Popovic, John v Caracal Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] VCC 1496
•19 August 2009
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised |
Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
CIVIL DIVISION
DAMAGES – COMPENSATION
SERIOUS INJURY DIVISION
Case No. CI-08-04972
| JOHN POPOVIC | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| CARACAL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD | Defendant |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE SACCARDO |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 7 and 10 August 2009 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 August 2009 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Popovic, John v Caracal Investments Pty Ltd |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2009] VCC 1496 |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Catchwords: ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Serious injury application – application in respect of both pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity – applicant satisfying loss of earning requirements of s.134AB is entitled to claim damages for pain and suffering.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr G Lewis SC and | Slater & Gordon Ltd |
| Mr J Chancellor | ||
| For the Defendant | Mr B McKenzie | Thomson Playford Cutlers |
| HIS HONOUR: |
1 The plaintiff suffered injury in the course of his employment with the defendant on 22 October 2006 (“the incident”). The circumstances of the plaintiff’s injury are not in dispute and it is not in issue that the plaintiff has suffered a compensable injury within the meaning of the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act 1986 (as amended) (“the Act”).
2 In this proceeding, the plaintiff seeks leave to bring a proceeding claiming damages in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the incident, both with respect to general damages and loss of earning capacity. The injury relied upon by the plaintiff (“the injury”) is an injury to his low-back in the form of a prolapse of the L4-5 lumbar disc, contacting the L4 nerve root, resulting in sciatica which at the present time is largely confined to the plaintiff’s right leg.
3 The plaintiff is a fifty-five year old native of Serbia who migrated to Australia in 1968. He was educated only to the age of thirteen and has spent his life in unskilled employment. His relevant working history is as follows:
•
After arriving in Australia, the plaintiff worked for eleven years as a meatworker and thereafter for five years as a machine operator.
•
In approximately 1988, the plaintiff obtained employment as a cleaner, working at the Jolimont and Spencer Street railway yards.
•
In 1999, the plaintiff commenced working as a cleaner for a McDonalds franchise in Rowville.
•
In 2002, the plaintiff commenced employment as a cleaner with the defendant, which operated a McDonalds franchise in Ferntree Gully. In this employment, the plaintiff worked approximately 37.5 hours per week, being a nightshift which commenced at approximately midnight and concluded at around 8.00 am.
•
In 2003, the plaintiff commenced working for Pickwick Cleaning (“Pickwick”) – this being an additional job to the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant. In order to manage this, the plaintiff would cease working with the defendant at 8.00 am and commence working as a cleaner with Pickwick at 9.00 am, where he would work until midday.
4 The effect of the injury upon the plaintiff’s employment may be summarised as follows:
(i) Following the incident, the plaintiff was absent from his employment until 1 November 2006 when he returned to full-time restricted duties with the defendant. From that time on, the plaintiff did not perform work other than restricted light duties for the defendant. (ii) On 1 December 2006, the plaintiff gave up working in his second job with Pickwick as he could no longer manage the activities required in that employment. (iii) In mid December 2007, the plaintiff’s hours of work with the defendant were reduced from full-time to 6 hours per day or 30 hours per week. (iv) In August 2007, the plaintiff’s hours of work with the defendant were further reduced to 4 hours per day or 20 hours per week. (v) On 2 May 2008, the plaintiff ceased employment with the defendant. He has not worked since that time. 5 Immediately before ceasing his employment with the defendant, the plaintiff was employed in light duties, in the course of which he was required to:
[1] The plaintiff’s evidence was that he was required to undertake this work only if no one else was there to do the work. The emptying of the deep fryers did not involve him in any lifting but the replenishing of the deep fryers involved him in lifting weights in the vicinity of 10 to 15 kilograms – Transcript (“T”) 32. It was the plaintiff’s evidence that the major difficulty which he experienced in carrying out this work involved his requirement to stand for long periods of time whilst washing dishes and the lifting of the oil containers to which I have referred. In the course of a 4-hour shift, the plaintiff was required to work for 50 minutes but was also provided with a 10-minute rest and exercise break in the course of every hour.
