Scott & Kent
[2011] FMCAfam 1382
•16 December 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SCOTT & KENT | [2011] FMCAfam 1382 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – interim orders – one child aged 8 years – best interests of the child – parental responsibility – equal shared parental responsibility – whether equal shared parental responsibility appropriate in the circumstances – where communication between the parents is poor – substantial and significant time. FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – interim orders – name of child – change of surname – matters relating to a change of a child’s name are usually the subject of final orders rather than interim orders. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Affidavit – where further affidavit filed after interim hearing without leave – where no application to reopen case – procedural fairness. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.11C, 11F, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 61DB, 65DAA |
| Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) 36 Fam LR 422; FLC 93-286 |
| Applicant: | MS SCOTT |
| Respondent: | MR KENT |
| File Number: | SYC 2313 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 August 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 3 August 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 16 December 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Ms Day |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Anne Day & Associates Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | The Respondent appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | No solicitor on the record |
ORDERS
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
The Applicant Mother is to have sole parental responsibility for the child of the marriage [X] born [in] 2003.
The child [X] is to live with the Mother.
The child [X] is to spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During the school term:
(i)Each Wednesday from after school until the commencement of school on the Thursday morning;
(ii)Each alternate weekend, from after school on the Friday until the commencement of school on the Monday morning, provided that if the Monday is a public holiday, then the Father’s time with the child is to conclude at the commencement of school on the Tuesday morning;
(b)For half of each of the Autumn, Winter and Spring school holiday periods in each year, being the first half in 2012 and each even-numbered year thereafter and the second half in 2013 and each odd-numbered year thereafter;
(c)From 9:00am on 2 January to 5:00pm on Australia Day 26 January 2012 and each year thereafter;
(d)From 9:00am on Christmas Eve until 1:00pm on Christmas Day 2011 and each odd-numbered year thereafter;
(e)From 1:00pm on Christmas Day until 5:00pm on Boxing Day in 2012 and each even-numbered year thereafter;
(f)For the weekend that includes Father’s Day in each year commencing from after school on the Friday until the commencement of school on the following Monday;
(g)From 9:00am to 1:00pm on the child’s birthday if that day should fall on a day when the child would not otherwise be spending time with the Father; and
(h)At such other times if any as the parties shall agree.
The time that the child spends with the Father is to be suspended:
(a)for the weekend that includes Mother’s Day in each year; and
(b)from 1:00pm to 5:00pm on the child’s birthday if that day should fall on a day when the child is otherwise spending time with the Father.
For the purpose of the Father spending time with the child during the school holidays as set out in Orders 3(b) and 3(c) above, the Father is to collect the child from the Mother’s residence or such other place as the Mother may nominate at 9:00am on the first day of his school holiday time with the child and the Mother is to collect the child from the Father’s residence at 6:00pm on the last day of the Father’s time with the child.
For the purpose of the Father spending time with the child as provided by Orders 3(d), 3(e) and 3(g) the father is to collect the child from the Mother’s residence or such other place as the Mother may nominate at the commencement of his time with the child and the Mother is to collect the child from the Father’s residence at the conclusion of the Father’s time with the child.
For the purposes of changeover as provided by Orders (5) and (6) each parent must do all things necessary to ensure that the child is ready promptly to meet the other parent at the time specified.
The child [X] to have telephone communication with the Father at 8:00pm on every night that the child is in the Mother’s care according to these Orders and the mother must do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate the telephone communication.
The child [X] is to have telephone communication with the Mother at 8:00pm on every night that the child is in the Father’s care according to these Orders and the Father must do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate the telephone communication.
Neither party is to denigrate or criticise the other party or members of the other party’s family in the presence of the child [X].
Each party is restrained by injunction from discussing these proceedings with the child [X].
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Scott & Kent is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 2313 of 2009
| MS SCOTT |
Applicant
And
| MR KENT |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an Application for interim parenting orders concerning the parties’ son, [X], who was born [in] 2003.
There are no parenting Orders in force.
