Sargent and Amero
[2009] FMCAfam 592
•18 June 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SARGENT & AMERO | [2009] FMCAfam 592 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting application – shared parental responsibility – child with special needs – best interests of the child. |
| Family Law Act 1975, s.60CC(2),(3),(4) |
| Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 |
| Applicant: | MR SARGENT |
| Respondent: | MS AMERO |
| File Number: | NCC 3588 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Baumann FM |
| Hearing dates: | 11 February & 2 March 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 18 June 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr Boyd Boyd Olsen Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: Solicitors for the Respondent | Mr Duane Gianacas Argiris McDonald |
| Independent Children’s Lawyer: Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Mr Levick Rod Powe Lawyers |
ORDERS:
All existing Orders regarding the children [X] born in 1992 and [Y] born in 1996 are discharged.
Subject to the Orders herein, the Father and Mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship of the parties namely [Y] born in 1996 and shall each consult the other regarding any long term issues concerning the child to include but not limited to education, religion, health and any proposed change in the living arrangements which would make it more difficult for the child or either of them to spend time with either parent.
[Y] live with the Mother.
[Y] spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms from after school on Fridays until before school Wednesdays in alternate weeks commencing on the first Friday of each school term;
(b)Half of each NSW School holidays as agreed and failing agreement the first half in even years from the conclusion of school or 3.00pm which ever is the later on the last day the children attend school until 5.00pm on the date midway through such holidays and the second half of holidays in each odd numbered year commencing at 5.00pm on the date midway through such holidays until 5.00pm on the Sunday before School resumes;
(c)In even numbered years from 1.00pm Christmas Eve until 11.00am Christmas day and in odd numbered years from 11.00am Christmas Day to 11.00am Boxing Day
(d)At such other times as may be agreed between the parties in writing / by email / by text message.
The changeovers for [Y] be effected by the Father arranging the collection of [Y] from, and return to, his school on school days and on non-school days the Father shall collect [Y] from the Mother’s residence, and the Mother shall recover [Y] from the Father’s residence at the appointed times.
On [Y]’s birthday the non-resident parent shall have his care from 4.00pm until 8.30pm provided [Y] is present in Newcastle on that day.
[Y] shall spend from 9.00am on the Saturday until 5.00pm on the Sunday of the Father’s Day weekend with the Father, and with the Mother at the same times on the Mother’s Day weekend in the event that [Y] would not ordinarily be with that parent on that weekend.
In the event that either parent has work commitments for any overnight period during which that parent is due to have the care of [Y] then that parent shall advise the other parent as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Unless otherwise agreed between the parties the treating medical and other practitioners for the said child are to be:
(a)Dr B, Psychiatrist;
(b)Dr C, General Practitioner (or such other practitioner at the [C] Medical Centre); and
(c)Ms K, Psychologist.
The immediately preceding subparagraph be subject to the availability of the relevant medical practitioner or psychologist, and the parents are unable to agree an alternate in the case of unavailability (subject to Order 6b), the Mother to make the decision as to the identity of the medical practitioner and/or psychologist.
The said child [Y] to communicate by telephone at all reasonable times with the other parent with whom he is not currently with and in such case each parent to do all acts and things to ensure the child is able to take or receive a phonecall with the other parent in privacy.
Medical and quasi – medical decision making (including such as is related to the educational needs of the child) in relation to the child be subject to the following:
(a)Both parents are to attend or at least be invited to attend any specialist appointment for [Y];
(b)Both parents be restrained from changing the general medical practice for the child except in the case of emergencies;
(c)Both parents be involved in or at least invited to any meeting at the child’s school relating to the special educational needs of the child;
(d)Neither party be permitted to bring to any appointment any third party or allow any third party to discuss with the school or any medical specialist, general practitioner or other treating practitioner for [Y], [Y]’s health or educational requirements;
(e)Both parties be required to carry out the Directions of the treating medical practitioner and / or the educational authority for the child as to the treatment or educational requirement for the child;
(f)Each party to consult with the other in relation to the choice of medical specialist or specialists or other treating entity such as occupational therapist or speech therapist and where the parties are unable to agree, the decision be made by the Mother;
Both parties to give all records, consents and authorities to the medical entities and educational authorities relating to the care/education of [Y] to enable such to provide information and documents to each party.