(i) wash plates; (ii) lift trays containing plates; (iii) empty oil from the defendant’s deep fryers and re-fill them.[1] 6 The plaintiff said that he was forced to cease working the defendant because he was in a lot of pain and he could not do the work.[2] He said that he was not able to work as quickly as his co-workers required him to do.[3] This evidence was not challenged by the defendant.
[2] T 57
[3] T 65
The Plaintiff’s Evidence
7 The plaintiff’s evidence as to his disability is set out in two affidavits.[4] It is not necessary in the course of these reasons for judgment to set out the material there appearing, which was not the subject of significant challenge by the defendant.
[4] Plaintiff’s Court Book (‘PCB”) 6-14
8 In the course of this application, the plaintiff gave brief evidence-in-chief and was cross-examined.
9 In his evidence-in-chief, the plaintiff said:
• That he had stopped working his second job with Pickwick: “Because I get lots of pains, I couldn’t survive the long hours.”[5]
[5] T 21
• That his present regime of medication involved the use of Panadeine Forte, Epilim and Mobic. He also took Cymbalta, which was medication prescribed by his treating psychiatrist. 10 In the course of cross-examination the plaintiff gave evidence that:
•
He suffered from back pain which was present continually but was affected by the position he adopted.[6]
•
His pain had been the same since October 2006 but that he suffered from exacerbations of pain which involved symptoms into his right leg.[7]
•
His symptoms were exacerbated by standing for more than 30 minutes,[8] walking for more than 20 or 30 minutes[9] and that when sitting he was required regularly to move position and to get up and walk around. He described himself as suffering from symptoms of sharp radiating pain which comes and goes and other pain in his low-back which was present all the time.[10]
•
When questioned about the difficulty which he encountered undertaking the work he last performed in the course of his employment with the defendant, the plaintiff described having problems with carrying dishes which he was required to take back into the kitchen,[11] lifting containers of oil which weighed 10 to 15 kilograms[12] and standing for long periods of time whilst washing dishes.[13] It was suggested to the plaintiff that if his work at McDonalds had involved only washing dishes in circumstances in which he could stand or sit as required, he would have been able to continue doing that work, to which the plaintiff replied:
[6] T 29
[7] T 41
[8] T 35
[9] T 44
[10] T 40-41
[11] T 30
[12] T 32
[13] T 35
“I’m not sure about that, sir.”[14]
[14] It was subsequently put to the plaintiff that if he was offered light work where he could stand or sit as needed, he would be able to do that work. The plaintiff agreed that he could try that type of work – T 46. Specifically, the plaintiff was taken to the work activities which were the subject of a work capacity analysis – Defendant’s Court Book (“DCB”) 114-135. Essentially the plaintiff accepted that this was work which was appropriate for him to try – T 47 – T 52
•
The plaintiff conceded that he had not looked for any form of work since he ceased working for the defendant in May 2008. When asked when he might start looking for another job, he responded:
“When the doctor makes me better; when they make me better.”
•
The plaintiff was taken to the work activities set out in DCB 121 to 133. He accepted that he may well be able to carry out each of the individual tasks described therein. He was asked:
Q:
“If you found another job like the two jobs we have been looking at here, you would apply for those jobs wouldn’t you?---
A: Yeah. Q: And you would see how you went with those jobs, is that
right, that’s the question?---A: Yeah. Q: Depending on how you felt, you could be working full-time
couldn’t you?---A: Yeah. Q: But until we try we don’t know, is that right?--- A: Yeah. Q: Do you think after we’ve talked about this now that you might
start looking for jobs like this?---A: Yeah.”
•
In re-examination the plaintiff said that in performing his post-injury light duties with the defendant:
ƒ he had a particular difficulty in carrying trays loaded with
dishes;[15]ƒ he had no trouble washing dishes but the problem which
arose was a problem with having to stand for too long;[16]ƒ that whilst he was working he was unable to work at the pace
required of him because he was physically unable to do so.[17][15] T 63
[16] T 64
[17] T 65
Findings as to the Extent of the Plaintiff’s Symptoms and Incapacity
11 Having read carefully all the medical reports relied upon by the parties in the case and having heard evidence from the plaintiff’s treating general practitioner in particular, I find no reason to doubt the account given by the plaintiff as to the nature and extent of his symptoms.
