Simjanovska v Sentumar Pty Ltd trading as Storage King Rockdale
[2017] FCA 736
•17 May 2017
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Simjanovska v Sentumar Pty Ltd trading as Storage King Rockdale [2017] FCA 736
File number(s): NSD 496 of 2017 Judge(s): FARRELL J Date of judgment: 17 May 2017 Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Personal Property and Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ss 8, 130
Date of hearing: 17 May 2017 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 39 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr J Michos of JSM Lawyers and Notaries ORDERS
NSD 496 of 2017 BETWEEN: ELKA SIMJANOVSKA
Applicant
AND: SENTUMAR PTY LTD TRADING AS STORAGE KING ROCKDALE
First Respondent
THOMAS MARSHALL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
FARRELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), the address and phone number of Mr Graham Henderson be suppressed for a period of 12 months or until further order, on the basis that it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
2.The interlocutory application lodged on 12 May 2017 is otherwise dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application lodged on 12 May 2017 as agreed or taxed.
4.The interlocutory application lodged on 3 April 2017 is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FARRELL J:
On 17 May 2017, I delivered ex tempore reasons for the orders which I made on that day suppressing access to contact details for Mr Graham Henderson, dismissing interlocutory applications lodged by Ms Simjanovska on 3 April 2017 and 12 May 2017 and ordering that Ms Simjanovska pay the respondents’ costs of the 12 May 2017 application as agreed or taxed. Given significant disruptions which occurred during delivery of the reasons which resulted in difficulties in transcription of the reasons and to assist understanding, these written reasons have been expanded.
BACKGROUND
Mr Graham Henderson signed a document headed “Standard Self Storage Agreement” in respect of storage space C389 at a facility operated by the first respondent, which trades as Storage King Rockdale, for the period from 11 March 2016 to 10 April 2016. The period would be extended automatically until 14 days’ notice was given by either party. The document is undated. The postal address given by Mr Henderson on that agreement was in a suburb of Sydney. The storage agreement notes that Ms Simjanovska is an “alternate contact person”. Clause 6 sets out Storage King Rockdale’s rights upon default, including if storage fees remain unpaid in full within 42 days of the due date. Clause 10(g) expressly provides that the Storer (Mr Henderson) cannot assign the agreement. Both Mr Henderson and Ms Simjanovska stored items in the designated space.
Ms Simjanovska says that in March 2017, she became aware that Storage King Rockdale proposed to auction items which had been stored in the designated space on 1 April 2017. She accepts that storage fees had been outstanding since December 2016.
Interlocutory application lodged on 3 April 2017
On 3 April 2017, Ms Simjanovska filed an interlocutory application seeking:
(1)An “INJUNCTION ORDER” that the respondents not proceed to auction or dispose of the assets, possessions and personal and intellectual property (which I will refer to as “possessions”) owned by Ms Simjanovska or Mr Henderson in the designated storage space until the Court determines a dispute between Ms Simjanovska and the respondents.
(2)An “INJUNCTION ORDER” that the respondents not access or interfere in any way with any of the documents that are stored in the designated storage space belonging to Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson until the Court determines the dispute between Ms Simjanovska and the respondents.
(3)An order that costs be paid to Ms Simjanovska in relation to the interlocutory application.
(4)An order as to damages Ms Simjanovska “has suffered as a result of pursuing the interlocutory application for the injunction order and as a consequence of the subjects of the interlocutory application for injunction order”.
Ms Simjanovska says that a Registrar and a duty judge declined to entertain the application urgently.
Originating application lodged on 3 April 2017
Also on 3 April 2017, Ms Simjanovska lodged an originating application dated 1 April 2017 and a supporting affidavit. In summary, the application claimed that:
(1)Storage King Rockdale denied Ms Simjanovska natural justice and procedural fairness when it refused to include her name in the storage agreement “at the time when the First respondent agreed for the applicant’s private property including the applicant’s intellectual property to be stored in storage space C389”. She says that Storage King Rockdale thereby unjustly and unfairly denied her the benefits of that agreement in relation to her possessions. Storage King Rockdale “only agreed to sign agreement in the name of Graham Henderson, the applicant’s former de facto partner who currently lives” in a place outside Sydney. (Ms Simjanovska named the place).
