Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Zhang
[2003] AATA 433
•7 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 433
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1625
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services Applicant
And
Jun Zhang
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R P Handley, Deputy President Date7 May 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal varies the decision under review by finding that while the Respondent owes a debt to the Commonwealth of $4,686:04, recovery of that debt should be waived because of the special circumstances pursuant to s 1237AAD of the Social Security Act 1991.
...............................................
R P Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Austudy – whether the Respondent qualified for Austudy for the 2001 academic year – overpayment of Austudy - examination of the Respondent’s academic history for 2001 including workload and credit points – examination of the Respondent’s reasons for reducing his academic workload – special circumstances – held that there was an overpayment of Austudy – circumstances leading to overpayment were ‘special’ – decision under review varied – held that while the Respondent owes a debt to the Applicant recovery should be waived because of the special circumstances.
Social Security Act 1991 ss 568, 569A, 569B, 569C, 569D, 569E(1)(a), 1223, 1224, 1237AAD
Higher Education Funding Act 1988 s 39(2)
Beadle v Director General of Social Security (1985) 7 ALD 670
Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541
Re Coleman and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 772
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Machan [2001] AATA 434
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Ellis (1997) 24 AAR 539
REASONS FOR DECISION
7 May 2003 R P Handley, Deputy President 1. This is an application by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services (“the Applicant”) for a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”) made on 19 September 2001 that set aside a decision made by an authorised review officer and remitted the matter to the Applicant with the Direction that Jun Hua Zhang (“the Respondent”) was studying full-time for the study period relevant for the payment of Austudy for the 2001 academic year. Mr Zhang was therefore qualified to receive Austudy for the whole year with the consequence that he had not received an overpayment of Austudy and had not incurred a debt to the Applicant..
2. At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Cheryl Collis, Solicitor, of Centrelink, and Mr Zhang represented himself. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T Documents”).
BACKGROUND
3. In March 2001, the Respondent, Mr Zhang enrolled in a Bachelor of Information and Communication Technology (Business Information Systems) degree at the University of Wollongong. Contemporaneously, he applied for and was granted Austudy on the basis of his enrolment as a full-time student for the for the 2001 academic year. Initially, Mr Zhang enrolled in a program involving five subjects in each of the two sessions. As is permitted by the University’s rules, he subsequently varied that enrolment.
4. Mr Zhang is married with one son, who was born in February 1985. On 27 May 2001, Mr Zhang was at home with his family studying, when between about 11:30 pm and midnight his car was stolen and torched in front of the block of units where he and his family live. He was notified of what had happened by the police. Mr Zhang was traumatised by this event and its aftermath and set about taking steps immediately to replace the car. This took some weeks and was disruptive of his preparation for exams in his autumn session subjects. Mr Zhang had previously withdrawn from one of the five subjects in which he was enrolled. After 27 May 2001, he withdrew from a second subject and then was able to successfully complete the remaining three subjects. In late June 2001/ early July 2001, Mr Zhang also varied his enrolment for the spring session with consequence that he only undertook and completed two subjects in that session.
5. A data matching exercise between Centrelink and the University’s records on 12 December 2001 revealed that Mr Zhang was only enrolled in two subjects in the spring session. Centrelink treated this as being a part-time workload only and, on 30 January 2002, determined that Mr Zhang had received an overpayment of Austudy for the period of 3 July 2001 to 23 January 2002 of $4,686.08 which was a debt due to the Commonwealth. The original decision-maker confirmed this decision on 21 February 2002 and the decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer on 11 July 2002.
6. In early 2002, Mr Zhang had enrolled in a full program for the 2002 academic year. On 22 February 2002, he notified the University of Wollongong of his decision to withdraw from studying in autumn session 2002. He subsequently also withdrew from studying in spring session 2002.
7. On 29 September 2002, the SSAT decided to set aside the authorised review officer’s decision and remit the matter to Centrelink with a direction that Mr Zhang was studying full-time during the study period relevant for the payment of Austudy in the academic year 2001. The SSAT found that Mr Zhang was therefore qualified to received Austudy for the whole of the 2001 academic year with the consequence that there was no overpayment of Austudy and hence no debt. The SSAT directed that any part of the debt which had already been recovered from Mr Zhang should be refunded. On 28 October 2002, the Applicant lodged an application for a review of this decision by the Tribunal.
