Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Alahakone
[2014] QCATA 242
•26 August 2014
| CITATION: | Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Alahakone [2014] QCATA 242 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Bruno Thilantha Alahakone (Respondent) putting |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL355 -13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | 1 July 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Thomas, President Senior Member Stilgoe OAM |
| DELIVERED ON: | 26 August 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The tribunal’s decision of 24 July 2013 is set aside. 4. The decision of the Authority of 1 June 2012 is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION – PERMITTED INDIVIDUAL – where Commission refused application for permitted individual – where tribunal set aside Commission decision and allowed application – whether applicant kept proper books of account and financial records – whether applicant sought appropriate financial or legal advice before entering into financial or business arrangements – whether applicant put in place appropriate credit management and/or took reasonable steps to recover debts – whether grounds for leave to appeal Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 21 Alahakone v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 371 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | C M Muir, instructed by Robinson Locke |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Alahakone in person |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Mr Alahakone was the director of Capricornia Developments Pty Ltd (Capricornia). On 23 April 2012, liquidators were appointed to Capricornia. Section 56AC of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act[1] (QBSA Act) operated so that Mr Alahakone was then an excluded individual and could not hold a contractor’s licence.
[1]Now the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).
Mr Alahakone applied to be a permitted individual under s 56AD of the QBSA Act. On 1 June 2012, the Queensland Building Services Authority[2] refused that application. Mr Alahakone then applied to the tribunal for a review of that decision. At the hearing before the learned Member, the Authority identified four matters which the learned Member had to consider:[3]
[2]As the Queensland Building and Construction Commission then was.
[3]Transcript page 10, lines -16.
a) Did Mr Alahakone take all reasonable steps to pursue money owed to Capricornia by AUA Holdings Pty Ltd for a job known as “Ceylon Inn”?
b) Did Mr Alahakone take all reasonable steps to pursue money owed by his partners Michael and Thatel Macks for a joint venture at Bertha St Goodna?
c) Did Mr Alahakone take steps to protect and advance Capricornia’s interests in the Bertha St development?
d) Were there proper books and accounts for the company to ensure that it was solvent and had sufficient working capital?
On 24 June 2013, the tribunal set aside the Authority’s decision and ordered that Mr Alahakone be a permitted individual.
The application for leave to appeal
The Commission has applied for leave to appeal that decision. Because this is an appeal on mixed fact and law, leave is necessary.[4] The principles the appeal tribunal applies when considering an application for leave to appeal are as summarised by Keane JA (as His Honour then was) in Pickering v McArthur.[5] Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.[6]
[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(b).
[5][2005] QCA 294 at [3].
[6]At [3].
The Commission submitted nine grounds of appeal. The first was that the learned Member had no power to make an order setting aside the decision of 1 May 2012, which declared Mr Alahakone an excluded individual. The Commission submitted that Mr Alahakone did not apply for a review of the decision of 1 May 2012, therefore the question was not before the learned Member.
Mr Alahakone did not seriously contest this ground of appeal. He submitted that there was no error of law in the learned Member’s decision but conceded that he did not apply for a review of the Authority’s decision to declare him an excluded individual.
The application for review clearly states that the decision under review was the decision on 1 June 2012 and all submissions are directed to the matters contained in s 56AD(8A). That section relevantly provides:
56AD Becoming a permitted individual
(8A) In deciding whether an individual took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the circumstances that resulted in the happening of a relevant event, the authority must have regard to action taken by the individual in relation to the following—
(a)keeping proper books of account and financial records;
(b)seeking appropriate financial or legal advice before entering into financial or business arrangements or conducting business;
(c) reporting fraud or theft to the police;
(d)ensuring guarantees provided were covered by sufficient assets to cover the liability under the guarantees;
(e)putting in place appropriate credit management for amounts owing and taking reasonable steps for recovery of the amounts;
(f)making appropriate provision for Commonwealth and State taxation debts.