(2)Storage King Rockdale breached the storage agreement and other laws in respect of Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson as a result of which Ms Simjanovska has suffered loss and damage. Ms Simjanovska notes that she has advised the respondents of her claims and “requested that some urgent payments be made to her by the First respondent and one employee of the First respondent”. The respondents failed to respond to her claims.
(3)Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson paid for the designated space together, however Storage King Rockdale, under the operational management of Mr Marshall, claimed that Mr Henderson owes money for the storage and he is in default of the agreement as a result. As a consequence, the respondents want to undertake auctioning or disposal of the possessions that are in the designated space, “without addressing the respondents’ default of the consumer agreement”.
(4)The respondents defaulted under the storage agreement a number of times before they claimed that Mr Henderson had defaulted under the agreement by delaying the payment of storage fees. Ms Simjanovska offered to compensate for the storage fees “with the liability from the default of the agreement by the First and the Second respondent”. However, the respondents did not respond to any claims relating to their default; they have neither denied nor accepted liability. Ms Simjanovska “claims that this is a further default of the agreement, which refers to a dispute resolution procedure”.
(5)“The fee for the storage has not been paid since December 2016, considering the victimisation and criminal attacks to which the applicant and Graham Henderson have been exposed because of the applicant’s legal proceedings against agencies of the NSW Government, and the Department of Human Services of the Australian Government. The applicant claims that this extreme pressure has been imposed on her in order to prevent her from paying fees for the storage where evidence for her legal proceedings is stored. The applicant claims that the proposed auctioning and/or disposal of the applicant’s possessions intends to dispose of the applicant’s evidence for these legal proceedings, which expose some senior government officials and some former ministers, as well as what seems to be a double (shadow) administration that is currently present in the Department of Human Services that performs improper and unlawful activities”.
(6)Ms Simjanovska filed an application for judicial review of a decision and conduct under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in this Court on 22 March 2017. She is currently preparing affidavit evidence for the proceeding, most of which is in storage which the respondents intend to “dispose it today, without any discussion about the dispute between the parties and the offer of settlement that the applicant has provided to the respondents”. Ms Simjanovska will be significantly damaged in the proceeding if the evidence is disposed of without any notice addressed to her. She claims that this is unjust and unfair conduct from the respondents.
(7)Ms Simjanovska informed the respondents of the importance of the documents in storage and that they are in the public interest. Ms Simjanovska also informed the respondents that she had been prevented from arranging removal of the possessions from storage. She requested a meeting with the respondents however they refused to meet with her and “only want to proceed with the auctioning and/or disposal of the applicant’s possessions, which are the applicant personal, also intellectual property”.
(8)The respondents failed to issue proper notice for the intended auction and/or disposal of possessions in the designated space to Mr Henderson and they failed to issue any notice to Ms Simjanovska required in accordance with s 130 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Consequently, Ms Simjanovska claims that the respondents breached that Act and other laws.
(9)The respondents breached many other aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) as explained in an annexure to her supporting affidavit.
(10)The respondents failed to acknowledge the public interest of the evidence and the documents that they want to dispose of and they failed to act in the public interest in any way.
Ms Simjanovska sought:
(1)injunctions preventing the respondents from auctioning or disposing of the possessions in the designated storage space and restraining them from accessing the designated storage space or interfering with any documents in any form that are stored in it until the Court resolves the dispute between the parties;
(2)an order that Storage King Rockdale breached “the consumer agreement in relation to” the designated storage space;
(3)an order that the respondents failed to issue proper notices in relation to the intended auctioning or disposing of her possessions and intellectual property in the designated storage space;
(4)orders that the respondents had denied her natural justice and procedural fairness and had acted unjustly and unfairly towards her;
(5)an order that possessions in the designated storage space are hers, not possessions of the respondents;
(6)an order that the respondents pay her costs for this application and her interlocutory application lodged on 3 April 2017; and
(7)orders as to damages as claimed in the interlocutory application dated 1 April 2017.