12 It was never suggested in the course of the plaintiff’s cross-examination that he was doing anything other than trying to give a true account of his symptoms and disabilities. Indeed, the plaintiff presented as a candid witness who impressed me as someone who was giving an accurate account of the effects of his injury upon him without exaggeration. My assessment of the plaintiff in this regard was re-enforced by the evidence by his treating general practitioner, Dr Ronald Ling, who struck me as a competent doctor and a reliable witness, and whose evidence provided the plaintiff with unequivocal support as to the nature and extent of the symptoms from which the plaintiff was suffering.
The Issue as to whether the Plaintiff’s Injury has Stabilised
13 I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s injury has stabilised and that his present level of incapacity is permanent. In this respect I refer to and accept the opinions of:
(i) Mr Rodney Simm, orthopaedic surgeon, who in a report dated 22 June 2009, commented: “His prognosis is for chronic symptoms as detailed in this report. He has an established pattern of chronic pain which is unlikely to be influenced by the passage of time or treatment.”
(ii) Dr Ronald Ling, who in a report dated 1 August 2009, expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s symptoms:
“May worsen with time, I think these symptoms would be very long
if not lifelong.”[18][18] PCB 17A – This opinion was not challenged in the course of Dr Ling’s cross-examination
(iii) Mr Paul D’Urso, the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon, who in a report dated 29 May 2008, commented:
“Given that it is now approximately eighteen months since John sustained the injury and his symptoms are persisting, I suspect he will have ongoing symptoms related to the injuries. I suspect that there will be a degree of disability which will continue into the foreseeable future.”[19]
[19] PCB 42
(iv) Mr Stanley O’Loughlin, orthopaedic surgeon, who in a report dated March 2009, commented:
“In answer to the specific questions raised in your letter:
(a) What is the physical or organic injury suffered by my client as a result of his workplace accident? In my opinion, Mr Popovic has sustained a foraminal disc protrusion or prolapse at L4-5 on the right side. This is causing some right L4 nerve root irritation.
(b) Excluding completely the psychiatric or psychological condition suffered by our client, to what extent does my client’s physical or organic injury incapacitate him for employment?
Mr Popovic has pain in his back and referred pain into his right thigh. He is not able to perform the type of work he was doing previously and has not been able to continue with restricted duties.
(c) Will the above restrictions and disability incapacity derived from his physical or organic injury remain in the foreseeable future? Most probably yes.”
14 The four opinions to which I have referred persuade me on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff’s symptoms are permanent and that there is unlikely to be any diminution in the plaintiff’s symptoms or the level of incapacity associated with his injury. In making this finding, I place particular reliance upon the opinion of the plaintiff’s general practitioner. Dr Ling presented as a competent and caring doctor. He provided reasoned analysis for the opinions he expressed and I am of the opinion, having regard to the regularity with which he has treated the plaintiff in the years which have followed his injury, that he is well placed if not best placed, to express an opinion as to the plaintiff’s prognosis. That his opinion as to the permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries is reinforced by both orthopaedic opinion and neurosurgical opinion serves to heighten the level of confidence I feel in accepting the opinion of Dr Ling.
The Plaintiff’s Capacity for Employment
15 Whilst this proceeding involves an application for leave to commence proceedings both for pain and suffering and economic loss, I find it convenient to consider the economic loss component of the application first for the reason that if I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established that he has suffered a loss of earning capacity which entitles him to commence proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the issue as to the pain and suffering consequences of his incapacity falls away.[20]
[20] Wire & Cable Pty Ltd & Anor. v Abdulle [2009] VSCA 170 (28 July 2009)
16 In his report dated 1 August 2009, the plaintiff’s general practitioner, Dr Ronald Ling commented:
• “Since my last report dated 14 November 2007, Mr Popovic has not improved both in his back pain and mental state. His condition has in fact deteriorated. • His back pain has worsened. • [In] my opinion as GP, Mr Popovic’s back pain is caused by the back injury at work in 2006. The contribution is significant if not entire. He has been suffering from chronic pain, reduced mobility and reactive depression as a consequence of the injury. The symptoms may worsen with time. I think these symptoms will be very long if not lifelong. • His chances to return to pre-injury work is unlikely. He may be able to do light administrative work, most probably on a much reduced hour basis and with frequent rest periods due to pain and concentration factors.”
