Rimmington and Healey

[2011] FamCA 338

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RIMMINGTON & HEALEY [2011] FamCA 338

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – variation of orders

APPLICANT: Mr Rimmington

RESPONDENT: Ms Healey

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Power

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1762 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 11 March 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Stevenson J

HEARING DATE: 9 & 10 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Rimmington appeared on his own behalf

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Knox

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dettmann Longworth Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. That the orders made on 26 November 2009 are varied so as to provide:

   1(d):  Commencing from 23 July 2010 for three days each fortnight as follows:

   (i)from 12:00noon to 7:00pm on Friday and from 9:00am until 4:00pm on each of Saturday and Sunday in D Town on three out of four fortnights and

   (ii)from 9:00am until 4:00pm on each of Saturday, Sunday and Monday in Sydney on the fourth fortnight.

   7.        (i)       Mr JS

   (ii)      Mr P

   (iii)Mr PS

   (iv)Mr HH

   (v)Mr AH

   (vi)Mr TT

   (vii)Mr VV

   (viii)Mr UU

   (ix)Mr AG

   (x)Mr CCC

   (xi)Ms MC

   (xii)Ms RRR

   (xiii)Ms WW and Mr XX together

2. Noted that Stevenson J is of the view that these proceedings should not be allocated to her docket.

   IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rimmington & Healey has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1762  of 2009

Mr Rimmington

Applicant

And

Ms Healey

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

the proceedings

1. These proceedings consist of the father’s Further Amended Application in a Case, filed on 3 February 2011, and the mother’s Response To An Application In A Case filed on 12 October 2010.  Inter alia, the father sought to vary existing parenting orders in relation to the parties’ twin boys, B and A who were born in 2008 and are now 3 years old.  This part of the application is brought despite the fact that there was a contested interim hearing concerning parenting orders in November 2009.

2. As an initial indication of the difficulties presented by these interim proceedings, I will set out in full the orders sought by each of the parties.  In verbatim terms, the father sought the following:

   1.        That, when [B] and [A] spend time with him, and subject to the provision by the relevant person of an undertaking to the Family Court in a format and content approved for the purpose hereunder by the Family Court, the Father be accompanied by any of the following persons:

   (a)[Mr JS] of Sydney;

   (b)[Mr P] of Sydney;

   (c)[Mr PS] of Sydney;

   (d)[Mr JR] of [City TO, (Country DA)];

   (e)[Paternal grandmother] of [Town NN] (New South Wales);

   (f)[Paternal grandfather] of [Town NN] (New South Wales;)

   (g)[Ms HS] of Sydney;

   (h)[Ms EM] of Sydney;

   (i)[Mr MS] of Sydney;

   (j)[Mr AG] of Sydney;

   (k)[Mr JP] of Sydney;

   (l)[Mr PP] of Sydney;

   (m)[Mr AH] of Sydney; [Mr JR] of [UW Town] (New South Wales);

   (n)[Mr TT] of Sydney;

   (o)[Mr VV] of Sydney;

   (p)[Mr UU] of Sydney;

   (q)[Mr HH] of Sydney;

   (r)[Mr AC] of Sydney;

   (s)[Mr JB] of Sydney;

   (t)[Mr ND] of Sydney;

   (u)[Ms MC] of [D Town] (New South Wales);

   (v)[Mr CCC] of [D Town]; [Mr MDS] of [Suburb VZ] (New South Wales);

   (w)[Mr XX] of [D Town] [Mr XX] of [D Town]

   (x)[Ms WW] of [D Town][Ms WW] of [D Town]

   (y)[Ms RRR] of [D Town];

   (z)[Mr QRR] of [D Town];

   (aa)[Mr DY] of [D Town];

   (bb)[Ms QY] of [D Town];

   (cc)[Mr RF] of [D Town];

   (dd)[Ms PF] of [D Town];

   (ee)[Ms LH] of Sydney;

   (ff)[Ms Y]  of Sydney;

   (gg)[Ms XT] (nee [Healey]) of [Town NN];

   (hh)[Ms JT] of [Town NN];

   (ii)[Ms AT] of Melbourne:

   (jj)For time the children spend time with the father in Sydney (or in Melbourne on such occasions as the parties may agree to be in lieu of Sydney), any person employed or contracted from time to time by or in association with … or … for the purposes of providing nanny services, including overnight nanny services, plus any priest who is, from time to time, appointed by [his order] to serve at [SA Church] at [Suburb N] or at the [OJ Office] at [Suburb CN], plus [Father CS]; and

   (kk)For when the children spent time with the father in [D Town], any person employed or contracted from time to time by or in association with … for the purposes of provided services of the New South Wales …Child Care services (…), including overnight care services, plus any priest who is, from time to time, appointed by the CR Religion to serve at SM Church at D Town;

   (ll)Any member of the Male Choir of SA Church Suburb N, plus the Choir Mistress;

   (mm)Any of the father’s professional colleagues profiled by name at …;

   (nn)Mr GN of Sydney.

   or that the Father be accompanied by any other mature adult as may be agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, may be approved by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

   1A.     That Order 1 be suspended until further order by the Family Court, given the absence of evidence submitted to the Family Court of any harm being caused to the Children owing to the conduct of the Father over a period now approaching 2 years, during which the children have been accustomed to spend to time with their Father on a fortnightly basis, initially on a supervised basis at a childrens contact centre at Town I from March 2009 to July 2009, then on a supervised basis at children’s contact centres at both Town I and Town C from July 2009 to November 2009, followed by an accompanied basis in D Town and Sydney from November 2009 to February 2011.

   1B.     That it be in the best interests of the children that the Mother pursue the recommendation of the Independent Expert that she obtain regular professional counselling with respect to her fears that the Father shall murder their Children.

   2.(a)       That commencing from the date of these Orders to 12 April January 2011, the children spend time with the Father as follows:

   (i)from 12:00noon until 7:00pm each alternate Friday; and

   (ii)from 9:00am each alternate Saturday until 2:00pm on Sunday;

   (b)  That commencing 12 April January 2011, the children spend time with the Father from 12:00 noon each alternate Friday until 2:00pm each alternate Sunday;

   3.That, in the alternative to order 2 above, commencing from the date of these Orders, the children spend time with the Father as follows:

   (a)from 12:00 noon until 7:00pm each alternate Friday;

   (b)from 9:00am until 4:00pm on each alternate Saturday;

   (c)from 9:00am to 2:00pm on each alternate Sunday.

   4.That commencing from the date of these Orders, every other weekend during which time the children are scheduled to spend time with the Father shall take place in Sydney.

   5.Changeovers in [D Town] shall take place in the [D Town] Police Station or such other place as may be agreed between the parties.

   6.Changeovers in Sydney shall take place in the [Suburb N] Police Station or such other place as may be agreed between the parties.

   7.That evidence be filed or served by the parties after 8^th December 2010, being 35 days after the parties were orders on 3^rd November 2010 to serve and file their materials no later than 30^th November 2010 shall not be read for the purposes of this Interim Hearing.

   That evidence filed or served by the parties after 5pm on Friday 4^th February 2011 shall not be read for purposes of this Interim Hearing.

   The mother sought the following:

   1.That the husband’s application filed 27 July 2010 be dismissed.

   2.That in relation to the microcassettes produced under subpoena by the husband (“the microcassettes”):

   a.the microcassettes be supplied to a transcription service with instructions that they be transcribed into a typed format and be dubbed onto a CD;

   b.in the event the parties do not agree within 7 days as to the identity of the transcription service, such shall be PT Legal, Melbourne

   c.once the transcriptions and CDs are available, copies be supplied to Dr W

   d.that the parties be equally responsible for the cost of transcription (which the Court Notes may be about $2,900) but that the father pay the entire cost in the first instance with the question of the mother’s contribution to be adjourned to the trial judge at the time of final hearing

   e.the father immediately pay $2,900 to the Legal Aid trust account for the purposes of the transcription

   f.the Independent Children’s Lawyer have liberty to uplift the microcassettes from the Court and be responsible for:

   i.supplying the microcassettes to the transcription service;

   ii.receiving the transcriptions and CDs;

   iii.distributing copies to the parties;

   iv.supplying copies to [Dr W];

   v.filing copies with the Court; and

   vi.returning the microcassettes to the Court.

