separated under the same roof. Centrelink’s assessment was that Mr Pencev was a member of a couple.
3.In February 2010, Mr Pencev advised Centrelink that he had secured Department of Housing accommodation and had left the house where he had resided with Mrs Pencev. Since that time he has been paid at the single rate of pension.
4.
Mr Pencev contends that, despite the form he signed and despite moving back in with his wife and children, he was not living as a member of a couple with Mrs Pencev from October 2006 to February 2010 and certainly not from
September 2008.
issues
5. The central issue in this application is whether Mr Pencev and Mrs Pencev were members of a couple from 8 October 2008 until 22 February 2010. In particular, section 4(2)(a) of the Social Security Act1991 poses the question whether Mr and Mrs Pencev, being married, were during that time living separately and apart from each other on a permanent or indefinite basis.
6. Section 4(3) of the Act prescribes a number of secondary factors that must be considered in resolving the central issue. In broad terms, they require an inquiry into:
· the financial aspects of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Pencev;
· the nature of the household;
· the social aspects of the relationship;
· the sexual relationship; and
· the nature of their commitment to each other.
7. Four of these five factors noted in the section list further and more specific matters to which a decision maker must have regard. It is not an exhaustive list. A decision maker can go further and wider, and must consider the total picture of the relationship that emerges from these factors, and which of them weigh against a marriage like relationship and which weigh in favour of it. Financial cooperation, cohabitation, a sexual relationship, cooperative household arrangements or mutual commitment, occurring alone, do not disclose, solely, a marriage like relationship. (Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR. 546)
8. I am also mindful, in this exercise, of the comments made by the Federal Court in Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 32 FCR 164 in which the Court, after listing a number of matters relevant to the question of whether a married couple are living separately and apart, said the list is not exhaustive nor will each of the subjects fall to be considered in every case; a particular answer to a single subject will rarely, if ever, supply a final solution; and the Tribunal must make its determination only after assessing the totality of the evidence and other material that is before it.
9. There is also an issue about the period for payment of any arrears that might flow from my decision on the substantive question of the nature of
Mr and Mrs Pencev’s relationship. This is because Mr Pencev did not request a review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of the authorised review officer’s 8 December 2008 decision within 13 weeks of the date he received notice of the decision.10. Mr Pencev was a very poor historian, often giving evidence in conflict with statements he had made earlier. It was very difficult to obtain a clear picture of the history of the relationship and the circumstances in which he and Mrs Pencev lived together from 2006. I note the medical certificate dated 11 February 2011 of
Dr Andrew Chaplin which says that Mr Pencev suffers from depression and other physical ailments.11. Mrs Pencev was a more forthright witness, although she was also vague in some respects and some of her statements were inconsistent.
financial aspects
12. Mr Pencev and Mrs Pencev ceased to have joint bank accounts around 1997 or 1998.
13.
Prior to the year 2000, Mr Pencev owned and operated a small bottle shop and lived together with Mrs Pencev and their three children at an address in
St Peters, a house he owned. However, during that year, Mr Pencev closed his business and declared bankruptcy. His property was reclaimed by the mortgagee. Mrs Pencev said that the reason Mr Pencev was forced to declare bankruptcy was because of bad investments and gambling debts.
14.
Mr and Mrs Pencev then moved with their children into rented premises at Hurlstone Park. The lease at that address was in the name of Mrs Pencev only.
In 2003, Mr Pencev moved out of the house and stayed with a friend in Lidcombe who had a spare room until October 2006 when Mr Pencev was forced to leave because the friend wished to rent the room out. On a limited income, he decided to move back in with Mrs Pencev and the family. In April 2008, the family moved to Dulwich Hill. Both Mr and Mrs Pencev’s names were on that lease.
15.
Mr Pencev’s evidence of the financial aspects of the relationship with Mrs Pencev was unclear and at times contradictory. Initially, he said he gave Mrs Pencev no money from his disability support pension but sometimes gave small amounts to the children. Later, Mr Pencev said that, except for a period of 2 to 3 weeks when he was not receiving a payment until it recommenced on 27 October 2006, Mrs Pencev would take between $100 to $200 out of the $270 he received in his fortnightly payment. However, I note that after this payment on 27 October 2006, Mr Pencev did not receive a payment until January 2007. He said that the remainder of the rent of $370 per week and the telephone and utilities were paid for by Mrs Pencev.
Mr Pencev’s evidence about who paid for food and household items was unclear and at times contradictory. He said that there were times where he bought his own food and ate by himself once he began receiving his pension. He later said, save for the period prior to receiving the pension, that he bought all his own food and ate by himself.