17 Dr Ling was required to attend for cross-examination. In the course of his evidence he described the plaintiff in the following terms:
“He is a very proud person. He wants to go out, perform and do his duties, but he is prevented from doing it because of the back pain. When I first saw him, that came across to me – when I first saw him, you know, I told him to have a rest but he was very keen to go back to work.”[21]
[21] T 86
18 When asked about the plaintiff’s present capacity for work, Dr Ling answered:
“I don’t find he’s a candidate for that at the moment, to – to be ready to go back to work – we’ve increased his analgesia from simple analgesia to an opiate so he’s on an opiate and he’s also, you know, depression hasn’t improved, in fact it’s worse, so clinically as a – as a patient, as a doctor, I don’t think he is in the right condition to go back to work, because it – certainly his endurance will not be there.”
19 When asked as to the influence which the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition had upon his present capacity to work, Dr Ling commented:
“Initially it was his back pain that’s limiting his activities. Subsequently as his pain got worse and his function decreased he developed more and more anxiety and depression – as a result of his pain and incapacity and reduced function – functionally. As a result now both his pain and his mental state are making him not suitable for going back to work at the moment.”[22]
[22] The defendant raised in its opening an issue as to the relevance of the plaintiff’s psychiatric state upon his symptomology. There is very little evidence on this issue other than that given by Dr Ling, who was clearly of the view that whilst emotional factors were playing a part in the plaintiff’s presentation, his disability was primarily physically based. I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s primary disability arises from his physical injury and that the anxiety and depression which is now a feature of his presentation was not a factor which influenced the plaintiff’s inability to perform the restricted duties he undertook for the defendant upon his return to work after the incident. In this regard, I also rely upon the opinions of Dr Sillcock, Mr D’Urso and Mr O’Loughlin, none of whom suggested that the plaintiff’s disability was other than physically-based.
20 When cross-examined as to the plaintiff’s capacity to undertake suitable work on a full-time basis within the foreseeable future, Dr Ling commented:
“Possible but it’s always possible but whether that is probable is a
different matter.”
21 In re-examination, when asked as to the probabilities of the plaintiff being able to work on a full-time basis, Dr Ling commented:
“In my opinion as a GP it’s unlikely.”[23]
[23] T 87-88
22 Dr Ling’s view as to the plaintiff’s capacity for employment was reinforced by the evidence given by Dr Amanda Sillcock, an occupational physician. In a report dated 19 November 2008, Dr Sillcock had expressed the opinion that, whilst the plaintiff was not fit to undertake his pre-injury employment, he was capable of working up to 15 hours a week. In a further report dated 15 July 2009, Dr Sillcock expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was capable of working as a product assembler or a process worker.[24]
[24] Referring specifically to the two jobs identified in the Recovre report (DCB 114), Dr Sillcock opined that the plaintiff should “begin work 15 hours per week and if he copes with that then his hours could gradually be increased”.
23 In the course of her evidence, when dealing with the issue as to whether the plaintiff might return to full-time employment, Dr Sillcock commented that whilst the plaintiff’s hours may increase to something in the vicinity of 20 hours a week, she doubted that he would be able to return to full-time work.[25]
[25] T 97
24 Although it was put on behalf of the defendant that I should not be satisfied when considering the evidence in its totality that the plaintiff’s capacity for work has stabilised at a level in which he is fit to perform light work on a part- time basis only, I do not accept that there is persuasive evidence which contradicts the opinions of Dr Ling and Dr Sillcock to which I have referred for the following reasons:
(i)
Dr Clayton Thomas, a consultant in rehabilitation and pain medicine, examined the plaintiff on a number of occasions, the last occasion being 30 October 2007. At that time the plaintiff was performing 20 hours of light duties per week with the defendant. The opinion expressed by Mr Thomas at the time that the plaintiff’s condition had stabilised supports an ongoing restriction in the plaintiff’s capacity to work at a level virtually identical to that described by Dr Sillcock.