The Mother, who is the Applicant, seeks Orders in a Minute of Order filed in Court on the day of the interim hearing that the child should live with her and spend time with his father:
a)on Wednesday night each week;
b)on alternate weekends from Friday afternoon until Sunday at 8:00pm;
c)for a total of four weeks during the school holidays as agreed between the parties;
d)from 10:00am to 8:00pm on Father’s Day each year;
e)at times to be agreed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and, in the absence of agreement, from 12 noon on Christmas Eve until 12 noon on Christmas Day;
f)from 9:00am on Easter Sunday until 8:00pm on Easter Monday if Easter does not fall within the school holidays; and
g)such other times as the parties shall agree.
The Mother seeks orders that the child should spend Mother’s Day with her and from 12 noon on Christmas Day until 8:00pm on Boxing Day with her.
The Mother also seeks orders about telephone communication and collecting and delivering the child at the commencement and conclusion of his time with the Father.
Further orders sought by the Mother would prohibit each party from denigrating the other or discussing these proceedings with the child.
The Father seeks orders in the Amended Response that he filed on 28th July 2011. The first five paragraphs in the schedule of Interim Orders are in the nature of a submission rather than a recital of orders sought. The Father seeks 46 interim parenting orders (6 to 51 inclusive) covering:
a)Equal shared parental responsibility;
b)With whom the child should live;
c)Spending time with other persons;
d)Communication with other persons;
e)Communication with parents;
f)The school at which the child is to attend;
g)The child’s name;
h)Medical matters pertaining to the child;
i)The child’s extra-curricular activities;
j)The parents’ residential addresses and telephone numbers;
k)International travel; and
l)Arrangements for the custody of documents.
Issues
The parties are in dispute about the amount of time that [X] should spend with his father, and the arrangements for collecting him from his mother and returning him to her at the conclusion of his time with his father.
There is no issue about the child living primarily with his mother, but the parties do not agree about whether or not the Court should make an order that they have equal shared parental responsibility for [X].
Areas of Agreement
The parties are not in dispute that [X] should live with his mother and spend time with his father.
The Father told the Court at the interim hearing that he consented to Orders 6 and 7 sought by the mother, which provide that:
a)The parties should not denigrate each other or the other’s family in the presence of the child; and
b)The parties are to be restrained from discussing the court proceedings with the child.
The parties were married [in] 1999. They separated in 2008 and were divorced on 22nd October 2009. The divorce took effect on 23rd November 2009.
There is one child of the marriage, [X], who was born [in] 2003. [X] is 8 years and 9 months old.
[X] attends [O] Primary School at [K], where he is presently in Year 3.
The Mother lives at [K] and the Father lives at [M], both suburbs of Sydney. They have each formed new relationships and the Father has remarried.
The Mother commenced proceedings for property settlement in this Court on 22nd November 2010.
The Father filed a Response on 11th March 2011, in which he sought parenting orders as well as property orders.
On 14th March 2011 the parties were ordered to attend a Conciliation Conference with a Registrar of the Court to deal with the property issues. They were also directed to attend a Child Dispute Conference with a Family Consultant, under the provisions of s.11F of the Family Law Act.
Child Dispute Conference
The parties attended the Child Dispute Conference on 17th March 2011. The conference was reportable under s.11C of the Act.
The Family Consultant Memorandum to the Court shows that the parties discussed the following issues, with little in the way of agreement:
a)Parental responsibility for education issues;
b)The amount of time that [X] should spend with his father;
c)Whether the child should go to another school in Year 5 or remain at his present school until he commences High School in Year 7;
d)The issue of a passport for the child;
e)Whether each of the child’s parents will be permitted to take the child on a holiday overseas;
f)Whether the child’s surname should be changed by adding the Mother’s surname or whether it should remain unchanged; and
g)The child’s involvement in extra-curricular activities.
The Family Consultant identified a number of issues between the parties:
· The Mother alleges that the Father displays “bullying” behaviour through emails.
· The Father alleges that the Mother displays verbally abusive behaviour during phone calls and sometimes at changeover.