The learned Member had no power to make any declaration about the 1 May 2012 decision. This is an error of law, and the appeal must be allowed on this point. To the extent that it purports to set aside the Authority’s declaration that Mr Alahakone is an excluded individual, the order should be set aside.
Grounds 2 to 5 of the Commission’s grounds of appeal assert that the learned Member failed to consider, or consider properly, the relevant provisions of s 56AD(8A). In particular, the Commission submits that the learned Member erred in failing to consider, or consider properly, ss 56AD(8A)(a), (b) and (e).
It is not correct to say that the learned Member failed to consider the provisions of s 56AD(8A). He identified the relevant section[7] of the Act; he acknowledged the Authority’s identification of Mr Alahakone’s failures to comply with s 56AD(8A);[8] and he acknowledged that the reasonableness of Mr Alahakone’s action was to be considered objectively, with reference to what was known at the time and without the benefit of hindsight.[9] The learned Member found, however, that Mr Alahakone had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the happening of the relevant event. In appeal grounds 7 to 9, the Commission asserts that the evidence could not support those findings.
[7] Alahakone v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 371 at [5].
[8] Ibid at [7] to [10] inclusive.
[9] Ibid at [4].
The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact on appeal if the evidence is capable of supporting the conclusions.[10] An appellate tribunal may interfere if the conclusion is ‘contrary to compelling inferences’ in the case.[11]
[10]Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 at 561; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at 125-126.
[11] Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 at 10.
Mr Alahakone submits that the learned Member accepted his evidence as honest and accurate. He submits that the learned Member’s findings were supported by the evidence and that those findings could only have resulted in one conclusion; that Mr Alahakone took all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that resulted in the relevant event.
At all times, Mr Alahakone had the burden of showing that he did take reasonable steps. For the reasons that follow, we find that the evidence cannot support the learned Member’s conclusions and, in fact, the evidence demonstrates that Mr Alahakone did not take all reasonable steps to avoid Capricornia’s insolvency. Leave to appeal should be granted, and the appeal allowed. The decision of 24 July 2013 should be set aside and the Authority’s decision of 1 June 2012 confirmed.
Recovering the Ceylon Inn debt
Capricornia had a contract with AUA to renovate and extend a building at Graceville for use as a restaurant. The land on which the building stood was owned by directors of AUA.
The learned Member found that four progress claims were made; the first three were paid promptly and the fourth, AUA failed to pay.[12] The evidence which was before the learned Member however, reflects slightly, but importantly, different circumstances. Capricornia made four progress claims, each of which was paid within time.[13] There was a fifth claim, for $110,385.64, which AUA never paid.
[12] Alahakone supra at [13].
[13] Statement Bruno Alahakone filed 4 April 2013.
AUA took possession of the building around Christmas 2009, before Capricornia received the final payment. Mr Alahakone gave evidence he had thought that Capricornia had no right to deny AUA possession once the project reached practical completion.[14] This assumption, and the handing over of the site, left Capricornia with no effective way to ensure AUA would make the final payment.
[14]Transcript page 28, lines 45-48.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member he pursued the debt rigorously,[15] and the Member found that Mr Alahakone’s conduct in trying to achieve payment “can hardly be criticised”.[16] The evidence does not support either proposition.
[15]Transcript page 12, line 36.
[16]Alahakone supra at [35].
The Authority’s cross examination of Mr Alahakone, and the learned Member’s decision, proceeded on the basis that the fifth claim was a final claim. The evidence does not support that finding. Mr Alahakone exhibited a progress claim dated 19 January 2010 to his statement filed 4 April 2013. Although the document is attached to Capricornia’s Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) claim, there is no suggestion that it was not prepared in December 2009 or that it was not accurate.
The progress claim is for $110,385.64. The “current contract price” referred to in the claim was $548,206.79. The value of building work completed at the date of the claim was $525,609.38. Therefore, there was a further $22,595.41 left to be claimed and paid. There is support for this view in the schedule of nominated building works dated 19 January 2010 which accompanied the progress claim. Plastering, plumbing and electrical work was not complete. An email from Mr Alahakone dated 9 May 2011 confirms this position. When asked about the date of practical completion, Mr Alahakone told his lawyers that three of his subcontractors did work on site up to August 2010.