APPLICABLE LAW
8. The qualifications of Austudy are set out in s 568 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”)
568 Qualification for austudy payment--general rule
Subject to this Subdivision, a person is qualified for an austudy payment in respect of a period if, throughout the period:
(a) the person satisfies the activity test (see Subdivision B); and
(b) the person is of austudy age (see Subdivision C); and
(c) the person is an Australian resident.
The person may satisfy the activity test by “undertaking qualifying study”. This terms is defined in s 569A as follows:
569A Undertaking qualifying study
For the purposes of this Part, a person is undertaking qualifying study if:
(a) the person:
(i) is enrolled in a course of education at an educational institution; or
(ii) was enrolled in the course and satisfies the Secretary that he or she intends, and has (since no longer being enrolled) always intended, to re-enrol in the course when re-enrolments in the course are next accepted; or
(iii) was enrolled in the course and satisfies the Secretary that he or she intends, and has (since no longer being enrolled) always intended, to enrol in another course of education (at the same or a different educational institution) when enrolments in the other course are next accepted; and
(b) the course in which the person is enrolled, or intends to enrol, is an approved course of education or study (see section 569B); and
(c) the person is a full-time student or a concessional study-load student in respect of that course (see sections 569C and 569D); and
(d) the person satisfies the progress rules (see sections 569G and 569H).
9. At issue in this case is whether Mr Zhang satisfied paragraph (c). The Applicant contends that Mr Zhang did not satisfy paragraph (c) because his enrolment in spring session 2001 in two subjects was less than that required of a “full-time student”. Section 569C states relevantly:
569C Full-time students
For the purposes of this Subdivision, a person is a full-time student in respect of a course if:
(a) in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course for a particular study period (such as, for example, a semester)—the person is undertaking at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period; …
10. Section 569E(1)(a) defines the “normal amount of full-time study” in respect of the course as the “standard student load determined in respect of the course by the institution” under subsection 39(2) of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. That subsection provides for the institution to determine a standard student load representing “an equivalent full-time student unit” (EFTSU). Subjects undertaken by a student are then accorded a proportion of the EFTSU in accordance with the number of subjects required to be undertaken by the student for that student to be maintaining a standard student load.
11. There is no dispute that the University of Wollongong had determined that the standard student load for the Bachelor of Information and Communication Technology degree program is 48 credit points per annum. In the first year of this program, a student would ordinarily undertaken eight six credit point subjects each being accorded 0.125 EFTSUs.
12. The above provisions are relevant in determining whether Mr Zhang received an overpayment of Austudy in the period 3 July 2001 to 23 January 2002, after which payment of Austudy to Mr Zhang was cancelled. Such an overpayment would constitute a debt due to the Commonwealth under ss 1223 or 1224 of the Act. However, provision is also made for the recovery of the whole or part of a debt to be waived in certain limited circumstances. The relevant provision in Mr Zhang’s case is s 1237AAD which permits recovery of a debt to be waived where there are special circumstances:
1237AAD Waiver in special circumstances
The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:
(i) making a false statement or a false representation; or
(ii) failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act or the 1947 Act; and
(b)there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and
(c) it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.
THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
13. Mr Zhang submitted that the SSAT decision is correct and should be affirmed. He said that in March 2001 he enrolled in a four year degree at the University of Wollongong with the academic year commencing in March 2001 and finishing at the end of February 2002. In the first, autumn session he was enrolled in four subjects. On 27 May 2001, he was traumatised by his car being stolen and torched in front of the block of units where he and his family live. He subsequently withdrew from one of the four subjects in which he was enrolled, even though he completed the course requirements. The torching of his car occurred shortly before the examination period for which he was at the time preparing.. As a consequence, the results for the three subjects he completed in the first session were affected. With the assistance of a University Counsellor, Mr Zhang therefore sought special consideration in respect of the period between 27 May 2001 until the end of the autumn session exams. Mr Zhang said he is yet to repeat the statistics subject for which he completed the course requirements in autumn session 2001but from which he later withdrew.