· Difficulties in communication between the parents including no set structure regarding methods of communication, withholding information, not responding, feeling abused and/or put down. However, it is noted that the parents have been able to communicate adequately at times regarding school pick-ups and attendance at extra-curricular activities.
· Problematic relationship between the Mother and step-mother.
· Differing perspectives on the value of [X] being more involved with the Father and his circle of family and friends.
· The Father appears to hold the belief that the Mother is overly anxious in her parenting.
· There seems to be a strong element of power struggle underpinning the parents’ disputes, irrespective of implications for [X].[1]
[1] Family Consultant Memorandum to Court 18 March 2011
Evidence
The Father relies on his affidavits of:
a)8th June 2011[2];
b)29th July 2011; and
c)1st August 2011.
[2] There are two affidavits of that date
He also affirmed and filed a further affidavit on 5th August 2011. This affidavit was filed without leave of the Court and apparently without notice to the Mother’s solicitor. This affidavit will not be considered, as it was filed two days after the hearing, which took place on 3rd August. The Father did not seek to reopen his case and it would be a denial of procedural fairness to the Mother to allow the Father to rely on an affidavit that was not in existence at the time of the hearing. The Mother has had no opportunity to make any submission to the Court about the contents of the affidavit.
The Mother relied on an affidavit said to have been sworn on 3rd August 2011 but which has clearly been filed the day before.
In the first of the Father’s two affidavits of 8th June 2011, he expresses the opinion that the relationship between the Mother and himself “had improved during 2010, is currently improving and is likely to improve e further in the future.”[3]
[3] Affidavit of Mr Kent 8.6.2011 at paragraph [10]
The Father deposes that he seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility and he opposes the Mother’s application for sole parental responsibility in matters relating to the child’s education.[4]
[4] Ibid at [14], [15] and [19]
The Father wishes to keep communication between the parties to text messages for urgent decisions and email or text for non-urgent decisions. He does not wish to communicate with the Mother by telephone or by face to face contact.
It is the Father’s view that during the school term the child should live with each parent on a week about basis, changing each Friday.[5] He submits in his affidavit (which contains a lot of material which would be characterised as a submission rather than a statement of the facts relied upon) that he believed that shared care would be workable because the level of conflict between the mother and himself is “very low or low”.[6]
[5] Ibid at [52]
[6] Ibid at [94]
The Father states that he and the Mother agreed that school holidays would be shared equally between them, an arrangement that the Mother “consistently breaks”.[7]
[7] Ibid at [98]-[100]
The question of the child’s schooling is a matter of concern for the Father. In his affidavit he states that the Mother wishes to arrange for [X] to change schools at the beginning of Year 5 and go from his present school to [C] High School at [omitted]. He would then continue on through High School at [C].
The Father does not agree with the Mother’s proposal and wants the child to stay at his present primary school, [O], until he completes Year 6. Once the child is due to go into Year 7, the Father would like him to attend [S] School in Sydney.
The Father opposes the Mother’s proposal to change the child’s surname from “Kent” to “Scott-Kent”.[8]
[8] Affidavit of Mr Kent 8.6.2011 at [149]-[173]
The Father also seeks an order that the parties should not reside more than 100 kilometres from each other.
He sets out in his affidavit details of the disagreements between the Mother and himself about proposals for holidays with the child overseas. He states that his present wife was born in the Philippines and her parents still live there. He wishes to travel to the Philippines with his present wife and [X] from 27th December 2012 to 24th January 2013.
Further, the Father complains that the Mother keeps all documents relating to the child, including his birth certificate, and does not provide him with copies.
I note that the Father stated in his affidavit of 29th July 2011 that he wished to rely on his other affidavit affirmed on 8th June 2011 for the purpose of the interim hearing on parenting matters. I have read that affidavit, which runs to some 78 paragraphs, and it appears to relate solely to the property proceedings. I am not satisfied that it is of relevance to the parenting matters currently under consideration.