Mr Alahakone told the tribunal this was a draft progress claim.[17] The copy before the tribunal does not support that view. The progress claim is not marked as a draft and there is no corresponding note to AUA saying, in effect, “Unlike the previous four claims, treat this one as a draft”. As the Commission pointed out to Mr Alahakone during the hearing,[18] the contract was a fixed price contract and the variations had been approved and agreed. Mr Alahakone did not need to seek AUA’s approval or agreement to issue this claim. But the parties met in January 2010. Mr Alahakone states that he discussed and agreed the final amount with AUA.[19] Despite Mr Alahakone telling the learned Member that there were no concerns with the quality of the building and that AUA acknowledged the building was very good[20], Capricornia had compromised its rights under the contract as early as January 2010 by, perhaps, $22,595.41.
[17]Transcript page32, lines 3-19.
[18]Transcript page 32, lines 30-35.
[19]Alahakone supra.
[20]Transcript page 31, lines 18-26.
In March 2010, Capricornia rendered a tax invoice for $110,385.64. AUA agreed to pay that invoice by 9 March 2010. It didn’t pay as agreed.
In April 2010, Capricornia renegotiated the payment date to 1 September 2010. AUA provided no consideration for Capricornia’s further indulgence. Capricornia did not reinstate its profit margin. It agreed to a further deferred payment because the contract provided for 12% interest on overdue payments[21] but it did not impose a default interest rate. It agreed to a deferred payment because “…we weren’t getting any results and we had to reach an agreement so we can commit to a payment…”[22] But AUA had already committed to payment, and defaulted.
[21]Transcript page 35, lines 23-26.
[22]Transcript page 35, lines 32-34.
AUA did not pay on 1 September 2010. Mr Alahakone told the learned Member he was surprised AUA did not pay because there was a history of good payment right up to the last payment.[23] There was a good history of payment while Capricornia had possession of the site but once Capricornia relinquished possession of the site, the evidence does not support that conclusion. AUA did not pay the progress payment of 19 January 2010. It did not pay the tax invoice of March 2010. It defaulted a third time on 1 September 2010. As at 1 September 2010, viewing the evidence objectively, Mr Alahakone had no reason to be confident that AUA would honour its commitments.
[23]Transcript page 36, lines 24-25; page 38, line 1.
Mr Alahakone told the tribunal that, in October 2010, he sought advice from the Master Builders Association. The only evidence of this advice is: “…they said go into negotiation if it’s the best way to get an outcome…If there’s an issue about what payment entitlements are then go to negotiation…”[24]
[24]Transcript page 38, lines 14-18.
If that was the advice Mr Alahakone received, it was based on a set of circumstances which are in direct contradiction to the circumstances Mr Alahakone put to the tribunal. The learned Member had no evidence there was an issue about the payment entitlements. When asked if there was a dispute raised by AUA, Mr Alahakone told the tribunal “Absolutely not, nothing at all.[25]
[25]Transcript page 31, lines 46-49.
By 1 September 2010, it was no longer reasonable for Capricornia to negotiate a payment regime with AUA. It was time for Capricornia to seek appropriate advice on enforcement.
Capricornia arranged meetings with AUA in December 2010. AUA failed to attend two of those scheduled meetings. The third meeting occurred and AUA agreed to a repayment schedule commencing 1 January 2011. AUA did not make even the first payment under that agreement.
In January 2011, devastating floods occurred in Brisbane. In February 2011, Mr Alahakone was hospitalised. Capricornia’s lack of action during these months is understandable.
In March 2011, with the assistance of Building and Construction Payment Solutions, Capricornia prepared a claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act. By letter of 2 March 2011 from its lawyers, AUA disputed the claim.
