Scafidi and Repatriation Commission
[2001] AATA 76
•7 February 2001
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 76
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N1999/1664
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re Joseph SCAFIDI
Applicant
And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr J D Campbell
Date7 February 2001
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution thereof a finding that the Applicant is entitled to a disability pension at the special rate with date of effect being 4 May 1995.
[Sgd] Dr J D Campbell
Member
CATCHWORDS
Veterans' Entitlements - accepted disabilities - assessment - special rate - issue of "alone" - substantial cover.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
Moorcroft v Repatriation Commission (1999) FCA 862
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 58 ALD 394
Repatriation Commission v Sheehy (1995) 39 ALD 286
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
REASONS FOR DECISION
February 2001 Dr J D Campbell
Mr Joseph Scafidi ("the Applicant") in this matter seeks a review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") dated 4 September 1995 in which the Applicant's claim for an increase in disability pension was refused. The issue was subject to a further review by the Veterans' Review Board, which in its decision dated 9 August 1999 affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission.
A hearing was held before the Tribunal on 28 August 2000 at which the Applicant was represented by Mr Hill of Counsel. The Respondent was represented by Mr Godwin, an advocate from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Applicant presented oral evidence to the Tribunal.
The following material was placed into evidence before the Tribunal:
Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T14, pp1-54)
Additional "T documents" (pp23A-R)
Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 5 June 2000 (Exhibit A1)
Medical Report of Dr Burns dated 10 April 2000 (Exhibit R1)
Veterans' Review Board Hearing – Transcript (Exhibit R2)
Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 11 August 2000 (Exhibit R3)
Issues
The relevant issues before the Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Applicant's disabilities have been correctly assessed; and
(b)whether the Applicant is entitled to an earnings related rate of pension, either at the intermediate or special rate.
Legislation
The relevant legislation in this matter is the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act") and in particular ss23, 24, and 120(4).
BACKGROUNDOn 6 January 1995 a delegate of the Respondent accepted the following conditions of the Applicant as war caused disabilities:
(a) post traumatic stress disorder;
(b) bilateral sensorineural hearing loss;
(c) bilateral tinnitus; and
(d) chronic airflow limitation;
With the condition of prostatitis accepted as a war caused disability at some unknown earlier date, the delegate assessed and granted the Applicant a disability pension at 100% of the General Rate with date of effect being 4 July 1994 (T3).
An application for an increase in disability pension was made by the Applicant on 2 May 1995 and reviewed by the Respondent on 21 May 1995 (T5). On 4 September 1995 the Respondent refused the application for an increase in disability pension and decided that the disability pension be continued to be paid at 100% of the General Rate (T2). This decision was subject to a review by the Veterans' Review Board ("the VRB") and in a decision dated 9 August 1999 the VRB affirmed the earlier decision (T13).
Applicant's evidenceThe Applicant told the Tribunal that he was born on 6 June 1945 and that prior to his commencement of National Service in 1965 he worked as a sewing machine mechanic for Singer. During his two years of military service the Applicant served as infantryman with 5RAR in South Vietnam for a period close to 13 months. On his discharge from the Army in 1967 the Applicant returned to his employment with Singer in June 1967 but parted company with this employer on grounds of his drinking and absences from work. The Applicant stated that he had a number of similar jobs, but did not stay with one employer for any lengthy period during the period 1968 to 1971.
The Applicant stated that he married in 1971 and commenced working as a labourer with Lysaghts in 1972/73 and later as a quality control officer for two particular machines. Two children were born, one in 1971 and one in 1974. The Applicant stated that his wife left in 1978 because of increasing difficulties and that with some time off and his foreman being a mate, he was able to continue working, with his mother and father looking after the children. In 1979/80 he found that he was having difficulty in concentrating at work and that he was experiencing nightmares. In 1980, he left work on the advice of his foreman and went on to a supporting parent's pension.
10. The Applicant stated that he stayed on the supporting parent's pension until 1985/86 when, with the children being aged 15 and 12, he felt he had to do something. He applied for a job at Lysaghts, but decided against taking a job there because he did not feel he would be able to cope with the large number of Asians working there. He did however secure employment with MTL at Ingleburn, where he commenced work on a day shift as a leading hand in the reinforcement section and safety officer. After a particular incident involving a concrete mishap, the Applicant stated that following heated words with his boss he was demoted to the position of labourer. Later he was transferred to the afternoon shift and, following a run-in with the leading hand, he was sacked with a week's notice in lieu, having been given an opportunity to apologise, which he did not.