Both parties be able to attend any school event to which parents are normally invited to attend.
Both parties be restrained from providing to any medical or educational entity or authority involved in the treatment/education of [Y] of any medical report, document related to proceedings in the Federal Magistrate's Court, or document provided by the child without the consent of the other party.
Each parent shall notify the other forthwith of any medical emergency concerning either of the children.
Each parent do all acts and things to ensure that the children remain enrolled at and attend their respective schools and that each parent shall have authority to obtain from The Principal of that school such information regarding that child’s activities and progress (including information concerning events to which parents are ordinarily invited) and each parent shall have liberty to obtain such information from the said schools as that parent may reasonable request.
Each parent ensure that [Y] attends such weekend sporting, cultural or social activities of which he or she shall have been informed, such notice to be received as soon as practicable prior to the activity to which [Y] is committed.
Each parent maintain an address and telephone contact number notified to the other and each parent give the other at least seven days notice of any change of residential address and 24 hours notice of any change of telephone contact number being effected.
Each parent notify the other within 7 days of the details of the full name and date of birth of any person taking up ordinary residence in the same household as [Y].
Each party give the other at least 28 days notice in writing in the event that that party proposes to relocate his or her residence more than
20 km from Newcastle Post Office.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
The existing arrangements for [Y] continue until the commencement of the Term 2 NSW school holidays, 2009.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
The applicant and the respondent contribute $3500.00 each to the cost of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and credit be given for the father’s earlier contribution.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Sargent & Amero is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
NCC 3588 of 2007
| MR SARGENT |
Applicant
And
| MS AMERO |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
Despite having separated in mid 2000 the parents of [Y] (aged 13) have been unable to agree on what parenting arrangements are in his best interests.
For much of the post separation period the parties, consensually, agreed on arrangements for both [Y] and his older brother [X] (now aged 17), the last orders being made on 25 January 2006. Those orders provided essentially for the children to live with their mother and spend time with their father 5 nights a fortnight (during school terms) and a share of school holidays. The father asserts that the children were spending more time with him than those orders prescribe.
Much of the hearing was devoted to an examination of medical treatment and diagnosis of [Y] said to have “high grade autistic spectrum” additional to his earlier diagnosed (and accepted) challenge of motor dyspraxia disorder. As these reasons demonstrate, this issue and the quest for some diagnostic vindication by both parents seems to have lead to an increase in hostilities and mistrust between the parents and was the clear catalyst for the father’s application for residence filed 3 December 2007.
A sad and unforeseen consequence of these heightened tensions between the parties is that they have contributed to an estrangement in the relationship between the father and [X] – such that by trial, and with obvious regret, the father no longer seeks defined orders in respect of [X].
Competing proposals
With this contextual background the competing proposals at the conclusion of the hearing on 2 March 2009 can be summarised as follows:
Father: The father seeks that [Y] live with him and spend time with the mother during school terms on each alternate weekend from after school Friday to before school Monday and half of all school holidays. Whilst the father seeks a range of specific issues orders, he proposes the parties have equal shared parental responsibility and that “both parents be restrained from arranging medical appointments (with a GP or specialist) or other therapeutic intervention for [Y] without prior notice to the other parent.”
Mother: The mother’s response filed 27 February 2008 seeks the father’s application be dismissed. This essentially means that the current regime where [Y] spends time with his father each alternate weekend from after school Thursday until before school Monday and the Thursday overnight in the off week will continue. The parties agree [Y] should spend half of each school holidays with each parent. The mother does not seek to disrupt the presumption of sharing equal parental responsibility.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”): The ICL proposed that the actual time the father spends with [Y] remain unaltered, but helpfully after hearing submissions prepared a detailed order for a process for what was described as “medical and quasi-medical decision making”. I attach to these reasons a copy of the minute of order sought by the ICL which became exhibit 14.
Parenting approach
In making a parenting order, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration (s.60CA). Overarching that are several stated objects and underlying principles. These include ensuring a child has the benefit of both parents having a meaningful relationship in their life. In this case each of the parties say that they ought share equal parental responsibility, which then obliges the court to consider whether it is in the best interests of a child to spend equal time with each parent or if not, then spend substantial and significant time and whether in both instances it would be reasonably practicable to do so.