Capricornia had 20 business days to give AUA notice of its intention to apply for an adjudication of that claim.[26] It did not give notice because, according to Mr Alahakone,[27] Building and Construction Payment Solutions advised that the cost of this step was $9,000, payment was required up front, and there were risks involved in the process.
[26]Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) s 21.
[27]Alahakone supra; Transcript page 39, line 35.
The documents before the learned Member directly contradict that assertion. An email from Building and Construction Payment Solutions dated 9 March 2011 estimates a cost of $3,300 to lodge the claim. It advises Capricornia “We still feel that you hold a strong chance in being successful at an Adjudication and would strongly recommend that you do continue with the process…”. Capricornia’s decision not to proceed, in light of that advice, was not reasonable.
Instead, Capricornia engaged a mercantile agent on a no win no fee basis. The mercantile agent directed Capricornia to lawyers in May 2011. Belatedly, Capricornia received advice.
By email dated 23 May 2011, Capricornia was advised that, if it wanted its money, there was little alternative to filing proceedings. It could not lodge a caveat or take advantage of the charging clause in the contract because AUA did not own the property. It was also advised that its right to a Building and Construction Payment Act claim had expired.
By May 2011, Capricornia’s only hope of recovering money from AUA rested in legal action. Mr Alahakone decided not to take action because of the costs involved, the prospects of success and the likelihood of recovery.[28] Mr Alahakone did not understand the difference between a Building and Construction Payment Act claim and a statutory demand.[29] He states that, by then, he knew AUA had no assets to satisfy a judgment[30] but he provided no documentary evidence to support that assertion.
[28]Transcript page13, lines 41-47.
[29]Transcript page 42.
[30]Transcript page 43, lines 1-4.
Section 56AD(8A)(b) of the QBSA Act requires the Authority, and therefore the tribunal on review of the Authority’s decision, to have regard to the action taken by an individual in relation to seeking appropriate financial or legal advice before entering into financial or business arrangements or conducting business. The Authority’s decision, and its submissions to the learned Member, focussed on Mr Alahakone’s activities after AUA’s debt became due in January 2011.
That should not have been the sole focus. As McGill DCJ succinctly pointed out in Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority:[31]
It is immediately apparent that [the provisions of s 56AD(8A) are all concerned with the prudent management of a company as an ongoing business, or even, in the case of (b), something which is to be done before one conducts business or enters into financial or business arrangements. In other words, the focus of this subsection is on prevention rather than dealing with problems after they have arisen…
[Emphasis added]
[31][2010] QDC 158 at [24].
It is clear that the structure of the building contract itself, and what security might have been available to Capricornia, was something Mr Alahakone should have considered. The only evidence that he did so is his comment that Mr Bressington “was our lawyer all the way through, for the running of the company”.[32] Mr Bressington did not give evidence. There is no note of any advice from him, and Mr Alahakone did not suggest that Mr Bressington provided any specific advice.
[32]Transcript page 11, lines 2-3.
The evidence shows that Mr Alahakone did not take reasonable steps for the recovery of the AUA debt. He did not seek advice before entering the contract. He gave AUA possession of the site before the final payment. He negotiated the repayment date three times but AUA gave nothing in return for that indulgence. Even after AUA defaulted three times, Mr Alahakone baulked at taking any action. Leave to appeal is granted with respect to this ground.
Bertha St
In May 2008, Mr Alahakone, together with Mr and Mrs Macks, bought a large property at Goodna. Mr Alahakone took a 25% interest in the property, which had a subdivision approval and a house in need of renovation. Mr and Mrs Macks took the remaining 75% interest. They lived in the house and mortgaged their interest to the Commonwealth Bank. Mr Alahakone was a guarantor of the loan to the Macks. The parties agreed that Capricornia would renovate the house on a cost plus contract, payable by the Macks. They also agreed that, once renovations were complete, the parties would carry out the subdivision with the Macks retaining the house block and Mr Alahakone receiving the balance land.