11. After his dismissal, he reverted to parenting support payments before he applied for and was granted unemployment benefits, with the need to detail his job search activities every few weeks to Social Security. These involved visiting factories in the Campbelltown/Liverpool area to see if any work was available, visiting the Commonwealth Employment Service, talking to friends and screening the papers, for at this stage he needed the money with his two children being in years 9 and 10.
12. On 10 September 1994 the Applicant said he moved from Minto to Morisset to live with his parents as his father had been experiencing a number of strokes from 1992 onwards. As a result his father had diminishing mobility until he died in 1995. The Applicant also indicated that his mother had been admitted to a nursing home in January 2000.
13. The Applicant stated that in 1994 he met an old school friend, who was also a Vietnam Veteran and he was referred to the Vietnam Veterans' Association for advice and assistance. In 1994 the Applicant stated that he was granted a disability support pension and in 1995 a service pension, because the Department of Veterans' Affairs told him he was permanently unemployable. The Applicant also stated that when he moved to Morisset he looked around Morisset, Cardiff and Wyong for work but there was not much available, and if offered a job he probably would have taken it. The Applicant maintained that he is still looking for work as a labourer or in bar work, because he still feels he has to do something.
Medical evidence
14. In late 1994 the Applicant's general practitioner stated that the veteran suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and restricted respiratory function (T7, P23). On 29 November 1994, Dr Subhas, a consultant psychiatrist, reported to the Respondent that as a consequence of his examination of the veteran on 15 October 1994, the Applicant has residual features of post traumatic stress disorder, and that he should be considered for an appropriate disability pension (T23R).
Dr Pohlen
15. In a report dated 2 February 1996, Dr Pohlen, a consultant psychiatrist and the Applicant's treating psychiatrist, stated the following opinions:"…
The evidence that has been made available to me indicates that Mr Scafidi continues to suffer from a combat induced war-caused chronic post traumatic stress disorder with wide ranging co-morbid emotional and behavioural sequelae.
…
The level and frequency of his disabling emotional and behavioural symptoms has caused him major difficulties in his everyday functioning. These difficulties have resulted in his loss of contact with medical practitioners since the early 1970's, his loss of marriage in 1978 and his loss of his capacity for work in 1987. He has demonstrated no capacity during his period of evaluation with me for undertaking any further sustainable remunerative work for which he might have been suited by reason of education, training or experience.
…" (T11, p39)
16. In a further report dated 23 March 1999, Dr Pohlen concluded:
"…
No evidence has arisen since my last report of 2nd February 1996 that Mr Scafidi is not other than totally and permanently unfit for further remunerative work. I do not see him likely to be able to undertake even eight hours of work in one week at any time in the future in the light of his now very lengthily established background of total and permanent unemployment.".
…". (T11, p43).
Dr Baz
17. In a report dated 19 April 1999, Dr Baz, a consultant occupational physician made the following comments:-
"…
In my opinion Mr Scafidi tends to understate his limitations which only become apparent with more detailed history and observation. Dr Pohlen's reports confirm the impression gained that underlying a superficial coping and self reliant personae he actually experiences a high degree of depression and anxiety and has been significantly limited by the psychiatric disorder, and associated alcohol abuse, over many years.
…
In my opinion the post-traumatic stress disorder has caused significant impact on his ability to continue at work. The depression, alcohol abuse and verbal abusiveness he describes would cause him significant difficulty behaving appropriately in the workplace. If he were to attempt to undertake work it is likely he would experience increased anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Other factors which impact on his employability are his limited work experience, his age and the length of time he has spent out of the work force. In previous years his family responsibilities have been a primary factor causing him to be out of the work force.
In my opinion his work fitness since 1995 has been restricted by the post-traumatic stress disorder and to a lesser extent the chronic airflow limitation and hearing loss. Although at this review Mr Scafidi focussed on family responsibilities, his age and limited work experience as leading to his unemployment, I consider his general presentation together with the information provided by Dr Pohlen indicates that the substantial reason he has been unemployed from 1995 is the post-traumatic stress disorder.
I consider the clinical information available indicates this has a significant impact on his motivation to undertake activities and his ability to interact appropriately with other people. He also has significant limitations to his mobility, with distress experiences on public transport and driving in traffic. This would further impact on his work fitness, causing significant interference with his ability to seek alternative work, attend for job interviews and, if offered work, attend the work place regularly.