14. Mr Zhang said his car having been torched, he had to buy another car for his family who depend on its use. He has one son born in February 1985 who in May 2001 would have been 16 and studying at Edmund Rice College in Wollongong. His son is an excellent student and would sometimes study late at night and wake late in the morning. As a result, Mr Zhang would need to drive him to school. He would also need to take his wife shopping and he used the car to attend the University. It is possible to travel to the University from Bellambi, where he lives, by bus, but it is difficult and inconvenient and means two separate bus journeys, changing in Wollongong. Mr Zhang said it took about three weeks to buy another car and then when he bought a car, the car proved to have faults which required fixing. The net result was that he “got a bit lost” at around this time.
15. Mr Zhang said he tried to phone Centrelink on several occasions to inform them of the variation in his enrolment but the Centrelink phone line was always busy. He knew he had to notify Centrelink of the variation. He therefore decided to write a note and asked his wife to hand it in to Centrelink to relieve him of this task. This was a tense time because he was preparing for exams and he felt traumatised. His wife taking the letter to the Centrelink office did not occur in August as she thought but not long after the torching of the car.
16. When considering what to do about the subjects in which he was enrolled for the spring session, Mr Zhang spoke to a female officer in the university administration who advised him that he could rearrange his subjects provided he maintained a minimum of 36 credit points in the 52 week enrolment period. In spring session, the two subjects in which he maintained his enrolment were considered very difficult. He withdrew from the easier subjects to leave these for later in order to concentrate on the two very difficult subjects. He believed that in spring session 2001 he was still a full-time student and complying with Centrelinks requirements.
17. Mr Zhang said when he received notification of the debt by letter dated 30 January 2002, he was traumatised by this and sought leave from the University for his studies in autumn session 2002. He also subsequently sought leave of absence for the spring session of 2002. During 2002, Mr Zhang received newstart allowance. He continues to receive this in 2003, although he has now returned to part-time study. His son is receiving youth allowance and is in the final year, Year 12, at Smith’s Hill High School, a selective school in Wollongong. Mr Zhang said he is entirely reliant for his income on Social Security benefits. He has no assets other than his car and computer and normal household furnishings. He is currently paying $140 per week in rent and he and his wife are receiving newstart allowance of $386 gross each per fortnight. Centrelink are withholding $49.46 per fortnight from Mr Zhang’s newstart allowance in order to recover the debt.
SUBMISSIONS
Applicant
18. The Applicant submits that Mr Zhang was not a full-time student in spring session 2001 because he was enrolled in two subjects totalling only 12 credit points, which was less than two thirds of the normal full-time sessional load. The standard student load determined by the University for this course was 38 credit points per year or 24 credit points per session. The University itself regarded Mr Zhang as a part-time student in spring session 2001 and it is clear that the subjects he undertook were semester based subjects.
19. Ms Collis referred the Tribunal to the Departmental Guide to Social Security Law which states at paragraph 1.1.F 230:
… A student is considered full-time for the period that they have a HECS loading of:
0.75 for a full academic year, or
0.375 for a semester
If a student is enrolled in or assessed upon year long subjects then the full year HECS loading of 0.75 is to be used. Generally speaking, unless the student has Year long subjects their study load should be assessed on a semester basis.
20. Ms Collis noted that while Mr Zhang had completed 42 credit points in the 2001 academic year, he did not complete them in sessions one and two but instead spread his load for session two over the summer session. She submitted that the “legislation does not allow this latitude” (Statement of Facts and Contentions, p4). Ms Collis sought to distinguish the Tribunal decision in ReSecretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Machan [2001] AATA 434 because, in that case, the University of Sydney considered the student as full-time, because she was undertaking thesis subjects requiring a significant commitment of time.