Importantly, as all roads inevitably lead to the paramount consideration of “best interests”, that is determined by reference to “primary considerations” and “additional considerations” (s.60CC (2) and (3)).
Before I make some findings about the mandated considerations (as are relevant) I choose to deal with some factual issues.
Family report
As a consequence of an order made 22 July 2008 Dr Todd Jacobson (an experienced psychologist) was retained to provide a family report.
Dr Jacobson conducted interviews on 19 September 2008 and his report dated 27 October 2008 was in evidence. Dr Jacobson was the subject of cross examination, his initial unavailability requiring the trial to be adjourned.
As I further note below, Dr Jacobson was invited in a very detailed cross examination by the father’s counsel to seek to interpret and assess the various medical notes and opinions. He made it clear that, for example, the management aspects of [Y]’s Motor Dyspraxia was not “his area”. Had the father seriously wished to advance an argument based on the medical evidence a proper testing of that evidence by cross examination of the authors of various reports and notes would have been expected.
Although Dr Jacobson conceded that the mother may not have been totally frank (when she said she was single) and was perhaps more “complex” (but not “fragile”) as a result of her history than she presented, nonetheless on balance he did not support a change of residence for [Y] for 3 main reasons:
a)It is contrary to the child’s precise wishes;
b)The child needs stability;
c)A change would cause a disruption to the major relationship with his mother and his brother [X].
Dr Jacobson acknowledged that his evaluation and recommendation to not alter the current regime significantly is inconsistent with the precise wishes expressed and recorded at paragraph 68 of his report, namely:
“[Y] said he would like to spend time with his father from the conclusion of school Wednesday until the commencement of school Monday morning as well as during intervening weeks from the conclusion of school Thursday until the commencement of school Friday morning”
Although the father pressed for a change of residence he was happy to at least adopt the child’s wishes that [Y] wanted more time with him than he currently enjoys.
Dr Jacobson opines at paragraph 89 that: -
“The writer is inclined to conclude that the crux of the current dispute does not relate to the boys per se. Instead the writer is inclined to conclude that the crux of the current dispute relates to Mr Sargent and Ms Amero’s relationship and problems they each other have with themselves that contributes to the problems they have with each other. That is, Ms Amero appears to have significant unresolved resentment towards Mr Sargent stemming from events surrounding the final separation. Mr Sargent appears to have an intense need to be in control, resulting in him being stubborn, if not overbearing, and head strong in pursuit of his desires.”
On the whole of the evidence, including my assessment of the parties giving evidence, I would agree with this observation. As the material also reflects, the mother and father have had significant conflict over child support issues.
Despite the parents focus on the deficits of the other (and the irritation which the father’s wife exhibits with the mother), [Y] and [X] presented as “two polite and well behaved boys” who appear “to have a good, if not excellent, relationship with each of the parents”, according to the report writer. This summary (at paragraph 88) in respect of [X]’s relationship with his father appears to suggest the current difficulties are more temporary than permanent. The fact that the father and his son “embraced” at the end of the interviews seems to bear this out – and suggests that [X] has taken a protective role in respect of his mother to some extent.
I entirely agree with Dr Jacobson that these children have been exposed to their parent’s conflict and that both parents could have done more to shield them. [Y]’s remarks (recorded at paragraph 65) that the mother has said some things about the father and Ms S which are not complimentary, but I accept that is not to say the father and his wife are not negative about the mother. The case the father chose to advance was almost entirely negative about the mother – reaching its highest point when both the father and Ms S acknowledged in cross examination that the mother has distorted facts and a history relied upon by treating health professionals “to ensure the child was medicated” (Ms S). The father’s reference to his belief that the mother has “Munschausens by proxy”, and has an undiagnosed mental illness, like bipolar, were comments in the same ilk.
It is apparent from all the material that the events of late 2007 fuelled the parent’s focus on the other. Despite the rigorous cross examination by Mr Boyd for the father, clearly on express instructions, the report writer was unmoved in this recommendation that [Y] reside permanently with the mother. I give the report writers views some significant weight.