16. Mrs Pencev said that Mr Pencev would contribute money occasionally. She said there were occasions when Mr Pencev prepared his own meals from the food he purchased. However he often ate the meals that she prepared for the family. Mrs Pencev said that after he returned from Bulgaria on the second occasion he would often be out and never ate with the family.
17.
Mr Pencev said he was unaware of the contents of a Parenting Payment - Change of Marital Status Form that he signed and dated on
11 October 2006 that was then lodged by Mrs Pencev with Centrelink. He said that he simply signed the form when placed in front of him by Mrs Pencev and that she had intentionally tricked him into signing the form.
18. In an Assessment of Living Arrangements form filed with Centrelink in February 2007, Mr Pencev stated his address as Wardell Road, Lewisham although he never resided at this address. Despite having lodged this form, he stated he paid $140 per week of $270 total rent to Mrs Pencev, presumably in relation to the rent at Hurlstone Park. He also said that he paid $120 per week to support his three children and that all food and household items were paid for separately. Later he said Mrs Pencev paid for everything because he had no money. Mrs Pencev’s evidence confirmed this.
19.
In relation to the address in Lewisham, Mr Pencev tendered two separate front pages of a contract for sale of land that he had signed and dated
12 and 22 September 2006 respectively. Mr Pencev cited this as an example of his propensity to sign documents put before him without understanding their contents and said this same lack of understanding was how he came to sign the Change of Marital Status Form in 2006.
20.Mr Pencev said that in September 2006, he with his daughter entered into a contract for the purchase of two properties: 37 & 37A Wardell Road, Lewisham. He said that it was necessary that his daughter be involved with the purchase in order to obtain finance from the bank. He said that the purchase proceeded to settlement but he could not recall the date. The only evidence before the Tribunal were the two versions of the first page of the contract which I note are unsigned by the vendor. Mr Pencev said that shortly after the settlement the mortgagee foreclosed on the mortgage and claimed the properties. He complained that he was swindled by the real estate agent and did not have the benefit of legal advice although I note that on both versions of the contract for sale signed by Mr Pencev he nominates the firm of Steven Stefanou and Associates as his solicitors. As to how he intended to service the mortgage, Mr Pencev said that he planned to lease the house at number 37 while residing himself in the garage situated on 37A.
21.
In September 2008, Mr Pencev lodged two Assessment of Living Arrangements forms with Centrelink. In the forms, he stated that he paid $170 to
Mrs Pencev to contribute to the rent of $370 per week. I also note that the forms refer to the purchase of a motor vehicle registered in Mr Pencev’s name and say that the car is shared by Mrs Pencev. As to all other utilities and to the support of the three children, the form states that they are all paid for by Mrs Pencev.
22. Mr Pencev said he currently has an American Express credit card debt of $8000 resulting from his two trips to Bulgaria in 2008 and 2009.
23. The financial arrangements between Mr and Mrs Pencev during the relevant period were essentially that he was dependent on her for housing and utilities and some food. His financial contributions were meagre. They were also joint lessees for the Dulwich Hill property. This amounts to a significant financial intermingling.
nature of the household
24.
Mr Pencev said that when he moved back to his wife’s house in 2006 he did so because he was ill, had nowhere else to go and his children pressured
Mrs Pencev to take him in. Later, in cross examination, he said that he asked
Mrs Pencev if he could move back and she agreed and gave him keys. On yet another occasion he said that Mrs Pencev asked him to move back in because she needed help with the children. He said that for the first few weeks she looked after him but then she began to mistreat him again.
25.Mrs Pencev said he simply turned up with his possessions one day after having frequented the house intermittently for some years.
26.Mr Pencev said he slept in the lounge room next to the kitchen, bought and prepared his own food, and did his own laundry. He said that sometimes he would watch television in Mrs Pencev’s bedroom and fall asleep on the bed. He said he kept his clothes in the wardrobe in the children’s room. For the rest of the time, he said, he watched television in the lounge room. He said that Mrs Pencev did all of the housework and paid for all household expenses except for his food. Mr Pencev said he would sometimes drive Mrs Pencev and the children to the shops. There were many inconsistencies in Mr Pencev’s evidence and it was difficult to obtain a clear picture of his living arrangements, but he depicted an arrangement that was completely separate, remote and hostile.
27.
Mr Pencev said that his purpose in purchasing the properties at 37 and 37A Wardell Road, Lewisham was to have another place to live. He said he intended to connect utilities to the garage on 37A and reside there while leasing out the house situated on 37. Although he had not commenced to live there and in fact never lived there because the mortgagee foreclosed on the mortgage soon after settlement,
Mr Pencev advised Centrelink that he had the new address of 37A Wardell Road, Lewisham on 23 February 2007. He said that in advising Centrelink of this change of address he was simply being compliant with Centrelink requirements. When cross examined on this, he said that he had done so because a real estate agent had told him to.