   Provided the Independent children’s Lawyer is not obligated to commence the process until the husband has deposited the sum of $2,900 to the Legal Aid trust account.

   3.        That the husband do all things and sign all documents necessary to have the wife removed as a trustee of the ZU Superannuation Fund.

   4.        That the figure in paragraph 5(b) of the Orders 26 November 2009 be increased to $700.

   5.        That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

3. The next difficulty arose from the huge volume of written evidence which the parties demanded that I read.  The applicant father insisted that I read some 22 affidavits.  This material had a thickness of approximately 5 centimetres.  For her part the respondent mother insisted that I read some 14 affidavits, of approximately 3 centimetres in thickness.  As well, I was required by the parties to read a 36 page report of the single expert, Dr W, and a considerable volume of material produced on subpoena which was tendered in evidence.

4. It was extraordinary that I was required to read this huge volume of material, given that there has already been a contested interim hearing.  It seemed to me that the sensible course was to fix the proceedings for final hearing, thus obviating the need for a further interim hearing.  I offered dates for a final hearing before myself but my efforts to progress the matter proved to be utterly futile. 

5. Obviously, an update of Dr W’s 2009 report would be necessary for a final hearing.  It might reasonably have been expected that an order for an updated report could be made without undue difficulty.  My hopes in that regard were soon dashed.

6. The mother demanded that I order that numerous cassette recordings be transcribed, at the father’s expense initially, and provided to Dr W.  It seemed to me that there would be considerable argument about that issue.  Another difficulty with an updated report was that the father persisted in demanding that I impose certain conditions, before he would pay Dr W’ professional fees.  Essentially he refused to make any payment until he received Dr W’ updated report and, presumably, approved of its contents.

7. In these circumstances, it seemed to me to be futile to try further to assist the parties by listing the proceedings for final hearing.  I was mindful also that the trial Judge may well wish to determine what evidence comes before him or her.  I am not the docket judge.  The matter came before me in a duty list.

8. Another extraordinary aspect to this interim hearing was that the proceedings are listed in a callover on 29 March 2011.  I would expect that the matter will be placed in a judge’s docket on that date. 

9. It was thus necessary for me to tackle the reading of the mass of written evidence.  The interim hearing extended over 2 days.

10. I could have considered, as a preliminary issue, whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a re-examination of the interim arrangements for the children to spend time with the father.  I formed the view, however, that it was better to determine that part of the father’s application because any Rice & Asplund (1978) 6 FamLR 570 argument would only become bogged down and extend the proceedings even further.

11. I declined to entertain any other aspect of the competing interim applications, taking the view that these issues were a matter ultimately for the trial Judge.  In particular, I refused to purport to fetter the discretion of one of my colleagues on the issue of whether Dr W should be required to read a transcription of hours of cassette recordings.

Background

1. The father was born in 1962 and is now 48 years old.  He lives at Wollstonecraft in Sydney.  The mother was born in 1974 and is now 36 years old.  She and the children live with her parents on a property near D Town.

2. The parties married in 2004 and separated in February 2008, when the children were babies.  As noted, the twin boys were born in 2008 and are now 3 years old.

3. On 26 November 2009 a Judicial Registrar delivered a written judgment and made interim orders for the children to spend time with the father.  I was invited to read and take into account these reasons.  The interim orders provided for a graduated regime of time with the father.  Essentially, the current arrangement is for 3 day-only periods per fortnight in D Town and 2 days on the fourth occasion in Sydney.  It is the condition of these interim orders that the father “be accompanied by a mature adult paternal relative known to the children, being either [Mr JS], [Mr P] or [Mr PS]”.  The orders allow the parties to agree on other “mature adults” to act in the role of accompanying persons.