[Y]’s medical history
The parties will be disappointed by my decision not to spend significant time in these reasons on the dispute which lay, to a large degree, at the source of the father’s decision to seek – less than 2 years after final orders – residence of [Y] and [X]. I have chosen this path for the following reasons: -
a)The evidence, although voluminous, was not tested as no author of a report was called as a witness. As a result the best I can do, as all the parties can now also undertake, is merely read the history.
b)I have formed the view that although the mother at times could have been more open and accommodating in keeping the father informed about the various levels of medical opinions and treatment, she has not put the child’s treatment at risk – following advice she received from time to time.
c)The father seems to have been supported in his concerns by the opinion of his wife, an experienced nurse, who in turn appears at times to have received from a member of her family some medical opinions.
d)The evidence makes clear the father’s opposition to the use of Rispendal. However by November 2007 letters written and prepared by Ms S to Dr M and Dr R (see Exhibit 11) show an anxious engagement with health professionals. This correspondence preceded the initiation of proceedings.
It would be apparent to all the parties and sensible logic dictates, that any health professional seeking to diagnose a child with behavioural issues, needs to take and rely upon a history of behaviour. The mother as the primary carer for [Y] since 1999 was in the best position to provide that history however the father would also have had a perspective from how the child behaves in his home, and clearly it would have been better for all the diagnostic events (and resultant treatment/medication) to have been shaped by both inputs.
Furthermore it is likely if both parents had a fair opportunity to hear and be heard by the expert independent health professionals that they would both be more confident to following the treatment regime prescribed. Clearly consistence in approach across both households is vital for [Y]. That has not occurred in the past – not because either of these parents did not want the best for [Y] – but rather that they came to their position with entirely different levels of information.
The diagnosis and treatment for [Y] appears to now be best set out, in the opinion of Dr B, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 17 June 2008 (Annexure “K”) who identifies the complicating issue of these proceedings and parental conflict.
Importantly Dr B opines, and both parents seem to now accept that [Y]’s prognosis is good and that he should adopt the recommendations for management including: -
i)As [Y] is not psychotic and his behaviour related to his PDD (Pervasive Development Disorder) is not overly disruptive, ceasing Risperdal is appropriate now he is older. Both parents agree with this.
ii)Ongoing non pharmacological intervention for example his school aide, is important. Integration support funding is recommended to continue into High School.
iii)Psychostimulants may be of help with his attention problems.
Dr B also noted, and on all the evidence I agree, that:-
“The main issue which will help [Y] is resolution of parental discord and ongoing conflict.”
Counsel for the ICL Mr Levick carefully prepared a minute of order which specifically deals with the type of issues that have caused the recent eruption in the parental relationship in part. The mother agreed with the form of order at paragraphs 3-6.
Father’s relationship with [X]
It has been a matter than genuinely upsets the father that his relationship with [X] has at least changed since an acrimonious telephone call between mother and Ms S on 28 August 2008. No useful purpose is served in dissecting what happened – although all the adults could have acted better. The mother’s insistence, having returned apparently sick from a work conference, of regaining the care of [Y] was provocative and unnecessary. The reaction of the father and Ms S was inappropriate and the involvement by the mother of [X] has proved damaging.
[X], at his age, has the maturity to seek some sanctuary from the parental conflict. His loyalty, after years in his mother’s care is both understandable and deep.
However his own words to Dr Jacobson (recorded at paragraphs 78 and 79) distil the essence of his position – namely that when everything settles down he will seek out time with his father and that for both he and his younger sibling he “was happy with the way things were”. Clearly it is in [X]’s best interests that his relationship with his father be repaired, however I sense the father is patiently committed to do so.
Credit
Although I was invited by counsel to make a general finding of credit I do not propose to do so. I am satisfied from their own perspective the father and mother tried their best to recall the details of the history accurately. Considering the long period since separation and the ongoing conflict (resulting now in a total of 3 orders of the court) not to mention the protracted child support dispute, one might have thought that they have had enough of conflict.
That conflict, and their own innate personality, reveals little insight into their own contributions to the ongoing conflict – and an almost clear and unintercepted focus on the other parent who they blame for the tension.