(ii)
Mr Michael Johnson, the plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, last saw the plaintiff on 4 December 2007. At that time he expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s condition was not improving and that he remained incapable of performing his previous work duties. I interpret his opinion as expressing an opinion as at December 2007 and as not expressing a view as to the plaintiff’s eventual recovery from his injury or his level of incapacity.
(iii)
Mr Armin Drnda, neurosurgeon, in a report dated 19 June 2008, expressed the opinion that the plaintiff could start alternative work at that time “probably in a gradual way with shorter hours and aiming to full-time work”. It was Mr Drnda’s opinion however that the plaintiff’s condition should improve with time.[26] I interpret Mr Drnda’s opinion that the plaintiff may return to full-time work to be predicated upon his view that the plaintiff’s condition should improve with time. This is proven not to be the case and, accordingly, his opinion as to the plaintiff’s eventual capacity for full-time work is undermined.
(iv)
Dr Malcolm Brown, occupational physician, examined the plaintiff on 12 February 2008. Whilst he expressed the opinion that there was a reasonable chance that the plaintiff would return to most of his pre-injury duties, this opinion was based on Dr Brown’s prognosis that the plaintiff’s condition would gradually improve over the coming months, which was not the case. Accordingly, his opinion is undermined.
(v)
In a report dated 7 August 2008, Dr David Barton, occupational physician, expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s condition had not resolved and that his examination pointed towards a possible degree of illness behaviour in the plaintiff. Dr Barton was the only doctor to question the reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence as to the pain and disability from which he suffered. In the circumstances, and for that reason, I do not find the opinion of Dr Barton persuasive.
(vi)
Contrary to the submission of the defendant I do not find the opinion of Mr Sim[27] to be probative one way or another on this issue
[26] PCB 30
[27] DCB 60
Findings as to the Plaintiff’s Capacity for Employment
25 When account is taken of:
(i) The plaintiff’s early return to work following his injury; (ii) The fact that the plaintiff continued to work notwithstanding the obvious difficulties he was having in coping with his duties as evidenced by the gradual reduction in the hours during which he was able to work;[28] (iii) The evidence of Dr Ling, which I accept, that the plaintiff was keen to perform his work duties;[29] [28] The plaintiff initially returned to work on a full-time basis on 1 November 2006 performing light duties. His hours were reduced to 6 hours per day in June 2007 and then to 4 hours per day in July 2007.
[29] It was Dr Ling’s evidence that he advised the plaintiff to rest but the plaintiff was keen to return to work – T 86
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s working history with the defendant following his injury provides a good measure of the effect of his injury upon his capacity to work, namely that, by reason of the physical effects of his injury, his working capacity had been reduced to undertaking light duties for restricted hours.
26 Both Dr Ling and Dr Sutcliffe have expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s capacity to work is limited in this manner and I accept their evidence on this issue. As I have previously commented, I consider Dr Ling to be in the best position, having regard to his continued management of the plaintiff’s medical condition, to express an opinion as to the plaintiff’s motivation, the effect of his injury upon him and his capacity to work.
27 I was impressed by Dr Sutcliffe’s balanced approach to her analysis of the plaintiff’s incapacity and the effect which the plaintiff’s injury has had upon his working capacity. I accept her evidence that the plaintiff retains a significant capacity to perform light forms of work but that it is unlikely that the plaintiff will be able return to full-time work and that the plaintiff’s retained capacity will, on the balance of probabilities, peak at a level of approximately 20 hours per week.
28 In the circumstances, in assessing the extent of the plaintiff’s post-accident capacity for work, I am of the opinion that the it is appropriate to assess that capacity on the basis that the plaintiff has been rendered permanently unfit to engage in full-time work and that he has a retained capacity to engage in light forms of work for a period up to 20 hours per week.
