Seyer v Gatwood Management Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2023] FedCFamC2G 484
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Seyer v Gatwood Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 484
File number(s): SYG 515 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS Date of judgment: 9 June 2023 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act 2009 – penalty and compensation – non-economic loss – economic loss. Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 440D
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 44, 90(2), 117, 323, 536, 546
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Rules) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.06
Cases cited: Australian Building and Constructions Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3
Australian Licensed aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333
Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary‑Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560
Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd (2002) 116 FCR 276
Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1317
Fair Work Ombudsman v Nobrace Centre Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2019] FCCA 2979
Fair Work Ombudsman v NSH North Pty Ltd t/as New Shanghai Charlestown [2017] FCA 1301
Heraud v Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1797
Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7
Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383
Ostle v Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamCG2 109
RailPro Services Pty Ltd v Flavel (2015) 242 FCR 424
Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (2001) 110 IR 372
Seyer v Gatwood Management Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 345
Veeraragoo v Goldbreak Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1448
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 55 Date of last submission/s: 5 June 2023 Date of hearing: 5 June 2023 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Doust Solicitor for the Applicant: AEN Legal Counsel for the Respondents: No Appearance ORDERS
SYG 515 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: KARL SEYER
Applicant
AND: GATWOOD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ABN 59 147 501 835
First Respondent
RABI MALASS
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:
9 June 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 545(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”), the Second Respondent is to pay $25,000.00 for non-economic loss.
2.Pursuant to s 545(2)(b) of the Act, the Second Respondent is to pay $57,269.33 for economic loss.
3.Pursuant to s 546 of the Act, the Second Respondent is to pay a pecuniary penalty totalling $42,624.00.
4.The Second Respondent is to pay the amounts ordered in 1, 2, and 3 above within 14 days, to the applicant, pursuant to s 546(3)(c) of the Act.
5.Interest be paid in an amount to be determined from 25 September 2021.
6.Pursuant to r 16.14 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the Second Respondent be served with a copy of the Court’s orders at his email address [email protected] and by post to 7 Mount Avenue, Roselands NSW 2196.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
INTRODUCTION
This judgement concerns the appropriate penalties to be imposed and compensation payable following findings by the Court in Seyer v Gatwood Management Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 345.
In that judgement, the Court found that the second respondent, Mr Rabbi Malass contravened ss 44, 90(2), 117(1), 117(2), 323 and 536 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) by:
a) Failing the give the applicant written notice of the day of his termination;
b) Failing to pay the applicant the amount owed in lieu of notice of termination;
c) Failing to pay the applicant his accrued annual leave entitlements and
d) Failing to provide the applicant payslips in accordance with s 536 of the Act.
In the case of ss 44 and 323 of the Act, more than one breach was pleaded, making a total of eight contraventions in all.
The findings against Mr Malass were based on accessorial liability pursuant to s 550 of the Act. No orders were made against the first respondent, Gatwood Management Pty Ltd (“Gatwood”), as it has been placed into administration and the proceedings could not continue by virtue of s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) .
The Court notes that Mr Malass failed to appear at the liability section of the proceedings. The Court determined to proceed with the matter generally pursuant to r 13.06(1)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”).
Mr Malass did not appear in relation to the penalty phase of the hearings. No submissions or evidence on penalty was filed on his behalf. The Court is of the view it is again appropriate to proceed to determine the appropriate penalty’s to be imposed and compensation pursuant to r 13.06(1)(e) of the Rules.
THE LAW
The Law in relation to penalties under the Act is well settled. The Court has a broad discretion as to penalty. In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13 at [71], the High Court stated that it should fix a penalty “it considers fairly and reasonably to be appropriate to protect the public interest from future contraventions of the Act”. Further, at [10] and [12], the High Court stated that the penalty must not exceed what is “reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of section 546: the deterrence of future contraventions of a like kind by the contravener and others”.
In Fair Work Ombudsman v NSH North Pty Ltd t/as New Shanghai Charlestown [2017] FCA 1301 Bromwich J summarised how the discretion is to be approached at [36], as follows:
1) Identify the separate contraventions, with each breach of each obligation being a separate contravention, and each breach of a term of the Award being a separate contravention.