…" (T11, pp34-36).
18. Dr Baz, as a result of her considerations came to the following conclusion:-
"…
In my opinion Mr Scafidi is unfit for work of 8 or more hours duration weekly.
In my opinion these accepted disabilities by themselves are such as to preclude him from working in occupations to which he is suited by virtue of his skills, qualifications and experience for 8 or more hours weekly.
While Mr Scafidi can be expected to have limited work opportunities due to his age, limited work skills and length of time out of the work force, I do not consider that these factors would necessarily preclude him from work, while the post-traumatic stress disorder does so.
In my opinion the accepted disabilities are the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work."
(T11, p36).
Dr Burns:
19. In a report dated 10 April 2000, Dr Burns, a consultant occupational physician, concluded:
"…
Mr Scafidi has a very narrow range of transferable skills. He has previously worked as a sewing machine mechanic and also in the steel area. Sewing machines are now computerised and he has no experience in this area. Because of his medical problems, especially his chronic airways limitation, he would be unable to return to work of a physical nature. At the same time his post traumatic stress disorder would stop him from being adequately retrained or rehabilitated.
I believe it is highly unlikely that with the mixture of his post traumatic stress disorder and his chronic airflow limitation that Mr Scafidi will every be able to return to work of more than eight hours per week. I note that he applied for work between 1987 and 1994 and I believe that the substantial reason he was unable to obtain work was due to his accepted medical complaints. I note that he does not have any significant musculoskeletal problems which would have made him unable to work during that time or now.
In conclusion, I believe that the substantial reason he would be incapable of working even eight hours per week at the current time would be his accepted disabilities of post traumatic stress disorder and chronic airways limitation." (Exhibit R2).
Submissions
Applicant
20. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons related to his incapacity from his war caused injuries alone; that thereafter the Applicant had been genuinely seeking to engage in paid work; that the Applicant's war caused incapacity is the substantial cause of the Applicant's incapacity to obtain paid work and that his war caused incapacity alone prevents him from continuing to seek to engage in paid work.
Respondent
21. The Respondent contends that during the assessment period the Applicant was not prevented from continuing to engage in remunerative employment by war caused injury or disease alone, as other factors, including length of time out of the work force, lack of qualifications and lack of employment opportunities in area of residence, existed which generate the contention that the Applicant does not satisfy ss24(2)(a) of the Act, and is not to be taken to be suffering a loss of earnings.
22. The Respondent also contends that the Applicant was not genuinely seeking work, nor was he prevented from seeking work by any of his war caused disabilities. Moreover, the Respondent contended that the Applicant had opted not to rejoin the workforce citing considerable absence from the workforce, lack of qualifications, lack of employment opportunities, accommodation with parents, service pension and unemployment benefits as being the substantial cause for his unemployment. As such the Respondent contends that the Applicant does not satisfy ss24(2)(b) of the Act.
Consideration and findings
23. In this matter, the Tribunal observes that the Applicant lodged his claim for an increase in disability pension with the Respondent on 4 May 1995. Further it is noted that at this time the Applicant was unemployed, had been granted a service pension, had accepted as war-caused disabilities, prostatis, post traumatic stress disorder, bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus and chronic airflow limitation and had been granted a disability pension at 100% of the General Rate. The Tribunal further observes that this state of affairs continued throughout the assessment period.
24. The Tribunal further notes the Applicant's history and nature of employment and that his last employment with MTL was terminated by the company as a consequence of workplace difficulties associated with the Applicant in 1986. Since this time the Applicant has not worked, although being obliged to satisfy the work search requirements for payment of unemployment benefits up to 1994 when he was granted a disability support pension prior to being granted a service pension in 1995. By this time the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has moved from Minto to Morisset to care for his aged parents, including a father who was becoming progressively disabled from a series of minor strokes.