Capricornia started work in August 2009. The Macks paid four invoices totalling $65,545.04,[33] the last of which was issued in February 2010. They did not pay an invoice of $516 issued in May 2010.
[33]Transcript page 50, line 22.
In June 2010, Mr Macks told Mr Alahakone that he was unable or unwilling to contribute further to the project and he asked Mr Alahakone if Capricornia could cover the costs and recover them from the proceeds of sale. Capricornia immediately issued invoices totalling $42,971.50. It continued to work on the house and issued a further invoice in September 2010 for $130,277.41, a small invoice in January 2011 and a final invoice of $27,770.09 in October 2011.
Mr Alahakone stated that he put the house and land on the market in October 2010. He stated that valuations came in at $515,000 for the house and $190,000 for the land.
The Brisbane floods of January 2011 affected Goodna badly. In October 2011, Mr Alahakone secured a purchaser for the house at $395,000 but the buyer defaulted. In August 2012, the Commonwealth Bank took recovery action against the Macks. The house was sold but there was no money for Capricornia.
The learned Member found it was not possible to conclude that Mr Alahakone’s decision not to pursue the Macks was wrong or ill advised. The evidence does not support the learned Member’s conclusion.
The joint venture was a complex transaction. There is no evidence of any agreement in writing. There is no evidence that Mr Alahakone received advice about the joint venture. There is no evidence of a building contract. There is no evidence that Capricornia was separately advised about the risks of working for the joint venture.
Mr Alahakone told the appeal tribunal that the Authority did not ask him for evidence on these issues. That may be true, but does not detract from the applicant’s obligation to demonstrate compliance with s 56AD(8A).
Mr Alahakone was asked why he didn’t subdivide the blocks at the very start of the joint venture. He told the learned Member the development approval conditions meant he had to complete the house first.[34] The learned Member did not have a copy of the development approval, and there is no evidence that Mr Alahakone received any advice about the issue.
[34]Transcript pages 47-48.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that, when the Macks defaulted, the house was nearing completion.[35] In fact, Capricornia rendered an invoice for $130,000 three months later.
[35]Transcript page 53, line 12.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that the costs of completion were secured over the property.[36] This statement was not correct. Capricornia had no security. He told the learned Member that he thought Capricornia’s costs would be paid before the mortgagee’s costs.[37] If Mr Alahakone had sought even basic advice, he would have known this assumption was not correct.
[36] Transcript page 53, lines 16-17.
[37] Transcript page 56, lines 41-42.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that he sought advice from James White Lawyers but he conceded this advice related only to his interests, and not the company’s interests.[38]
[38] Transcript page 55, line21-28.
There is little evidence that Mr Alahakone had any advice. The fact he did not obtain necessary advice demonstrates that he did not take reasonable steps in relation to the transaction, and as to the recovery of the debt from the Macks.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that he reassessed the viability of the project and had a valuation from Place Real Estate Agents.[39] This statement is not correct.
[39] Transcript page 59, lines 21-39.
Mr Alahakone did not reassess the viability of the project before he committed Capricornia to further expense; he reassessed the viability once Capricornia finished its work. He did not have a valuation for $515,000 for the house. He had an appointment to act in the sale of the house on the unsubdivided land[40] with a list price of $515,000. The list price is not supported by the table of comparative sales annexed to the appointment to act.
[40]The description of the property in exhibit DD to Mr Alahakone’s statement of 4 April 2013 shows the area of the subject land to be 0.5 ha.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that the agents valued the properties pre-flood at $515,000 plus $190,000 for the land.[41] There is no evidence to support the land valuation. In view of our comments above, a combined valuation of $710,000 seems unlikely. The appointment to act does not support Mr Alahakone’s belief that the house would sell for $515,000 and the land would sell for $195,000.