Case management hearings
On 20 April 2017, I conducted a first case management hearing in relation to Ms Simjanovska’s applications. Ms Simjanovska and Mr Marshall each appeared in person. The most urgent issue to be addressed was what would happen with the items in the designated space (and another space into which some of the materials had been moved).
Mr Marshall advised the Court that the auction had not resulted in sale of any items which had been stored in the designated storage space. He said that Ms Simjanovska had been given the opportunity to remove her possessions without charge on many occasions during March 2017; that is consistent with Ms Simjanovska’s affidavit lodged on 3 April 2017. He said that, in preparation for the auction, some items had been taken from the designated space and placed in a nearby space because they were deemed inappropriate for auction. Ms Simjanovska submitted that she could not afford to remove her possessions and that she had offered to offset the value of her claims against the respondents against the costs of continued storage. Mr Marshall denied that he had any liability to Ms Simjanovska but nonetheless undertook to the Court that she would be able to access the storage spaces and take her possessions away free of charge pending a further case management hearing when his legal representative would be available to attend. The Court advised Ms Simjanovska that she should remove any documents relevant to the other litigation referred to in her originating application if she intended to rely on them.
A further case management hearing was held on 4 May 2017 at which Ms Simjanovska appeared in person and the respondents were represented by their solicitor, Mr Michos. Mr Michos submitted that Ms Simjanovska’s originating application should be struck out and agreed to file written submissions on that issue. The respondents indicated that Ms Simjanovska would be given access to the designated storage spaces and Storage King Rockdale would waive any accrued storage fees if Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson removed their possessions by 5 pm on 12 May 2017. Ms Simjanovska submitted that storage boxes had been damaged. Storage King Rockdale undertook to provide a specified number and type of box to facilitate removal. As Mr Henderson had entered into the storage agreement, Ms Simjanovska was ordered to provide to the Court contact details for Mr Henderson so that it could communicate with him with a view to his attendance at a case management hearing.
Correspondence with Mr Henderson by the Court
Ms Simjanovska provided contact details concerning Mr Henderson to the Court. Albeit that it was on letterhead of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and with an incorrect file number reference, the Court’s Registry wrote to Mr Henderson on 8 May 2017, advising him of Ms Simjanovska’s proceedings against Storage King Rockdale and seeking his attendance at a case management hearing at a date suitable to him between 11 and 17 May 2017 which, if necessary, could be conducted by video conference facility.
On 8 May 2017, Ms Simjanovska lodged a letter enclosing what purported to be a statutory declaration made by Mr Henderson and dated 3 May 2017. In it, Mr Henderson purported to authorise Ms Simjanovska to make any inquiries or requests and undertake any other action on his behalf in all matters in relation to storage space numbers C389 and C399. It also purported to transfer to her name any agreement relating to the storage. She was also authorised to arrange relocation and transport of possessions from the storage when required and at the end of the agreement. Mr Henderson asked that it be considered that he and Ms Simjanovska had been renting the storage together even though Storage King Rockdale had told them that the agreement for storage has to be in one name and so refused to have Ms Simjanovska’s name included in the agreement. The statutory declaration stated that the authorisation was valid until the end of the agreement for storage or until all matters related to the agreement are “completely finalise, including the finalisation of any dispute or lega proceeding by me or Elka Simjanovska, or both of us, in relation to this storage and the possessions, asset, also property in the storage with Space Number C 389 and C 399”.
By a letter to the Court dated 10 May 2017, Mr Henderson said:
(1)He is a disability support pensioner and suffers from a long-term mental illness. He suffers from anxiety and depression. He lives in a state of poverty and with precarious health. He would be too unwell to attend a Registry of the Court (being at a place outside Sydney).