Where I have preferred one version of facts from the other, the finding of fact makes it clear which parent’s recollection I have preferred.
Primary considerations
Neither parent disputes the benefit [Y] derives from having a meaningful relationship with both of them. That Dr Jacobson assesses such relationships presently exists, speaks volumes about the support each has generally offered the child in developing and maintaining that relationship. Certainly the last 2 years or so have been troubled, but the relationships with [Y] remain intact.
Although the father suggested the mother’s past depressive condition may present a risk (or at least a vulnerability) he did not satisfy me that such a risk exists. The mother maintains responsible employment and has been the primary carer of their 2 boys since 1999. Her fairly consistent parenting performance and the whole of the evidence does not suggest she fits the description of her advanced by the father as “erratic mood swings, chronic disaffection with her life and relationships not just to me but with everybody, work, family, and friends”.
The conflict is exacerbated by the father’s need to have, if not a controlling influence, then at least a strong and rigid application of his beliefs and principles. He has very strong personality traits, and as a personal trainer exudes positive confidence and goal setting. He at times, as demonstrated by his remarks to [Y] about his weight fails to see the boundaries that are appropriate.
At this point of their life the mother and father are not compatible but still know which buttons to push to provoke the other. Their innate competitiveness and resultant conflict presents as the greatest risk of psychological harm to [Y] – a boy with some special needs who deserves greater effort by both parents to modify the excesses of their adult behaviour and thus provide a consistent modelling to him.
Additional considerations
Wishes
Because of the manner in which [Y] has become aware of this heightened conflict between his parents, coupled with the discussions the father at least has had with him all shaped by his vulnerability, it is proper to treat [Y]’s expressed wishes with a degree of caution.
Certainly Dr Jacobson who unlike myself had the advantage of seeing [Y] and interpreting his recorded wishes with the subtle nuances of tone and body language, was conscious of departing from [Y]’s precise proposal of Wednesday to Monday one week and overnight Thursday the following week, when he recommended maintenance of the Thursday to Monday regime.
Of course the father made it clear that he was pursuing the chance of residence not merely 6 nights. If he had discussed the “positives” of a change of residence with [Y] (as I believe he did) then [Y]’s comments to Dr Jacobson rejects the father’s proposal. The mother says that [Y] has little concept of time – and the difference between the current
5 nights a fortnight and his proposal of 6 nights.
Although I certainly do not ignore the wishes expressed for the reasons given they cannot be given determinative weight.
Relationships
During the course of these reasons I have identified the 2 most important relationships for [Y] as his mother and father, closely followed on the evidence by his sibling relationship with [X]. [Y] has also developed a warm relationship with Ms S who I am satisfied cares deeply for [Y]. Her relationship however is of a different nature and not as strong as [Y]’s bond with his mother. I do not ignore the fact that [X] is at a quite different developmental stage than [Y] but these boys have shared the same journey and even [X]’s natural teenage pursuits will not mean he cares for his little brother less. The maintenance of opportunities for [Y] to interact with [X] as likely to be much greater in the mother’s household and this factor identified by the report writer favours the mother’s proposal.
Likely effect of change
I have formed the view that a significant change for [Y] as would occur with a change of residence to the father, has less advantages than disadvantages.
Certainly the father is a strong and effective male role model. He has played that role since separation and it has helped to define [Y]. Whilst on one hand more time in the father’s home is an advantage, the countervailing disadvantage is the disruption of the status quo in the mother’s household. I have already mentioned the greater opportunity for interaction with [X] in the mother’s household.
The father has shown a commitment to after school supervision and the mother has benefited from this support – but clearly [Y] has also enjoyed these opportunities. It is a curious aspect of this case, that even with this litigation, the parents seem to have accommodated this extra time.
Mr Boyd for the father reflecting in his submissions on the timing of the change of residence asserted that a change now is better than a forced change in 2 or 3 years time. On the evidence in this case I do not see what circumstances exist that are likely to force a change – unless the father’s position is to try and chip away at a situation he does not agree with.