28.It was also put to Mr Pencev that he had told Centrelink in February 2010 that he hadn’t lived with his wife for years. Mr Pencev professed no memory of this.
29.Mr Pencev said that in October 2006, after he had moved back into the house, Mrs Pencev gave him a form to sign and said it was to tell Centrelink that he had returned home. He said he resisted signing the form for some time but finally signed it. He maintained that Mrs Pencev had misled him about its meaning.
30.Mr Pencev said he went to Bulgaria for 13 weeks in April 2008. Next year, in 2009, Mr Pencev moved with all of his family to a new residence in Dulwich Hill. The lease was in both their names because, he said, Mrs Pencev was a “single mother” and the real estate agent refused to rent the property to her alone.
31.Mr Pencev said that things at home deteriorated further and he travelled again to Bulgaria in 2009 for 13 weeks. He said that on his return he spent little time at home, sometimes travelling all night on a train for want of anywhere else to go. He obtained Department of Housing accommodation in April 2010 and has not returned to live with Mrs Pencev.
32.Mrs Pencev, on the other hand, said she was confused, when Mr Pencev returned in 2006, as to whether she and he were back together again. She said that Mr Pencev maintained that they were not, but she held some hope because she thought it would be the best thing for her family. She said that when he moved back in in 2006, she considered herself not to be single anymore – hence her determination to advise Centrelink.
33.Mrs Pencev said Mr Pencev rarely contributed any money to the household and generally only on the occasions when she did not have sufficient money to pay a bill. She said she would cook for the whole family and he would make his own food sometimes. She said Mr Pencev did not like the way she washed and ironed his clothes and so he would take them to the laundry but she would include small clothes of his in her washing. She said they would sometimes sleep together in their king-size bed and sometimes he or she would sleep in the lounge room. She said he kept his clothes in the room where they slept.
34.Mrs Pencev said she didn’t know where he spent his time when he went out and if she asked he would tell her it was none of her business. When asked why he had come back and not just gone to some other accommodation, she said:
“That’s a good question. Maybe he can’t afford and he’s sleeping free in my place.”
35.When asked why she let him come back, she said:
“Because he’s my ex-husband, and he’s the father of my kids, and they’re very close, and plus I want to say that back then he’s very different.”
36.Mrs Pencev said that after Mr Pencev went to Bulgaria the second time, he was very different. He did not sleep with her, did not eat her food, kept his clothes on the other side of the bedroom, and did everything for himself. She said they didn’t talk at all and he was out for much of the time. He went to Bulgaria on the day after they all moved to the residence in Dulwich Hill and returned 13 weeks later. Mrs Pencev said she asked Mr Pencev to leave but he insisted on staying until he had secured a Department of Housing unit. He left when he had obtained one.
37.It is difficult to ascertain the living arrangements between Mr and Mrs Pencev from 2006, given the confusingly inconsistent evidence given by each of them, but it appears that when he first returned to the household in 2006 he ate Mrs Pencev’s food, had some of his laundry done for him, shared in the care of the children and slept in the marital bed with her for some of the time. It seems that, as time went on, they became more remote, although Mrs Pencev’s evidence, which I prefer to the evidence of Mr Pencev, was that they continued to share a bed and he continued to eat the food she prepared, at least some of the time, until his second trip to Bulgaria in 2009. Just before he left for this trip they moved together to the Dulwich Hill residence as joint lessees. It appears that, from the time he returned, they had almost nothing to do with each other and Mr Pencev spent as much time away from the home as he could. Their living arrangements appear to have been quite separate from this time, except that his possessions remained at the house which was being paid for entirely by Mrs Pencev.
social aspects
38.Mr Pencev said he and Mrs Pencev never socialised during the relevant period. Later he conceded that she would accompany Mr Pencev and their sons to soccer matches, but she would sit in the back of the car. He said he would drive her and their sons to the shops occasionally.
39.Mrs Pencev said that after Mr Pencev moved back in 2006, they went as a family to the RSL for a birthday event on one occasion and they would generally go to the boys’ soccer matches together. She said there were no other outings. She said that prior to their separation in 2003 they had gone to bars and to the beach with the children as well.