21. Ms Collis submitted that the Tribunal decision in Re Coleman and Secretary,Department of Family and Community Services [2002] AATA 772 should be followed, recognising that a student must ordinarily undertake a certain number of credit points per semester. Ms Collis referred the Tribunal to the Explanatory Memorandum to the relevant amending legislation which explained that the term “semester” had been replaced in the legislation by the term “study period” to allow a period of grace of up to two weeks to enable students to arrange their studies at the beginning of the study period.
22. With regard to whether the debt should be recovered, Ms Collis submitted that the theft and torching of Mr Zhang’s car and the fact of his overall academic results for 2001 should not be considered sufficiently “special” to warrant exercise of the Secretary’s discretion under s 1237AAD to waive recovery of the whole or part of the debt.
Respondent
23. Mr Zhang contended that the relevant study period in his case was the 12 months from early March 2001 to late February 2002 including the autumn, spring and summer sessions. The University of Wollongong determined that the standard student load for his degree program was 48 credit points per year and, when he enrolled on 5 March 2001, he enrolled for the 2001 academic year. In that year, he successfully completed subjects attracting 42 credit points, more than the required 75% of the full-time load. He also completed the course requirements for another 6 credit point subject in autumn session 2001 from which he subsequently withdrew following the torching of his car and due to the trauma he was then experiencing.
24. Mr Zhang said prior to receiving the Centrelink letter dated 30 January 2002 notifying him of the debt, he had enrolled in three subjects for autumn session 2002 and intended to continue studying as a full-time student. However, he subsequently sought leave of absence due to the trauma associated with Centrelink’s actions.
25. Mr Zhang submitted that if the Tribunal finds that there is a debt, then recovery of the debt should be waived pursuant to s 1237AAD of the Act. He contended that the theft and torching of his car, while a single event, had continued to have consequences for him up until the present. The University recognised the effect of this event on him by granting him special consideration.
FINDINGS
26. The essential facts are not in dispute. However their effect on Mr Zhang is downplayed by the Applicant, while Mr Zhang clearly considers their effect as being of great significance. The Tribunal accepts Mr Zhang’s evidence that the theft and torching of his car on 27 May 2001 had a significant and traumatic effect on him. He and his family had become dependent on the use of their car for local transport. Alternative public transport was available but it was inconvenient and involved a much longer travelling time. Thus, having been deprived of his car, Mr Zhang immediately set about replacing it. This took some weeks and, even when he had purchased a replacement car, it proved to have a number of faults that needed fixing.
27. When Mr Zhang’s car was torched on 27 May 2001, he also lost computer software, books and notes inside it. That he was traumatised by the event is supported by the University Counsellor’s letter of 16 June 2001 (T5) supporting Mr Zhang’s application for special consideration in respect of the period from 27 May 2001 until the end of the exam period. The Tribunal notes that 27 May 2001 was near the end of autumn session 2001 and not long before the commencement of exams. Mr Zhang said that on 27 May 2001 he had already commenced preparation for his exams and his preparation was significantly disrupted by the aftermath of the torching of his car. As a mature-aged student (Mr Zhang was born on 30 July 1955 and was then aged 45) completing the first semester of a four year program, it is understandable that these events caused him considerable anxiety.
28. Mr Zhang told the Tribunal that he withdrew from one autumn session subject for which he had already completed the in-term course requirements, and that his results for the three autumn session subjects he completed were adversely affected. These results were 58P, 54P and 65C and, with one exception, lower than the results he subsequently achieved for other subjects (T17).
29. Mr Zhang said that he spoke to a University administrative officer about changing his enrolment for spring session 2001 and was advised that he could rearrange his subjects provided he maintained a minimum of 36 credit points of subjects in the 52 week enrolment period. He therefore decided to concentrate on two subjects (attracting 12 credit points) only in spring session 2001 which were considered difficult and withdrew from the other subjects in which he had previously been enrolled. He made these withdrawals on 28 June 2001 and 3 July 2001 (T7). He subsequently enrolled in two further subjects attracting 12 credit points (0.25 EFTSUs) in summer session 2001. Mr Zhang successfully completed the spring and summer session subjects.