In my view, although an extra night from one perspective (other than perhaps child support calculations) is defensible the routine established by the orders of January 2006 have worked well until the events surrounding [Y]’s use of Risperdol arose. The father in his own evidence acknowledged that to be the case. This factor overall in my view favours the mother’s proposal.
Capacity and attitude of parents
In recent times the mother’s work schedule has meant her availability after school is reduced. The father, to his credit, has provided assistance but I do not see this as a major factor – rather a light at the end of a long tunnel which shows the capacity at times for these parents to cooperate.
The ineffective communication between the parties is troublesome but both parents need to take some responsibility for contributing to this situation. Dr Jacobson recommends the use of a communication book and attendance at some personal therapeutic support.
The mother points to the failure of the father to pay adequate levels of child support. The father’s defence of his position was unconvincing. I have no doubt that when [Y] is in his care his needs are met; however like many couples disputes over the levels of child support are just another forum for these parents to engage conflictually.
On the evidence the mother has found it harder to disguise her negative feelings and views about the father and Ms S, however the allegation that this is designed to alienate [Y] is not made out. The reactions of [X] to the events of August 2008 do not support the father’s belief of alienation at the hands of the mother. I agree however that the mother’s functioning would be assisted with her maintaining some personal counselling.
Ms S is, not surprisingly, loyal to her husband and convinced herself that her intervention into the foray (the letters to Doctors of November 2007 are telling) was justified. Although she denies any real influence on [Y] in penning in the father’s home the letter to the mother about taking his medication, on balance someone in the fathers household played a part in its formation.
Perhaps overly optimistically on my part I assess the parents and Ms S are capable of learning from the hard and painful experiences this litigation has delivered. Individually each of these adults have unique skills and abilities which can enrich [Y]’s development. If however he is required to chose who loves him more and discard the others he will be the loser. If these people are able to focus on [Y]’s best interests post this litigation then the areas of disputes should be very narrow.
Family violence
Verbal jousts between these parents in the sight and hearing of these children have occurred and do neither of the parties credit. After nearly 10 years since separation the boys are entitled to expect that any interaction between the households will be civil, if not cordial. These are all intelligent adults capable of achieving this for [Y] at least.
Making an order least likely to lead to further proceedings
As already noted if the father seeks to disrupt the order the court now makes then I could not be satisfied that further proceedings will not ensue. However it seems to me that the real catalyst for the commencement of these proceedings were:
· The concerns about the medication and lack of consultation about medical issues; and
· The father’s desire to spend more time with [Y].
As events have unfolded the application of the principles in Rice & Asplund might have been argued earlier in this litigation. Certainly, the institution of proceedings in the future will need to overcome that hurdle – namely that some significant and material change of circumstances has occurred.
Failure to fulfil responsibilities as parents (s.60CC(4))
I adopt my earlier findings but add that my view is that the mother should have been far more consultative with the father about his medical treatment. The use of the medication was a decision with some potential long term effect. The orders I will now make will better prescribe what is expected. I agree, as the mother will maintain, the primary care role that in the event of a stalemate, her decision should prevail – but only after extensive consultation has occurred.
Conclusion
The inability of the parties to communicate effectively mitigates against an equal time regime, however the maintenance of the current regime, in accordance with the minute of order proposed by the ICL amounts to substantial and significant time (as defined by the Act) and is, in my view in [Y]’s best interests at this time.
He is comfortable with that regime, it has worked well since it was put in place in 2007, and changing it by even one extra day might put at risk the balance that has nurtured him recently.
I propose to make an order in accordance with the draft submitted by the ICL noting that no specific provision is made for Christmas Day, Mothers Day and Fathers Day (as provided for in the current order). I am content to include those same provisions in this order if the parties agree.
It is not clear whether the parties agree to incorporate orders for facilitating changeovers, as well as orders 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the former orders. Also the father’s form of order proposes orders 9, 15, 16, and 17 upon which I have heard no specific submissions.
I require the parties to confer about these incidental orders and if they cannot agree on the additions to the order proposed by the ICL then I shall determine those disputes at 9:30am Tuesday 30 June in Newcastle when the matter shall be listed for the pronouncement of orders consistent with these reasons.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Baumann FM
Associate: J. Malouf
Date: 18 June 2009
0
0
1