4. It is worth quoting in full paragraph 28 of the Judicial Registrar’s reasons, as follows:

   I must say, the overall view that I have formed about the matter is that there would not be an unacceptable risk.  I am not persuaded that this court could make a finding on the evidence that there would be an unacceptable risk to these children going for periods with their father.  Certainly, something in excess of what they have been doing but certainly not overnight time at this time, provided that there were appropriate persons to undertake the responsibility of accompaniment referred to by [Dr W].

   On the material before me, I would respectfully agree that there is no unacceptable risk.

5. The father now proposes 15 additional people to act as accompanying persons.  He also sought to press all aspects of his last amended application for interim orders which was filed on 3 February 2011.  In particular, he pressed for the introduction of overnight time immediately.

6. The mother sought the dismissal of the father’s application to vary the existing interim orders, relying on a Rice & Asplund submission.  Alternatively, she urged that a number of the father’s proposed accompanying persons be rejected for a variety of reasons.

7. Dr W’s very helpful report detailed the psychiatric history of each of the parties.  For present purposes, it is sufficient to observe that the mother has suffered from clinical depression and been admitted to a psychiatric hospital on two occasions.  The father, too, has suffered from depression and been prescribed appropriate medication. 

8. Dr W summarised his assessment of the father’s character traits and psychiatric state as follows: 

   Although [Mr Rimmington] presented as composed and emotionally stable, he was extremely over-inclusive and circumstantial in providing his history.  He tends to provide a great deal of detail and to digress frequently from the central point that he is making.  This is a feature of an obsessional type of thinking and is well illustrated in the six pages of the communication book with which I was provided.  However he does not appear to have a constricted type of obsessional personality, and he also admits to several rather poorly judged statements and behaviours – for instance he admits to having told his wife on several occasions that he was going to kill himself in an attempt to either get her attention and make her take him seriously or to abort arguments with him, and on one occasion this was also associated with partly disrobing and driving off quite a distance in his car.  These are somewhat melodramatic, manipulative and somewhat reckless manifestations which can be observed in some obsessional individuals who alternate between being controlled/controlling, and rather out of control.  Thus on one hand he can be stubborn, intransigent and cautious, but on the other hand, he is capable of being rather flippant, careless, impulsive and at times reckless.  He is also sensation seeking, and can push the boundaries of adventurousness into the domain of recklessness – for instance in the incident in which he was caught in an avalanche, breaking rules of conduct and safety which were well known to him as an adventure tourism provider.

   While adventurous recklessness may be one feature of his character, it also appears that he has taken appropriate steps when he has recognised that he has been in a state of emotional distress.  He described a lengthy period of depression following the break-up of a relationship in about 1994 which when it was recognised some years later led to him taking anti-depressants for a number of years, he attended a counsellor for post trauma counselling immediately after he almost died in an avalanche in 2007, and he has sought professional counselling recently.  These all seem to indicate good judgment and insight when he has the opportunity to take a more measured view of his wellbeing.

   From a diagnostic point of view, I did not form the view that [Mr Rimmington] suffers from any variant of the Bipolar Disorder from which his brother suffers.  He has had periods of depression, anxiety and a mixture of both which have not caused major impairment in day-to-day functioning.  His periods of emotional ill health also seem to be clearly linked to environmental causes and he has generally made a good recovery.  Of course further acute stress in the future could also lead to symptoms of depression and anxiety, but his past record would suggest that he would seek and adhere to appropriate treatment.

9. Dr W summarised his assessment of the mother’s character traits and psychiatric state in these terms: 

   The records obtained on subpoena provide a significantly more detailed account of [Ms Healey’s] psychiatric history than she provided herself.  Summarising all sources, it appears that she had some type of eating disorder over a period of two or three years from about the age of 14 years.  She was not treated and appears to have recovered.  She made a suicide attempt in 2000 at the age of 25 years and she apparently became more depressed in 2001 after she left working for News Limited.  She was not treated until about eight months later and she was admitted twice to the St NW Hospital for psychiatric care in May 2002 and again in August 2002 for four weeks and three weeks respectively.  On both occasions a diagnosis was made of Major Depressive Disorder, although lability of mood and problems with judgement were noted which might have been consistent with a Bipolar Disorder.  From shortly before the first admission in May 2002 until November 2006 when she decided to try to get pregnant, she was on an antidepressant (Cipramil).  However the records seem to indicate that intermittent depressive symptoms continued from 2002 and she had approximately annual psychiatric consultations or counselling equivalents up until shortly after the birth of the babies.  She made one suicide attempt in about 2000 by overdose and she has had intermittent suicidal thinking since then, at least up until during the pregnancy.