The Father’s affidavit of 29th July 2011 relates to his wish to spend time with [X] during school holidays. He wishes to have some certainty about the times when [X] will be with him so that he can make arrangements for leave from his employment.
Again, the Father states:
“It is important to note that the parenting relationship is improving and is likely to further improve in the future.”[9]
[9] Affidavit of Mr Kent 29.7.2011 at paragraph [19]
However, the Father’s affidavit of 1st August 2011 refers to the events of the previous weekend, Friday 29th July to Sunday 31st July, when the child [X] was with the Father for the weekend. The affidavit describes a disagreement between the parties as to whether the child should be returned to the care of his mother at 8:00pm on the Sunday, as the Mother sought, or on the Monday morning, which was the Father’s preference.
The Father deposed that the Mother telephoned his mobile phone at 8:05pm and spoke to [X], who handed the phone to him. The Father did not talk to the Mother but terminated the call.[10]
[10] Affidavit of Mr Kent 1.8.2011 at paragraph [11]
He stated that the Mother then called his home telephone:
“Ms Scott shouted hysterically, swore at me many times, threatened that she will call the police and said that she will turn up with her boyfriend [name omitted] to get [X]. Then she terminated the call”.[11]
[11] Ibid at [12]
The Mother and her partner arrived at the Father’s home at 8:50pm and collected the child.
The Mother’s affidavit, prepared for the purpose of the interim hearing, is considerably briefer. The Mother’s solicitor, Ms Day, submitted that many of the issues raised by the Father should more properly be considered at a final hearing and that the interim hearing should be confined to arrangements for the child to spend time with each parent and other matters of that nature.
In her affidavit, the Mother states that the child has lived with her since she and the Father separated. She deposes that the Father has lived in [M] since about April 2010. The arrangements were that the child would travel by train from [K] to [M]:
a)each Wednesday afternoon;
b)every second Thursday afternoon after [extracurricular activity omitted], which finished at 6:00pm; and
c)every other Friday afternoon.[12]
[12] Affidavit of Ms Scott 3.8.2011 at paragraph [13]
However, the Mother says that the child soon complained to her about this arrangement, saying:
“I am too tired after [extracurricular activity omitted] to go to dad’s on Thursdays. I don’t want to go on the train. It is too long. I have to get up too early.”[13]
[13] Ibid at [15]
As a result, the Mother ceased sending the child to the Father’s residence on every second Thursday evening.
The Mother also deposes that, for the first four or five months after the Father moved to [M], he would return the [X] to the Mother’s residence by car at 8:00pm on the Sunday night. However, the Father then refused to return the child, so the Mother would drive to [M] to collect the child. Sometimes, she says, she would have to wait for ten or fifteen minutes before [X] came out to the car.
The Mother deposes that since about March 2011 the Father refuses to return the child to her residence and she is obliged to collect him from the Father’s residence.
The Mother is of the view that the communication between the parties is poor, as she and the father only communicate by way of text messages or email. The Father will not speak to her on the telephone.
As to the events of Sunday 31st July, the mother states:
On 31 July 2011 Mr Kent indicated to me by email that he was keeping [X] overnight. I then travelled to [K] and collected [X] about 9.00 pm.[14]
[14] Ibid [23]
The Mother describes [X]’s commitments each week as:
a)He [extracurricular activity omitted] at school on Mondays and Wednesdays;
b)He [extracurricular activity omitted] on Mondays from 4:00pm to 5:00pm;
c)He [extracurricular activity omitted] on Tuesday afternoons from 4:30 to 5:00pm;
d)He has [extracurricular activity omitted] on Thursdays from 3:30 to 6:00pm; and
e)He [extracurricular activity omitted] on Saturdays.[15]
[15] Affidavit of Ms Scott 3.8.2011 at [24] and [29]
The Mother deposes that the child has said that he does not want to stay at his father’s home on Sunday mornings and travel to school with him on Monday mornings.
The Mother proposes that these arrangements continue until the final hearing.