30. In summary, Mr Zhang’s results for the 2001 academic year show that he passed seven subjects of six credit points each attracting a total of 42 credit points: three subjects in autumn session, two subjects in spring session and two subjects in summer session. The annual full-time load for the bachelor degree program undertaken by Mr Zhang was 48 credit points. Thus, he successful completed .875 of the annual student load.
31. Mr Zhang said he was aware that he should notify Centrelink of the variation in his enrolment. He tried to telephone on several occasions but the line was engaged. He therefore wrote a letter to Centrelink about his changed enrolment and asked his wife to hand it in at the Centrelink office along with her newstart allowance forms. She took it to the Centrelink office but, as a result of some confusion at the counter, in part because of her poor English, she did not hand it in and, not realising its importance, did not tell her husband of this (T15). Thus, Mr Zhang continued with his studies in the belief that he was a full-time student and not realising that there was any problem with his Austudy payments.
32. Centrelink became aware of Mr Zhang’s varied enrolment for spring session 2001 as a result of a data matching exercise with the University’s records on 12 December 2001. This lead to the raising of the overpayment and notification of Mr Zhang on 30 January 2002. The Tribunal accepts that this caused him considerable anxiety and, as a result, he withdrew from study in 2002.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
33. In Mr Zhang’s case, to be qualified for Austudy he was required to be a “full-time student” (s 569A). The definition of full-time student is s 569C requires that such a person be undertaking “at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course” for the “particular study period (such as, for example, a semester)”.
34. Section 569E(1) provides for the “normal amount of full-time study in respect of a course” to be the “standard student load” determined by the relevant institution, in this case the University of Wollongong. The standard student load for a course represents one EFTSU (equivalent full-time student unit). EFTSUs are used for the calculation of university funding and other purposes.
35. The University of Wollongong determined that the standard student load for the bachelor degree course undertaken by Mr Zhang was 48 credit points per year. Each of the subjects completed by Mr Zhang in the 2001 academic year was a semester based or sessional subject. The Tribunal notes that paragraph 1.1.F 230 of the Department’s Social Security Guide states:
Generally speaking, unless the student has Year long subjects their study load should be assessed on a semester basis.
36. The issue that has arisen in this case is as a result of Mr Zhang’s spreading the normal full-time student load undertaken in spring session over the spring and summer sessions. He did this in order to undertake what he perceived to be two particularly difficult subjects in spring session 2001 in the aftermath of the theft and torching of his car. Neither the legislation nor the departmental policy makes any express reference to a situation where a student spreads their load over three sessions. In the Tribunal’s view, clarification is required.
37. The Tribunal considers that the decision in Re Machan (supra) should be distinguished from this case because the student in that case was at all times regarded by the University of Sydney as a full-time student and because of the particular character of the thesis subject she undertook which was recognised as requiring a very significant commitment of time. Moreover, the Tribunal found that results were annual and the emphasis was on yearly enrolment.
38. The facts of Re Coleman (supra) are closer to those in Mr Zhang’s case. In Re Coleman, a less than three quarter load in one semester was dictated because of the subjects on offer. The student completed more than a three quarter load if his enrolments in both semesters were taken into account.
39. While in many tertiary institutions, the standard student load is determined on an annual basis, because subjects are often semester based or sessional, a student may be permitted to study full-time in one semester and part-time in another. The dictates of work and family not uncommonly require this. In the Tribunal’s view, the bachelor degree in which Mr Zhang was enrolled at the University of Wollongong was, at least in the first year of the program, organised around semester based or sessional subjects. The particular study period was one semester or session. The fact that students enrolled for both autumn and spring sessions at the beginning of the academic year was a matter of administrative convenience and it was open to students to vary their enrolment for spring session at a later time.
40. In Mr Zhang’s case, he undertook and completed only two subjects in spring session 2001, representing one half of a standard student load for one session. The Tribunal notes that the advice he received from a University administrative officer did not identify this as a problem in relation to his Austudy payments. Mr Zhang had an obligation to notify Centrelink of the variation in his enrolment for spring session 2001 – and he attempted to do so. That attempt, however, failed. Had it succeeded, Mr Zhang might not be in his present predicament. Nevertheless, there were mitigating circumstances which the Tribunal discusses below.