2) Consider whether each separate contravention should be dealt with independently or with some degree of aggregation for those contraventions arising out of a course of conduct, noting that s 557 of the Act provides that two or more contraventions of a given civil remedy provision are to be taken to be a single contravention if committed by the same person and arising out of a course of conduct by that person.
3) Consider whether there should be further adjustment to ensure that, to the extent of any overlap between groups of separate aggregated contraventions, there is no double penalty imposed, and that the penalty is an appropriate response to what each respondent did.
4) Consider the appropriate penalty in respect of each final individual group of contraventions, taken in isolation.
5) Consider the overall penalties arrived at, including by reference to those which may be proposed by the FWO (as permitted by Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482 (CFMEU Civil Penalties Case) at [64]) and what is proposed by the respondents, and apply the totality principle, to ensure that the penalties for each respondent are appropriate and proportionate to the conduct viewed as a whole, making such adjustments as are necessary: see Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080; 166 IR 14 at [30]; Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8; 165 FCR 560 at [23]. [71] and [102].
The purpose of a civil penalty is primarily, if not wholly, promoting the public interest in compliance with the laws that have been contravened, and it does not engage principles of retribution or rehabilitation: Fair Work Ombudsman v Nobrace Centre Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2019] FCCA 2979 (“Nobrace”) per Kelly J at [65]. As the principles of retribution or rehabilitation are not involved in the determination of a civil penalty, this intensifies the focus of a civil penalty determination on issues of specific and general deterrence: Nobrace at [66].
The Act does not set out any mandatory criteria, inclusive or exclusive, that the Court must consider when determining whether to impose a penalty, or the amount of any penalty: Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd (2002) 116 FCR 276 at [88]. The choice of penalty must be guided by the “individual circumstances of a case, not by a line-by-line comparison with another case”: Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary‑Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 at [12]. The process is an intuitive one by the Court and not an application of a scientific process: Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383 at [60]‑[63].
In Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 (“Mason v Harrington”), Mowbray FCM set out what is a now well accepted set of factors relevant in assessing a pecuniary penalty. They are as follows:
a) the nature and extent of the conduct which led to the breaches;
b) the circumstances in which the conduct took place;
c) the nature and extent of any loss sustained as a result of the breaches;
d) whether there has been similar previous conduct by the Respondents;
e) whether the breaches were properly distinct or arose out of one course of conduct;
f) the size of the business enterprise involved;
g) whether or not the breaches were deliberate;
h) whether senior management was involved in the breaches;
i) whether the party committing the breach had exhibited contrition;
j) whether the party committing the breach had taken corrective action;
k) whether the party committing the breach had cooperated with enforcement authorities;
l) the need to ensure compliance with minimum standards by provision of an effective means for the investigation and enforcement of employee entitlements; and
m) the need for specific and general deterrence.
Merkel J in Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (2001) 110 IR 372 set out some guiding considerations for the Court at 374:
Matters to be taken into account in determining the appropriate penalty include the cost of the contravention, deterrence, the flagrancy and deliberateness of the breach, the offender’s past record of behaviour and any contrition displayed by the offender.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
In addition to written submissions, the applicant relied upon his Affidavit dated 17 May 2023. He deposes that at the time of his termination from Gatwood, he was 43 years of age. He was working as a Project Manager in relation to construction at Watsons Bay for the Navy. He stated that he had accountabilities associated with the performance of the project, including scheduling, planning and coordination to ensure that the work was being performed profitably and on time. Mr Malass would often consult with him about matters that needed to be corrected, such as his complaints about overtime on the day of the applicant’s termination. Work on the project is only just finished, approximately 18 months after the termination of the applicant.
The applicant deposes that his termination, including the conduct of Mr Malass, had a significant detrimental impact upon him, including his professional standing and relationship with his family.
The applicant deposes that subsequent to his termination, he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and that this injury was work-related owing to the conduct of Mr Malass. The applicant concedes he received workers compensation payments for approximately three months in the amount of $18,000, which included costs associated with medical treatment.
Symptoms experienced by the applicant include trouble sleeping at night, second guessing decisions about employment and finding new employment, concerns about how he would perform in the new employment, together with feeling vulnerable, anxious and not able to psychologically cope. He experiences difficulties even today and continues to see a psychologist for counselling.