Submissions
The Father seeks certainty in the arrangements for the child until the final hearing. In particular, there need to be orders to cover special occasions like birthdays, Father’s Day and school holidays. In particular, the school holidays should be divided equally between the parties.
During the school term, the Father wants the alternate Thursday evenings restored. He says that he will pick up and deliver the child at the beginning and end of his time with [X].
Ms Day, who appeared for the Mother, submitted that the parties were apart on whether [X] should return to his mother on Sunday nights or on Mondays.
As for parental responsibility, Ms Day submitted that equal shared parental responsibility is not appropriate because the Mother is seeking a final order for sole parental responsibility in respect of matters concerning the child’s education.
The Relevant Law
Section 60CA of the Family Law Act provides that, in deciding whether to make a parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. To determine what is in a child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections 60CC(2) (the “primary considerations”) and subsection 60CC(3) (referred to as “additional considerations”).
The Court is required by subsection 60CC(4) of the Act to consider the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his or her responsibilities as a parent. Further, where the parties have separated, as they have in this case, the Court must have regard to events that have happened and circumstances that have existed since the separation occurred (see s.60CC(4A)).
I have considered all of those matters.
When making a parenting order, the Court is required by subsection 61DA(1) of the Act to apply a presumption that it is in the child’s best interests for his[16] parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for him (see Goode & Goode[17] ).
[16] In this case
[17] [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) 36 Fam LR 422; FLC 93-286
The presumption does not apply in cases of abuse or family violence (subsection 61DA(2)) and it may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court that it would not be in the child’s best interests for his parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (s.61DA(4)).
Subsection 61DA(3) provides that when the Court is making an interim order the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
Where a parenting order provides that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for him[18], the Court is required by subsection 65DAA(1) to consider the practicability of the child spending equal time with each parent and whether it would be in his best interests to do so.
[18] In this case
If the Court does not make such an order, subsection 65DAA(2) provides that the Court must consider;
a)Whether spending substantial and significant time with each parent would be in the child’s best interests; and
b)Whether it would be reasonably practicable.
I have considered all of those matters.
Conclusions
This is a matter where the evidence points to poor and acrimonious communication between the child’s parents. This is the opinion expressed by the Mother in her affidavit.
The Father has expressed a different view, but his own affidavit evidence does not support his claim. He has described an acrimonious incident on 31st July 2011 in his affidavit of 1st August, and his affidavits make it clear that he does not want to communicate with the Mother other than by text messages or email. It is difficult, to say the least, to see how the Father can maintain the position set out in his affidavit of 8th June 2011 that the level of conflict between the parties is “very low or low”[19]. Again, the Father cannot seriously maintain the view expressed in his affidavit of 29th July 2011 that “the parenting relationship is improving and is likely to further improve in the future”.[20]
[19] Affidavit of Mr Kent 8.6.2011 at [94]
[20] Affidavit of Mr Kent 29.7.2011 at [19]
With respect, it would appear that the relationship between the parties is particularly poor.
In all the circumstances, the conflict between the parties and their poor level of communication leads to the consideration that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption that it is in the child’s best interests for his parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for him.
As the child [X] lives with his mother, I propose to make an interim order that the Mother is to have sole parental responsibility for him.
The question of parental responsibility will be considered afresh at the final hearing. Section 61DB of the Act provides that, in making a final parenting order for a child, the Court must disregard the allocation of parental responsibility made in the interim order.
The Father has raised a number of issues which do not appear to be appropriate to be dealt with in an interim application. They are:
a)The child’s future schools, both primary and secondary;
b)The child’s surname;
c)The extra-curricular activities that the child undertakes;
d)Changes to the parents’ residential addresses;
e)Proposed international travel between 2011 and 2014 (and subsequently); and
f)The custody of documents relating to the child.
The child [X] is currently in Year 3 at [O] Primary School at [K]. The Mother proposes that the current arrangements continue until the final hearing.[21] If the Mother were to propose that the child’s school were to be changed, then it would be appropriate for the Court to consider the matter at this stage, but this does not appear to be the case.