41. The Tribunal concludes that because Mr Zhang only completed one half of a standard student load in spring session 2001, he was not qualified for Austudy payments in that session and an overpayment of Austudy, constituting a debt to the Commonwealth, was correctly raised against him.
42. However, in Mr Zhang’s case the Tribunal’s view is that recovery of the debt should be waived pursuant to s 1237AAD. As noted by the Tribunal in Machan (supra) at para 29, what constitutes “special circumstances” was discussed by Carr J in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Ellis (1997) 24 AAR 539 at 539:
In Beadle v Director General of Social Security (1985) 7 ALD 670, a Full Court of this Court had to consider whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of s 102(1)(a) of the Act which provided for an extension of time in which to claim a family allowance “…in special circumstances…”. At 673-674 the Full Court said:
“Presumably in this context special circumstances must include events which would render the six months unfair or inappropriate… It would depend upon the circumstances of the particular case whether these constituted special circumstances. We do not think it is possible to lay down precise limits or precise rules. The matter is one for the Director-General bearing in mind the purpose for which the power is given. The phrase “special circumstances”, although lacking precision, is sufficiently understood in our view not to require judicial gloss.”
In Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541 at 545, Kiefel J, after referring to Beadle, said:
“… for present purposes it is sufficient to observe that it would require something to distinguish Mr Groth’s case from others, to take it out of the usual or ordinary case. That was, I consider, the only inquiry to be undertaken in this case. It would of course follow that if one were to conclude that something unfair, unintended or unjust had occurred that there must be some feature out of the ordinary. The inquiry I have referred to would involve considering what would be the effect, if the provision in question or the principle of liability it creates, is applied.”
43. The Tribunal has found that the theft and torching of Mr Zhang’s car, which also contained computer software, books and notes, had a significant and traumatic effect on him. This occurred shortly before the exam period and both adversely affected his results for autumn session 2001 and contributed to his varying his enrolment for spring session 2001. Mr Zhang relied on the advice of a University administrative officer in making the variation, sought to notify Centrelink, albeit unsuccessfully, of the variation, and believed himself to continue to be a full-time student in spring session 2001. He subsequently enrolled in two subjects in summer session with the net result that he successfully completed seven subjects totalling 42 credit points in the 2001 academic year, more than three quarters of the annual standard student load of 48 credit points. On receipt of Centrelink’s notification of the debt dated 30 January 2002, Mr Zhang again became very anxious and withdrew from further study in 2002.
44. In the Tribunal’s view, the circumstances leading to the overpayment of Austudy to Mr Zhang were sufficiently unusual to make them “special” – particularly when one looks at his academic record for 2001, bearing in mind his decision to focus on two subjects he perceived to be difficult in spring session and to undertake two further subjects in summer session. In the Tribunal’s view, it would be unfair or unjust in these circumstances to seek to recover the debt from Mr Zhang. He is totally reliant on Social Security benefits for his income and has no assets other than his car, his computer and household goods. He has not enriched himself by these events – indeed, quite to the contrary, and the Commonwealth has not suffered financially given that had Centrelink been aware at the relevant time of his part-time status, he would merely have been transferred to newstart allowance.
45. The Tribunal therefore varies the decision under review by:
(1)finding that Mr Zhang received an overpayment of Austudy and consequently owed a debt to the Commonwealth of $4,686.04; and
(2)waiving recovery of the debt pursuant to s 1237AAD of the Act because of the special circumstances.
46. The Tribunal repeats that clarification is required as to the Social Security benefits payable where a student undertakes subjects in a third or summer semester/session during the course of the academic year. Neither the legislation nor departmental policy appears to address this issue adequately.
I certify that the 46 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of R P Handley, Deputy President
Signed: .......................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 22 April 2003
Date of Decision 7 May 2003
Representative for the Applicant Ms C Collis, Solicitor
Representative for the Respondent Self represented
5