The applicant deposes to applying for a job with Goldmine Plumbing through a recruitment firm. At interview, he was asked about his previous employment broke down in tears when he was asked the question. He had never done this before was extremely embarrassed. He was not successful in his application. He was unable to offer references from his past employer, given the way he was terminated by Mr Malass.
The applicant deposes that he has taken the lower paid position with Planet Plumbing which pays approximately $36,000.00 per annum less than his previous employment with the respondent. The applicant states that he also has fears as to the impact particularly of Mr Malass conduct on his wife. He is concerned the stress of the entire matter has exacerbated strains of the relationship, given that she had to be involved in the proceedings and has been distracted from their family.
Attached to the applicant’s Affidavit is a report from Dr Neil Harris dated 15 November 2021. He opines that the applicant, as a result of the conduct of Mr Malass, is suffering from an adjustment disorder with anxiety and co-morbid trauma resulting in a PTSD response. The adjustment disorder is consistent with a person experiencing what is commonly called workplace bullying. Dr Harris believes that the applicant has sustained significant psychological injury from his previous employer resulting in his current state.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that having found the contraventions, the Court is now empowered to make any order the Court considers appropriate: s 545(1) of the Act. This power allows the Court to make appropriate preventative, remedial and compensatory orders: Australian Building and Constructions Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3 at [10]. The power under s 542(2)(b) of the Act allows compensation “for loss” to be awarded to compensate not only for financial loss but also for non-economic loss for “hurt and humiliation”: Australian Licensed aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333 at [441]-[450].
It was submitted that it was appropriate for such orders to be made against Mr Malass notwithstanding he was not, in his personal capacity, the employer: Veeraragoo v Goldbreak Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1448 at [42].
This was due to his centrality in both the business and the contravening conduct, and the fact that the employer, Gatwood, has gone into administration rendering it unlikely that compensation may be obtained from it. The Court accepts this submission.
In terms of the financial loss suffered, the applicant maintains his submission that the appropriate period of reasonable notice is nine months, noting there was no written contract, and the determination of what is a reasonable period of notice falls to the Court to determine: Ostle v Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamCG2 109 at [30]-[36].
The applicant was in a senior position with a salary, at the time of termination, of $171,808.00 per annum with additional benefits, including a fully maintained company car, mobile phone, and laptop computer.
While the Court found there was a break in the service of the applicant, it was submitted that the parties at the time of his reemployment agreed that his previous service would be recognised. There was thus a total of seven years’ service.
Mr Seyer was 43 years of age at the time of his termination. At that point, the applicant maintains he had a reasonable ongoing expectation he would remain in employment with the respondent for the foreseeable future. There was at least a further 18 months’ work to be performed on the project that he was managing.
The applicant’s work was not solely limited to that project and had been deployed by Gatwood to import the projects as and when they were obtained.
In July 2021, the applicant received a significant salary increase following his appointment as the Project Manager of the Watsons Bay work. The project had approximately 20 to 30 employees on site.
Following his termination, Mr Seyer did not find employment immediately and was unemployed for approximately three and a half months. He is now working in another plumbing role with a significantly lesser enumeration per annum. It was submitted the absence of equivalent, similarly remunerated roles is relevant to the question of what constitutes reasonable notice in the circumstances. It was submitted that any payments made by way of workers compensation should not diminish the amount of compensation to be ordered in favour of the applicant in circumstances where the respondent elected to terminate the applicant summarily.
In terms of non-economic loss, it was submitted something more than the usual element of distress accompanying most terminations must be shown but there was no requirement to show “unusual and exacerbating circumstances”: RailPro Services Pty Ltd v Flavel (2015) 242 FCR 424 at [176]. In this matter, on the facts found by the Court, there was a significant amount of hurt and distress well in excess of that ordinary associated with dismissal. This included grossly inappropriate language, threats and vows of reprisal, which fell well outside the ordinary experience of termination of employment. Mr Malass also sent another employee to the applicant’s house after dark to retrieve the vehicle and tools that could not reasonably have been required for work purposes immediately. Further, the applicant’s wife was brought into the dispute by Mr Malass which included calling her and making threats to “reveal all” about her husband.