29 My finding in this regard is re-enforced by the fact that I accept that at the time at which the plaintiff ceased working for the defendant, he was undertaking duties for 20 hours per week which involved activities such as carrying dishes and lifting oil containers which were contra indicated having regard to the light work restrictions under which he was employed. Having regard to the evidence, which I accept:
(i)
that the plaintiff’s condition has not significantly altered since that time; and
(ii)
that independently of the inappropriate work which the plaintiff was undertaking at the time at which he ceased employment with the defendant, the plaintiff was having difficulty coping with work, which required him only to stand for 50 minutes and allowed him, at the end of that period, 10 minutes of stretching, rest and exercise;
the evidence that the plaintiff has retained a capacity only to perform light work
for up to 20 hours a week is compelling.
Calculation of the Plaintiff’s Loss of Earning Capacity
30 In assessing the plaintiff’s earning capacity but for his injury, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to use the wage available to the plaintiff had he been presently employed by the defendant, being $35,100 gross per annum, together with the wage the plaintiff would have earned in part-time employment with Pickwick, which I fix at $15,300.[30]
[30] In calculating the earnings available to the plaintiff in employment with Pickwick, I have used the plaintiff’s earnings during the financial years ending 2006 and 2007. I accept the plaintiff’s position that his earnings during the 2007 financial year of $10,858 would have equated to a full year’s earnings of approximately $26,000 and I have used this figure in calculating the plaintiff’s average earnings. In fixing the average earnings of the plaintiff at the figure of $15,300, I have excluded the plaintiff’s earnings during the 2004-05 financial year which I consider were atypical, given the general trend associated with the plaintiff’s employment with Pickwick other than during the atypical 2004-05 year.
31 In undertaking the calculation required by the provisions of s.134AB(38)(g), I am required to compare a figure calculated on the basis of 60 per cent of the figure which I am satisfied most fairly reflects the plaintiff’s earning capacity had his injury not occurred, namely $50,400. If this figure is reduced by 40 per cent, the figure of $30,240 is produced.
32 It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that an appropriate hourly rate for the purpose of assessing the earnings which the plaintiff is capable of achieving in suitable employment at the present time was a figure between $16 and $18 per hour.[31] The plaintiff submitted the figure of $14.75 as being the appropriate award rate.[32]
[31] DCB 134
[32] PCB 65
33 I am not satisfied that the plaintiff retains the capacity to work as a product assembler having regard to a description of the tasks involved in that work which include lifting up to 16 kilograms. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to employ a figure of $15.40 per hour.[33]
[33] This being the mid point between the wage available to a process worker of $16 per hour as identified by the defendant, at DCB 134, and that available to a person employed in light process work, being $14.75 per hour, as identified in PCB 65.
34 I have found that the plaintiff’s retained capacity for work involves the capacity to perform light work for no more than 20 hours per week. In such employment, at a pay rate of $15.40 per hour, the plaintiff would earn $308.00 gross per week or $16,016 gross per annum.
35 Whilst it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that I should not be satisfied that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable steps to return to the workforce having regard to the evidence that he retained a capacity for restricted light duties, I do not accept this submission. The plaintiff presents with significant symptoms of back pain which interfere with his sleep and have, in recent times, required the prescription of narcotic medication. Whilst it was the position of both Dr Ling (at the time at which he gave evidence) and Dr Sillcock, that the plaintiff possessed a physical capacity for light work, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff’s capacity for light work has been continuous or has persisted for such a period that it is unreasonable that he has not sought to return to any form of employment.
36 Having regard to the findings I have made and to the calculations to which I have referred, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered an impairment of body function, the effect of which is to occasion a permanent loss of income of greater than 40 per cent of his gross income had his injury not occurred. This finding requires me to grant the plaintiff leave to commence proceedings to recover damages for both pain and suffering and loss of earnings in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Advanced Wire & Cable Pty Ltd & Anor. v Abdulle.[34]
[34] [2009] VSCA 170 (28 July 2009)
37 I will hear submissions from Counsel as to the precise form of the orders which are sought and as to costs.
- - -
0