25. The Tribunal also notes the medical evidence provided in this matter and indeed comments as to the congruence of the various medical opinions. As a consequence of considering the Applicant's evidence and the various medical opinions, the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact:
(a)the Applicant's war caused disability of post traumatic stress disorder has been in evidence in both the Applicant's family, social and employment circumstance since the early 1970s;
(b)that as a consequence of the war caused disability of post traumatic stress disorder, the Applicant experienced particular difficulties in his post service employment and that his work experiences and qualifications were limited as a result of a period of only six months' effective work in the fifteen years prior to the application under consideration;
(c)that the Applicant's war caused disability of post traumatic stress disorder resulted in the Applicant's loss of his job with MTL in 1986 and his loss of capacity for work thereafter (Dr Pohlen);
(d)that the Applicant's war caused disabilities of post traumatic stress disorder, chronic airflow limitation, and bilateral deafness did affect the Applicant's capacity to undertake any sustainable remunerative work for which he may have been suited by reason of training, education or experience, and that this has continued through the assessment period (Drs Pohlen, Baz, Burns);
(e)that the Applicant, by virtue of his war caused disabilities is unfit for work of eight or more hours duration weekly (Drs Pohlen, Baz, Burns);
(f)that the Applicant's war caused disabilities by themselves are such as to prevent the Applicant from working in occupations to which he is suited by virtue of his skills, qualifications and experience for more than eight hours per week (Drs Pohlen, Baz, Burns); and
(g)that while the Applicant's age, limited work skills and experiences, domestic situation and length of time out of the work force may well limit the Applicant's opportunity for employment, they certainly do not preclude him from undertaking remunerative work, whereas his war-caused disabilities do so preclude (Drs Pohlen, Baz, Burns).
26. The Tribunal in further consideration notes the following statutory framework, against which the Tribunal's findings of fact are to be adjudged:
"24 Special rate of pension
(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa)the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab)the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a) either:
(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
(ii)the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving or entitled to receive a pension at the general rate; and
(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and
(d) section 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a)a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i)the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; or
(ii)the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(b)where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking."
27. In further consideration the Tribunal observes that a determination is in existence which determines the Applicant's disability pension at 100% of the General Rate and that this determination has not been raised as an issue by either party before the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal, in acknowledging that determination, finds that the Applicant satisfies ss24(1)(a) of the Act in that the Applicant's degree of incapacity from war caused disabilities is at least 70%.
28. In considering issues surrounding ss24(1)(b) the Tribunal has already found that the Applicant's incapacity from his war caused disabilities alone prevent him from undertaking remunerative work for periods of more than eight hours per week, with all the medical opinions having been congruent on this issue. As a consequence the Tribunal finds that ss24(1)(b) is satisfied.
29. In turning to the issues contained within sections 24(1)(c), the Tribunal notes that when considering whether there are reasons other than war related disabilities preventing the veteran from working, the Tribunal, as Nicholson J stated in Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 58 ALD 394 , considers the issue in the following manner:
"…any factor having employment consequences which played a part in the applicant's inability to work or to obtain and hold remunerative employment, is sufficient to displace the applicant's case for pension at the special rate.
…"
The Tribunal also notes the opinion of Dowsett J in Moorcroft v RepatriationCommission (1999) FCA 862 where he concludes that the task defined within ss24(2)(c) is to examine "the extent of the war-caused conditions to ascertain whether it is actually preventing the veteran from working in his previous employment". Further as noted by Sackville J in Repatriation Commission v Sheehy (1995) 39 ALD 286, the veteran must have been undertaking remunerative work and that the veteran must be prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work.
30. The Tribunal, in considering the approach to be adopted also notes the statement of Burchett J in Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534:
". . . to make a practical decision whether the veteran's loss of remunerative work is attributable to his service-related incapacities and not to something else as well. It is a decision that should not be made upon nice philosophical distinctions but with an eye to reality, and as a matter in respect of which common sense is the proper guide."
31. Earlier in this decision, the Tribunal made particular findings of fact, namely that the Applicant's loss of remunerative employment in 1986 and his loss of capacity for work thereafter was occasioned by his war caused disability of post traumatic stress disorder. In coming to such a finding the Tribunal relied upon the opinion of his treating psychiatrist, Dr Pohlen. Further the Tribunal found that the Applicant's war caused disabilities did affect the Applicant's capacity to undertake any sustainable remunerative work for which he may have been suited by reason of training education or experience. In so finding the Tribunal relied upon the opinions of Drs Pohlen, Baz and Burns.