[21] Affidavit of Ms Scott 3.8.2011 at [31]
Again, the question of a change to a child’s surname is by definition a matter for final orders, and would usually involve the consideration of oral evidence. It is not usually an appropriate subject for an interim hearing.
The Father deposes that he seeks to take the child out of Australia to visit the Philippines, but the dates of the planned trip are 27th December 2012 to 24th January 2013, more than a year away. If this overseas trip, or any other proposed travel outside Australia, is to be an issue between the parties, then it would normally be a matter that would involve oral evidence at a final hearing. It is not necessary for a determination of this matter to be made at an interim hearing.
What should be dealt with are the arrangements for the times that [X] is to spend with each of his parents and how those arrangements are to be facilitated.
There is no issue that [X] will continue to live with his mother. It is the time that he is to spend with his father that needs to be considered.
Clearly, [X]’s best interests are the paramount consideration. I am satisfied that it is of benefit to him to have a meaningful relationship with each of his parents.
There is no evidence that [X] has been subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. However, the conflicted relationship between his parents would be likely to have an adverse psychological effect on him, especially when the parents cannot agree about the arrangements for him to spend time with his father and return to his mother. It would be far preferable for him not to be privy to arguments between his parents, which is why the number of changeovers should be reduced and the opportunity for the parents to come into contact with each other should be minimised.
The Mother reports that [X] likes attending his [extracurricular activity omitted] on a Thursday afternoon, but complains that he is then too tired to go to his father’s home for the night. She also reports that he has expressed reluctance to stay overnight with his father on Sunday evening and then go to school from his father’s home on the Monday morning.
[X] is not currently going to his father’s home on Thursday evenings. His mother unilaterally stopped that practice because the child said he was too tired to go.[22] It would appear preferable for him not to go to his father’s home overnight on alternate Thursdays, but spend a longer period of time with his father on another occasion.
[22] Affidavit of Ms Scott 3.8.2011 at [15]
Despite the Mother’s report that [X] is reluctant to stay overnight on alternate Sunday nights and then travel to school with his father on the Monday morning, I am of the view that this arrangement would minimise the contact between the parents and, therefore, minimise the opportunity for conflict between them. Thus, [X] would go to his father’s home on alternate weekends, from after school on the Friday until the commencement of school on the Monday morning. He would then have a block of three nights at his father’s home each alternate week. If the Monday after the weekend happened to be a public holiday, then [X] would spend that day with his father and go to school from the father’s home on the Tuesday morning. There would then be no direct contact between the two parents on changeover.
In the other week, [X] would go from school to his father’s home on the Wednesday night and go from there to school on the Thursday morning.
As for school holidays, it would seem appropriate that they should be shared equally between the parents. If the Father has plenty of notice, he can then organise leave from his employment. The Mother suggests in her Minute of Proposed Orders that the parties should agree for periods totalling 4 weeks per year, but I am sceptical of the parties’ ability to agree.
I also consider that special days should be specified. I am not satisfied that specific arrangements need be made for Easter in 2012, as it is included in the New South Wales school holidays at the end of Term 1.
However, Father’s Day and Mother’s Day are both important days. In my view, noting the level of conflict between the parties, the child should spend the entire weekend that includes Father’s Day and Mother’s Day with the appropriate parent, from the conclusion of school on the Friday until the commencement of school on the Monday morning.
Christmas should be shared between the parties.
Where changeover cannot occur at the beginning or end of school, the court will specify the arrangements for the parents to pick up and deliver the child. It is a matter of concern that the Mother complains that the Father makes her wait for ten to fifteen minutes outside his residence on occasions when she has called to collect the child.[23]
[23] Affidavit of Ms Scott 3.8.2011 at [16]-[18]
If that is in fact the case, it does not reflect well on the Father’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and his mother. Parents should treat each other with respect; otherwise it sets a bad example to the child.
If there is to be a final hearing, which seems likely, a Family Report under the provisions of s.62G of the Family Law Act would be indicated.
I certify that the preceding ninety-one (91) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Date: 13 December 2011