It was submitted the Court could be comfortable that compensation in the nature of damages for non-economic loss should be awarded against Mr Malass for his contraventions as to the appropriate amount that it is a matter for the court to determine. In Heraud v Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1797, the Court awarded the applicant $20,000 where the applicant had suffered distress, loss of enjoyment of life, an injured self-esteem and confidence. In that matter, unlike the present case, there was no medical evidence in respect of the impact upon the applicant. The circumstances of the present matter involve conduct in the course of a contravention of a more extreme character.
It was further submitted the Court should make an order for interest to be paid as and from 25 September 2021, being the time of commencement of the cause of action. It was further submitted that the time for the payment of any amounts ordered should be 14 days. Given the failure of Mr Malass to participate in the proceedings, it was requested that pursuant to r 16.14 of the Rules orders should be made by the Court allowing Mr Malass served by his email address of [email protected], together with postage of any orders to the address nominated by his previous solicitors as the address for service that being, 7 Mount Avenue Roselands. The Court accepts these submissions
In terms of the appropriate penalties, the applicant noted that some matters constituted a single course of conduct for the purposes of s 557 of the Act with the consequence being that these multiple contraventions are taken to be a single contravention. The applicant submitted that the following were the maximum penalty is available in relation to the contraventions found:
Provision Reference Max Penalty S 44 - contravention of 90(2) – annual leave s 539, Item 1 $13,320.00
S 323 - failing to pay the annual leave at the time it was due s 539, Item 29 (single penalty - s.556 FW Act) S 44 - failing to give written notice of the day of the termination as required by s 117(1) s 539, Item 1
$13,320.00
s 44 - failing to provide the applicant with the minimum period of notice or pay an amount in lieu thereof as required by s 117(2) s 539, Item 1
$13,320.00 s 323 - failing to pay the notice s 539, Item, 29 (single penalty - s.556 FW Act) s 536 - failing to provide payslips which included information required by the regulations s 539, Item, 29 $13,320.00
(s.557 – course of conduct)
Noting the above, it was submitted that Mr Malass faces a maximum potential liability of $53,280. It was further submitted that the Court is required to set a penalty that it considers both appropriate, but one also that has appropriate regard for both specific and general deterrence: Pattinson and Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1317 at [19] .
It was noted that the issue in relation to the failure to pay annual leave entitlements was ameliorated by the payment of the amount outstanding at a later date. However, it was put that the failure to pay other lawful entitlements promptly was likely to cause the applicant anxiety and financial hardship.
Lastly, it was submitted that pursuant to s 546(3) of the Act any penalties imposed should be paid to the applicant.
CONSIDERATION
Compensation for non-economic loss
In the liability judgement at [18]-[34], the Court has detailed the factual matters that occurred that are associated with the applicant’s termination. These include the use of serious threatening and offensive language, followed by offensive texts. Of particular significance is the threat made by Mr Malass that if a message left on WhatsApp group chat by Mr Seyer was not taken down and deleted, “I’ll destroy you. You and your family’s life”. These threats went further to include threatening to tell the applicant’s wife that the applicant had been using cocaine as “this will be my punishment to you for being a dog”. The Court notes that Ms Seyer had a conversation with Mr Malass in which he made good his threat to tell her that the applicant had been drinking on the job and doing drugs. The final threat was made at 8:01 PM on 25 September 2021 in a text sent to Ms Seyer’s phone that included the threat that Mr Malass would be attending the applicant’s residence.
In the Court’s view, the entirety of the conduct of Mr Malass is reprehensible in the extreme. The totality of his conduct was both threatening and included quite vile, unsubstantiated claims about drug use by the applicant that were made to Ms Seyer. The Court is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Malass would have caused a reasonable person considerable apprehension and fear. Based on the medical report provided to the Court from Dr Harris, the Court is reasonably satisfied that the incident has caused psychological harm to the applicant in the form of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and symptomology consistent with a PTSD response.
The Court finds the conduct of Mr Malass sits at the very high-end of unreasonable conduct and is such that an order for hurt and humiliation must be substantially at the high end of the usual amounts ordered in such matters. The Court has taken account of the extent of the hurt and humiliation and psychological harm suffered by the applicant. Taking all of the circumstances into account, the Court is of the view that amount of $25,000 for non-economic loss is an appropriate amount.
Compensation for Economic Loss
The applicant seeks nine months’ salary in lieu of notice, or an amount of $128,865. Under
s 117 of the Act, the applicant was entitled to a minimum of 4 weeks’ notice.