   A common thread that seems to emerge from the assessments is that she is an anxious person with a poor sense of self-esteem who is often able to cover up her depressed mood with superficially buoyant behaviour.

   Overall I formed the view that the most likely diagnosis is of Dysthymic Disorder, which is a form of recurrent depression, with underlying personality traits predisposing to depression.  It is probably relevant to emphasise that [Ms Healey’s] worst frame of mind seems to have occurred over a period of about 12 months between October 2001 and October 2002, before she met [Mr Rimmington].  At the moment she is anxious and fearful about [Mr Rimmington] but otherwise she seems to be in a reasonable frame of mind.  However it is likely that without her parents’ day-to-day support she would be much more emotionally fragile, and her parenting would probably suffer.  I would recommend ongoing counselling.  She indicated she was still seeing [Ms G], but this is probably too infrequent and she may be able to see a local psychologist more often.

   [Ms Healey’s] psychiatric and psychological records also seem to indicate that she is quite prone to anxiety and susceptible to intimidation because of her poor self-esteem.  It may well be that her characteristic mode of thinking might have allowed her to become more fearful about [Mr Rimmington] than the facts would support.

1. The mother claimed that she is fearful that the father will harm the children if they are left alone in his care.  She went so far as to allege that he will kill the boys as revenge for her leaving the marriage.  As well, she alleged that his supposed recklessness and risk-taking behaviour would place them in danger of injury or death if left in his sole care.

2. It is obviously impossible for me to make any findings about the validity or reasonableness of the mother’s alleged fears in the context of this interim hearing.  In particular, I have not had the benefit of seeing cross-examination of the mother or Dr W.  As it was, I was required to listen to cross-examination of 14 witnesses.  I could have insisted that the proceedings be conducted in the usual form for an interim hearing, that is “on the papers”, but that course would have provoked large dispute and consumed even more court time.  It rapidly became clear to me that nothing in this case will take place easily or expeditiously.

Consideration

1. I am not prepared to introduce overnight time on an interim basis, in circumstances where the proceedings are listed for callover in a few weeks and it might reasonably be expected that the matter will be prepared for final hearing from that point.  I make no finding, or even comment, about whether or not overnight time would be in the children’s best interests.  I am simply not prepared to take that step on the basis of the limited information available to me.  In particular, an updated report from Dr W would be very useful in determining when and how that step might best be taken.  For example, I cannot simply ignore the impact on the mother of this progression in the children’s time with the father.  It is trite to observe that the issues in this case are relatively complex in nature.

2. The father attempted to introduce a different regime for the boys to spend time with him.  He sought orders that they fly to Sydney, in place of the current arrangement whereby he undertakes substantial travel to D Town.  I note that this proposal could not be found in the Further Amended Application In A Case which he filed only 6 days before the interim hearing.

3. The configuration of time in Sydney and D Town seems to me also to be a matter for determination at a final hearing.  There are simply too many permutations to consider on an interim basis, in circumstances where I intend to maintain the current arrangement of accompanying persons. 

4. Although the father did not seem able to comprehend this concept, the continuation of a regime of accompanying persons could well operate for his protection.  The mother could be expected to try to extract great significance, at a final hearing, from any accidental injury or complaint made by one of the children about the father’s alleged behaviour.  If he is accompanied by a court approved person at all times, it would be very difficult for her to make out any such argument.

5. The mother offered to increase the children’s time with the father to:

   ·9:00am to 4:00pm on each Saturday, Sunday and Monday in Sydney

   ·12:00noon to 7:00pm on Friday and 9:00am to 4:00pm on each Saturday and Sunday in D Town

   She agreed to 5 and 3 additional accompanying persons in Sydney and D Town respectively.  I assume that she could not object to any of these five people accompanying the father to D Town, if it is possible for them to do so. 