40.Two witnesses were called by Mr Pencev. Mr Oyta, a friend of Mr Pencev since 1997, gave evidence of having visited Mr Pencev at the Hurlstone Park and Dulwich Hill residences and having observed that he had possessions including a jacket, shoes, briefcase and some bedding around the chair he sat on in the lounge room near the television. He said Mr Pencev was unhappy and concerned about his health, saying he had no one to take care of him. He said Mr Pencev never talked to him about Mrs Pencev or their relationship. He said he sensed the relationship was not a happy one. He said that Mr Pencev spoke about his children and his desire to keep the family together for them.
41.Mr Uher gave little evidence of any utility. He had known Mr Pencev since the early 1990s. He made it clear he did not like Mrs Pencev. He said he did not like the way she spoke to the children. He said that she and Mr Pencev appeared to be distant and the atmosphere at home was hostile. He first suggested that when he helped the family to move from Hurlston Park to Dulwich Hill only Mrs Pencev’s belongings were placed inside the house and Mr Pencev’s belongings were placed in a storage room. He later conceded that he did not know what was in the boxes he was carrying into the storage room.
42.Mr and Mrs Pencev appear to have had little social activity together. There is no evidence of whether they presented themselves as a married couple nor whether they presented themselves as not married. The only available assessments by friends or associates are that Mr Pencev was unhappy but that he desired to be close to his sons, that the atmosphere in the house was hostile and that they appeared to be distant.
sexual relationship
43.In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the evidence of both Mr and Mrs Pencev that they have not had a sexual relationship for many years.
commitment to each other
44.Mr Pencev’s evidence was that when he moved back in to the residence in Hurlstone Park in 2006, he did not consider that he was reconciling with Mrs Pencev. That is so notwithstanding that he was sick and needed the care that she provided. He said he had nowhere else to go, having been ousted from the room he occupied at a friend’s home.
45.
Mrs Pencev’s evidence was that, while she was unsure whether she and
Mr Pencev were reconciling, she hoped he had changed and that they could remain together. She said it became apparent that he had not changed.
46.
While Mrs Pencev provided care for Mr Pencev while he was ill during the first few weeks after he returned, there is no evidence that she did so after that time.
Mr Pencev is adamant that she did not.
47.Mrs Pencev said she contacted the doctor for Mr Pencev when needed but that he did not do the same for her and refused to buy her medication on one occasion when she requested him to do that for her.
48.
They had known each other for a long time and had a long history, but
Mr Pencev’s failed attempt to purchase a property in September 2006 and his removal of Mrs Pencev’s name from his application for public housing in October 2010 suggests that he had no intention of continuing to reside with her on a long term basis although I note it took him three years to change his public housing application. As soon as his application for housing came through, he left.
49.There is no evidence of any companionship between them. The only evidence of observers of their relationship supports this. They appear not to have been, in the relevant period, of any emotional comfort to each other. Rather, they each described the other as abusive. There is clearly, now, no amicability between them. It is unlikely that there has been any genuine affection for a very long time.
conclusion
50.
The financial arrangements between Mr and Mrs Pencev amounted to
Mrs Pencev substantially supporting Mr Pencev by meeting almost all of the expenses of the household. In living rent free, without payment of utilities and with largely no contribution to the purchase of food and groceries at the residences in Hurlstone Park and at Dulwich Hill, he was being financially supported by her.
Mrs Pencev appears to have been the breadwinner for the five people living at those addresses, three of whom were minors.
51.When I refer to the indicia in section 4(3)(a) of the Act, the matters I must have regard to when I consider the financial aspects of Mr and Mrs Pencev’s relationship during the relevant period, I find that there was no joint ownership of assets or joint liabilities; there was no significant pooling of financial resources – rather, it was all one way; there were no legal obligations owed by one to the other, except for their mutual obligations as joint lessees of the Dulwich Hill residence; and there was no sharing of day to day household expenses – again, it was all one way.
52.Is this marriage-like? There may be relationships where one member merely exploits the efforts and resources of the other and takes advantage of the other’s kindness or sense of duty.
53.
In relation to the indicia in section 4(3)(b) relevant to the nature of the household, the lion’s share of responsibility for providing care or support of the children fell on Mrs Pencev’s shoulders; their living arrangements were, at least until Mr Pencev returned from his second trip to Bulgaria, somewhat confused with
Mr Pencev sometimes sleeping in the marital bed, eating the food prepared for the family and having his laundry done for him – but sometimes not. He seemed to come and go as he pleased, taking advantage of Mrs Pencev’s efforts in the home and the provision of a comfortable bed when he chose to.
54.Is this marriage-like? Again, relationships where one member enjoys the advantages of, but does not contribute to, a comfortable home are not unheard of. But that member’s involvement in the business of the household must be limited and consequentially their presence must be somewhat peripheral.