The Court has noted the employee’s age of 43 years. He is relatively young and still has a considerable period of working life in front of him. Plumbers have a considerable degree of employment mobility, like all trades within the construction industry. The Court accepts that the applicant would have been employed for a minimum of 18 months in his current role until the project he was managing was completed. There is no evidence that the applicant gave up highly paid employment to join Gatwood. No evidence has been given as to prospective pension rights being lost. While the Court notes that the applicant received $18,000 in workers compensation payments for injuries received as a result of the matters the subject of this litigation, the Court does not take this into account in setting the amount of economic loss to be paid by Mr Malass.
The Court notes the applicant has found new employment albeit at a lower salary than while he was employed with Gatwood.
The Court is of the view that the applicant was in a relatively well paid project management position but not a very senior position such as a CEO or the like. In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that a period of four months equivalent in salary should be paid in lieu of Notice. This equates to $57,269.33.
Pecuniary Penalties for Contraventions
In terms of the process in arriving at appropriate pecuniary penalties set out in NSH North referred to above, the Court accepts that the table, set out above, identifies each of the contraventions found by the Court.
The Court is also satisfied that the table correctly aggregates the various contraventions so that there is no overlapping between contraventions which arise out of a single course of conduct. The Court is further satisfied that there is no double penalty imposed and that the penalties arrived at are an appropriate response to the conduct of Mr Malass.
In arriving at the penalties imposed, the Court has consider the following matters referred to in Mason v Harrington.
The nature and extent of the conduct which led to the breaches has been fully set out in the liability judgement including the circumstances in which the conduct took place. The nature and extent of the loss has also been set out. The Court is unaware of any similar previous conduct by the Mr Malass.
The Court has considered whether or not the breaches were properly distinct and appropriately aggregated them where they arise out of one course of conduct. There is no material before the Court as to the size of the business enterprise involved, however, the Court notes evidence given by the applicant that the project that he was employed on was worth some $15 million and had 20 to 30 people working on it at one time. In these circumstances, the Court is entitled to assume that this was a medium-size business.
The Court is satisfied that, for the reasons set out above, each of the breaches was deliberate and they were carried out by Mr Malass, who was the most senior management person involved with the company.
In terms of contrition, the Court is satisfied that there has not been one iota of contrition by Mr Malass. That lack of contrition has been exacerbated by a litany of failures by Mr Malass to comply with Court orders in terms of the filing and serving of evidence, together with a very late attempt to have the trial vacated, followed by his non-attendance at the liability hearing. The Court also notes that Mr Malass has failed to provide any submissions or evidence in relation to penalty.
The Court is satisfied it needs to set a penalty that will ensure compliance with minimum standards, and that in this case, there is a very high indeed for specific deterrence, such that the conduct that is been set out above will not occur in the future. Employees should not be subjected to vile abuse and or fabricated claims about drug use or threats to destroy their lives if they do not do is that told. In all the circumstances, both from a specific and general deterrence point of view, a clear marker needs to be set at the Court will not tolerate this sort of behaviour.
In terms of the appropriate penalty in respect of each final individual group of contraventions taken in isolation, the Court is satisfied that the penalty for each aggregated set of contraventions should be 80% of the available maximum.
Provision Reference Max Penalty S 44 - contravention of 90(2) – annual leave s 539, Item 1 $10,656.00
S 323 - failing to pay the annual leave at the time it was due s 539, Item 29 (single penalty - s.556 FW Act) S 44 - ailing to give written notice of the day of the termination as required by s 117(1) s 539, Item 1
$10,656.00
s 44 - failing to provide the applicant with the minimum period of notice or pay an amount in lieu thereof as required by s 117(2) s 539, Item 1
$10,656.00 s 323 - failing to pay the notice s 539, Item, 29 (single penalty - s.556 FW Act) s 536 - failing to provide payslips which included information required by the regulations s 539, Item, 29 $10,656.00
(s.557 – course of conduct)Total $42,624.00
The Court considers that the above penalties are proportionate and appropriate to the conduct viewed as a whole and that there is no necessity for a further reduction based on the totality principle.
The orders of the Court are set out fully at the beginning of this judgment.
The issue of costs will be dealt with in a separate judgment.
I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys. Deputy Associate:
Dated: 9 June 2023
2