6. The mother objected to the following people acting as accompanying persons:

   2.Paternal grandfather

   3.Paternal grandmother

   4.Paternal uncle

   5.Mr AG (father’s friend in Sydney)

   6.Mr and Ms WW (father’s friends or acquaintances in D Town).

   The mother questioned the objectivity of the paternal grandparents and claimed that her anxiety would be heightened if they acted as accompanying persons. 

7. It should be noted that there is no bar to the paternal grandparents being present on any occasion when the children spend time with the father.  The only question is whether another adult should be present as well.

8. Mr and Mrs Rimmington senior both impressed me as very sincere people who dearly love their grandchildren.  Mr Rimmington Senior clearly is angry with the mother, her parents and her legal representatives, all of whom he blames for the current situation.  He described the present circumstances as “a three ring circus”.  Mrs Rimmington said that she is aware that the mother “strongly objects” to her and her husband acting as accompanying persons. 

9. The mother’s attitude to Mr and Mrs Rimmington’s assuming this role is very far from determinative of the issue.  On the other hand, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) did not support their acting as accompanying persons because they may not bring the same level of objectivity as unrelated persons and also due to the mother’s lack of trust in them.

10. I observe that it could well be to the father’s advantage, if the paternal grandparents are not the witnesses called upon to refute any allegation by the mother of injury or harm suffered by the children in the father’s care or any questionable behaviour by him in their presence.  For that reason, and because of the stance taken by the ICL, I will not include Mr and Mrs Rimmington senior on the list of approved accompanying persons.  My conclusion is intended as no criticism whatsoever of them but a practical response to the current situation.

11. The mother and the ICL opposed Mr PP acting in this role because of his psychiatric history.  His medical records were in evidence (exhibit 2) and contain a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder.  He has had several hospital admissions for management of his condition.

12. The father said that he “can understand if the court exercised caution” in relation to his brother Mr PP acting as an accompanying person.  His psychiatric history certainly gives me reason to decline to include him on the list of approved accompanying persons.  Again, there is no restriction on his seeing the children during periods of time with the father and, of course, I mean no criticism of him in reaching this conclusion.

13. The mother opposed the father’s close friend Mr AG acting as accompanying person.  She claimed that he “is unsuitable because he is the father’s best friend and less likely to tell the mother of any difficulties and he has health difficulties”. 

14. Mr GG’s evidence was that he “takes court orders very responsibly”.  He said that, if he saw the father do something inappropriate, he would “tell him to stop”, call the police if necessary and ensure that the children are safe.  He said “of course” he would tell the mother “but that is a second stage”, a stance which seemed to me to be entirely reasonable and responsible.

15. The mother raised as an issue the fact that Mr GG is a diabetic and administers insulin injections to himself twice daily.  I was not sure why she insisted that the children needed to be protected from this routine and common procedure.

16. Mr GG was born with congenital illness and had major surgery 17 years ago.  It seemed to me that his health problems are effectively controlled and are not an impediment to his acting in the role of accompanying person. 

17. Mr GG is self-employed and has greater flexibility than the father’s other proposed accompanying persons, with the exception of the paternal grandparents.  In my view, the evidence does not support the mother’s objections to his inclusion on this list of approved persons.

18. Finally, the mother objected to Mr and Ms Y s on the basis of their age and her supposed state of health.  All that Ms Y s said was that she “has some high blood pressure and aches in my neck and back sometimes”.  Her unchallenged evidence is that her condition is well controlled by medication.

19. Mr and Ms Y s are both 75 years of age.  There are many relatively fit and active 75 year olds in the community.  I see no reason why they should not act as accompanying persons.  It seems to me that it would be wise for them to undertake this role together.

20. I will thus make orders to bring about these additions to the list of approved accompanying persons.  The remaining case management issues will be dealt with by the docket judge.  I consider that it would be most undesirable for these proceedings to be allocated to my docket, as a colleague who has not been required to deal with this interim application will bring a fresh mind to the issues.

I certify that the preceding forty two (42) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Stevenson delivered on 11 March 2011.

Associate: 

Date:              11 March 2011