[41] Transcript page 76, lines 8-14.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that there was sufficient equity in the property to cover Capricornia’s costs. On the evidence available to him at the time, and without the benefit of hindsight, that assertion seems unrealistic.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member he protected Capricornia’s interests by attempting to place a caveat over the property.[42] He told the learned Member that he made “all the inquiries to do so”.[43] In fact, Mr Alahakone received his advice from the mortgagee bank.[44]
[42] Transcript page 61, lines 31-33.
[43]Transcript page 61 lines 37-38.
[44]Transcript page 56 lines 1-10.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member he secured a sale of the house lot for $395,000 in October 2011. He did not provide a copy of the contract but it was conditional upon subdivision.[45] Contrary to standard conveyancing practice, he allowed the purchasers to take possession before settlement, which was due in April 2012. He did not explain how this was a reasonable step to take in order to recover Capricornia’s debt.
[45]Transcript page 64, lines 15-17.
The evidence shows that the only step Mr Alahakone took to manage the Mack’s debt was to commit Capricornia to a further $130,000 expenditure with no security and no certainty that the expenditure could be recovered from the sale of the house. The learned Member erred in finding Mr Alahakone took reasonable steps to manage the debt owed by the Macks to Capricornia.
The learned Member rightly found that other steps Mr Alahakone might have taken were speculative. However, Mr Alahakone’s actions in the steps he did take, and those he failed to take when they were available, were not reasonable. There is no evidence that Mr Alahakone took all reasonable steps to protect Capricornia’s interests.
The Commission submitted that Mr Alahakone preferred his own interests over those of Capricornia. There is some evidence on this issue. Mr Alahakone sought personal legal advice but did not seek legal advice on behalf of the company. The company is in liquidation but Mr Alahakone is not bankrupt. Otherwise, the evidence suggests that the interests of Mr Alahakone and Capricornia were so inextricably bound up the distinction was not obvious to Mr Alahakone and probably of no great consequence.
The books of account
Mrs Alahakone, who has a commerce degree and works as an accountant, kept the company books. The learned Member found that Mrs Alahakone’s expertise, and the fact that the Authority was able to prepare balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the company, was evidence that Capricornia kept proper books of account.
The evidence shows otherwise. The company balance sheet included an asset the company didn’t own and Mr Alahakone did not understand why that was a significant problem.[46] Trade debtors for the financial year ending 30 June 2011 included the AUA debt and the Bertha St debt, even though neither of those was recoverable in that financial year.[47] Apart from a credit card, the balance sheets showed no trade creditors as a liability.[48] Mr Alahakone explained that trade creditors didn’t appear because they were channelled through a purchase order system, which matched the creditor against the job.[49] That explanation might make sense from a job costing perspective, but it makes no sense from an accounting perspective, particularly given Capricornia had to comply with the Authority’s net asset ratio test to maintain its licence. The net asset ratio test, as the name implies, considers a licensee’s assets after liabilities to determine its financial viability.
[46]Transcript page 70, lines 1-7.
[47]Transcript page 74, line 22.
[48]Transcript page 86, lines 31-34.
[49]Transcript page 87.
Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that a personal loan which should have been in the names of him and his wife was mistakenly put in Capricornia’s name.[50] Mr Alahakone told the learned Member that they tried to “take it off the record”.[51]
[50]Transcript page 97.
[51]Transcript page 101 lines 37-39.
The evidence does not support the learned Member’s finding that Capricornia kept proper books of account. The books of account did not give Mr Alahakone the ability to assess quickly and accurately Capricornia’s financial position. Leave to appeal on this ground is granted.
Conclusion
The evidence does not support the learned Member’s findings. Mr Alahakone has not demonstrated that Capricornia kept proper books of account. Mr Alahakone has not demonstrated that Capricornia obtained appropriate financial and legal advice, either before entering into transactions or as each challenge arose. Mr Alahakone has not demonstrated that Capricornia had proper credit control in place or that it took all reasonable steps to recover debts owing by AUA or the Macks. Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed. The decision of 24 July 2013 is set aside and the Authority’s decision of 1 June 2012 confirmed.
0
5
4