55.The social aspects of the relationship are almost non-existent. Referring to the indicia in section 4(3)(c), I find they neither asserted nor denied their marital status to other people; they were regarded by at least two of Mr Pencev’s friends as distant, hostile or unhappy; and they seemed to engage in virtually no social activities together.
56.Is this marriage-like? Unfortunately, there are many unhappy marriages where both people choose not to venture from the home together or enjoy each other’s company and the company of mutual friends. This is not unheard of. In such unhappy marriages, the atmosphere may sometimes be poisonous and communication may be hostile or non-existent. Even so, it may still be a marriage like relationship.
57.The absence of a sexual relationship between married people is not uncommon. There is little indicated about a marriage by the presence or absence of sex.
58.On the question of their commitment to each other, and referring to the matters in section 4(3)(e), they have been married for 22 years, but they sustained the arrangement from 2006 for just three and a half of those; they provide no companionship or emotional support to each other; neither of them, with the exception of Mrs Pencev for a short period after Mr Pencev first moved back in in 2006, seemed to expect the relationship to continue indefinitely; if either saw their relationship as marriage like, it was only Mrs Pencev and only for a short part of the relevant period – Mr Pencev appears to have remained quite disinterested in reconciliation. This was one of the few matters in which he was quite consistent.
59.Is this marriage like? I think not. Any commitment Mrs Pencev may have had to the relationship, or any openness she may have had to reconciliation was without mutuality. Mr Pencev’s presence in the residences appears to have been purely opportunistic.
60.I am at a loss to understand why the arrangement continued for so long, except for the obvious material advantages to Mr Pencev.
61.Overall, it is the absence of mutuality that most characterises the relationship. It is this absence of mutuality, in respect of financial contribution, effort contributed to the maintenance of the household and the support of the children, consistent presence and commitment to the household and to the relationship itself, that leads me to conclude that the relationship between Mr and Mrs Pencev was in essence one of living separately and apart under the same roof. This is so notwithstanding Mr Pencev’s clear exploitation of the home provided by Mrs Pencev and the financial support she gave him.
62.However, this conclusion will have limited practical effect for Mr Pencev for the reasons set out below.
Payment of arrears
63.When Mr Pencev lodged an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision of the authorised review officer on 8 December 2008 that he should be paid at the married rate of disability support pension, he failed to do so within 13 weeks of the date of notification of the authorised review officer’s decision.
64.Section 152(4) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 provides:
(4) If:
(a) a person is given written notice of a decision under the social security law; and
(b) the person applies to the SSAT more than 13 weeks after the notice was given for review of the decision; and
(c) the SSAT varies the decision or sets the decision aside and substitutes a new decision; and
(d) the effect of the decision of the SSAT is:
(i) to grant the person's claim for a social security payment or a concession card; or
(ii) to direct the making of a payment of a social security payment to the person or the issue of a concession card to the person, as the case may be; or
(iii) to increase the rate of the person's social security payment;
the social security law has effect as if the decision under review had taken effect on the day on which the application was made to the SSAT for review of that decision.
65.
Mr Pencev has not contended that he did not receive notice of the
8 December 2008 decision. Rather, he contended that he was unable to understand the way the process works, he was depressed and sick and he was absent for some of the 13 week period and lost track of time. I was also asked to take into consideration his difficulty with the English language. There is no provision for me to take these matters into account and modify the effect of section 152(4).
66.
Mr Pencev applied to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for a review of the 8 December 2008 decision on 30 October 2009. On 22 February 2010, after
Mr Pencev left the Dulwich Hill premises to take up residence on his own in public housing accommodation he commenced to be paid at the single rate of pension. It follows that the only arrears that may be paid to Mr Pencev are for the period from 30 October 2009 to 22 February 2010.
67.In reaching this conclusion, I follow the decision of Deputy President Jarvis in Re Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Mitchell [2006] AATA 804 I also follow the decision of the Deputy President in respect of the application of the discretion to order retrospectivity contained in section 43(6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. With respect, I agree that it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal exercise a general discretion so as to interfere with the operation of a clear and specific statutory provision limiting the entitlement of people who delay pursuing their claims, for whatever reason, beyond the statutory period of 13 weeks.
decision
68.
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and instead decides that
Mr Pencev should be paid at the single rate of pension from 8 December 2008. However, due to the operation of section 152(4) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, he may only be paid arrears of payment from
30 October 2009.
I certify that the 68 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Signed: .........................[sgd].....................................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 5 November 2010, 17 & 18 February 2011,
29 March 2011 & 15 April 2011Date of Decision 14 June 2011
Advocate for the Applicant Ms Radka Alexandrova
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms Jennifer Mclean
11
2
0