32. The Tribunal further notes that the Applicant remained unemployed prior to his receipt of his disability support pension in 1994 and his service pension in 1995, while at the same time undertaking the necessary job search activity to satisfy the requirements for his unemployment benefits paid up to the time of the granting of disability support pension. In practical terms the Tribunal concludes that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Applicant's evidence that he actually searched for work during the period 1987 to his receipt of his disability support pension must be accepted. Nevertheless the Tribunal notes that it has been argued that the Applicant's inability to work or to obtain and hold remunerative work involved other factors of age, length of time absent from the work force, availability of employment in his local area and personal choice, besides the factor of his war caused disabilities.
33. The Tribunal, in adhering to the views of Burchett J in Cavell (supra), has great difficulty in following the Respondent's submission in relation to the reality in this matter. The medical opinion expressed, and upon which the Tribunal has made particular findings of fact, is that the Applicant has been troubled with his war caused disabilities since the early 1970s and that in 1986/87 the Applicant's loss of remunerative employment and his loss of capacity for work thereafter, which continued through the assessment period, was occasioned by his war caused disabilities, with other factors nominated occurring as a consequence of time and resulting from the inability of the Applicant to have any capacity for work thereafter. In essence the Tribunal finds that, after a particular and deliberate examination of the facts in this matter, the Applicant, by reason of his incapacity from war-caused disabilities alone is prevented from undertaking or continuing to undertake remunerative work and is suffering a loss of salaries, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if the veteran was free of his warcaused incapacity. In summary the Tribunal considers firstly that any other factors raised are a direct consequence of the Applicant's war caused disabilities, and secondly, even if they were not such a creation, in the particular circumstances of this matter, they are considered by the Tribunal not to be relevant factors in why the Applicant is prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work, in that they clearly have no practical involvement in the causation of why the Applicant is prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work.
34. In summary, the Tribunal finds that ss24(1)(c) of the Act has been satisfied.
35. Further, and in response to the issue of the Applicant's long period of unemployment prior to his lodgment of an application on 4 May 1995 for an increase in his disability pension having been raised by the Respondent, the Tribunal notes the criteria by which the Applicant's situation is to be adjudged in ss24(2)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal has already noted the circumstances surrounding the Applicant's cessation of work in 1986/87, and that after a short period of receiving parenting payment the Applicant applied for and was granted unemployment benefits, which were associated with a job search activity requirement for payments to continue. Further the Applicant described to the Tribunal the manner and mechanism adopted by him in his endeavours to find suitable employment during this period and up to the time he was granted a disability support pension and later a service pension. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence, particularly in the light of his war caused disabilities, and finds that the Applicant continued to look for work up to the time of being granted disability support pension and later a service pension, with his endeavours as regards his job searching activities diminishing after granting of such pensions, which also coincided with his change of residence to live with his aging parents in Morisset. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work up to the time of his granting of his disability support pension. The Tribunal finds that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the granting of the disability support pension and the later service pension were associated with the Applicant's war caused disabilities. This is particularly so where no other non war caused disabilities have been nominated in any of the clinical reports. As a consequence the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant would have continued to seek to engage in remunerative work after this time, if it were not for his incapacity arising from his war caused disabilities.
36. In viewing again the various medical opinions in this matter, it is clear to the Tribunal that the opinions of Drs Pohlen, Baz and Burns detail that the incapacity of the Applicant, arising from his war caused disability, is the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work. The Tribunal concurs with these opinions and so finds.
37. As a consequence of the Tribunal's findings, the Tribunal further concludes that the Applicant:
(a)did not cease to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than because of his incapacity arising from his war caused disabilities; and
(b)the Applicant is not incapacitated or prevented from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(c)the Applicant had been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, and that he would, but for his war caused incapacity, be continuing to seek such work; and
(d)the Applicant's incapacity is the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work.
38. In further findings, and as a follow on to the conclusions in the previous paragraph, the Tribunal states that:
(a)the Applicant does not satisfy ss24(2)(a) in that neither ss24(2)(a)(I) or (ii) are satisfied; and
(b)the Applicant does satisfy ss24(2)(b); and
(c)the Applicant, in satisfying the ameliorating provisions contained within ss24(2)(b) of the Act, satisfies ss24(1)(c) of the Act; and
(d)the Applicant therefore satisfies the requirements under section 24 of the Act for payment of a disability pension at the special rate.
Determination
39. The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution thereof a finding that the Applicant is entitled to a disability pension at the special rate with date of effect being 4 May 1995.
I certify that the 39 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of DR J D CAMPBELL
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 28 August 2000
Date of Decision 7 February
Counsel for the Applicant Mr Hill
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr Godwin
0
4
0