(2)Although the storage agreement was originally in his name, all rights and liabilities had been taken over by Ms Simjanovska.
(3)He has very few possessions at Storage King Rockdale, none of any monetary value and Ms Simjanovska may take possession of them.
(4)He could only say that Ms Simjanovska had been attempting “against great odds” to pay for storage. She has many documents in storage that are extremely important to her and many artworks (“she is a very talented artist”). She has been struggling financially for some time and she has been distressed “inordinately” by the hearings and by “her treatment by Storage King Rockdale”.
(5)He asked that Ms Simjanovska be treated kindly.
Interlocutory application lodged on 12 May 2017
On 12 May 2017, Ms Simjanovska filed an interlocutory application seeking orders on an urgent basis comprising:
(1)That the respondents not proceed with any auction or other disposal of the possessions belonging to Ms Simjanovska and Mr Graham Henderson which had been stored in designated storage spaces until 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 and after that, if required under any law. During the same period, Ms Simjanovska was to be allowed unrestricted access to the storage spaces “in accordance with the self-storage standard agreement” and allowed to remove those possessions by 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 24 May 2017, and after that if required under the law.
(2)That the first respondent, Storage King Rockdale, provide Ms Simjanovska with boxes “that will replace the boxes that were damaged or destroyed by the respondents”. The number and size of the boxes were to be the same as agreed by the respondents at a hearing in this matter on 4 May 2017.
(3)That by Monday, 22 May 2017, the first and second respondents separately produce statements that inform Ms Simjanovska in writing about all possessions of Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson that have been stored in the designated storage spaces to which the respondents or third parties have accessed, the names of the persons who were granted access, the purpose for which they were granted access and the location, time and duration of each access.
(4)That the address associated with Mr Henderson and his telephone number which Ms Simjanovska had been ordered to provide to the Court be suppressed, and that the respondents not use or disclose the address to any third party.
(5)That correspondence from the Court to Mr Henderson dated 8 May 2017 be corrected and reissued to Mr Henderson.
(6)Orders as to costs and damages to be paid to the applicant.
Ms Simjanovska and Mr Michos (for the respondents) appeared at a brief hearing on the afternoon of 12 May 2017; Mr Michos participated by telephone from his home as he was unwell. Mr Michos obtained instructions that Storage King Rockdale would not remove any possessions from the designated storage spaces and Ms Simjanovska could have access to them pending a hearing relating to her urgent application, which was set down for 2:15 pm on 17 May 2017.
Hearing on 17 May 2017
On 17 May 2017, the Court confirmed that it would not deal with the respondents’ claim that the originating application should be struck out at the hearing but it would deal with Ms Simjanovska’s claim to restrain Storage King Rockdale from removing possessions from the designated spaces.
Mr Michos confirmed that Storage King Rockdale did not assert any right of security for storage fees over Ms Simjanovska’s possessions. Towards the end of the hearing, during the delivery of ex tempore reasons, Mr Michos also advised that he was instructed that Storage King Rockdale would be prepared to allow Ms Simjanovska access to the designated spaces until 5 pm on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 (approximately the time specified by Ms Simjanovska in the 12 May 2017 interlocutory application).
When the Court indicated that it was not minded to grant the relief sought by the application dated 12 May 2017 and that it was minded to dismiss the application lodged on 3 April 2017 which sought in substance the same relief, Ms Simjanovska objected on the basis that she had not been aware that the 3 April 2017 interlocutory application would be dealt with and she had claims against the Court by reason of the refusal of the Registrar and duty judge to deal with that application at that time.
Nonetheless, I determined to dismiss both interlocutory applications. For reasons which follow, the interlocutory application of 12 May 2017 should be dismissed. As the 3 April 2017 interlocutory application sought essentially the same relief, it should also be dismissed. Further, there was no evidence that Storage King Rockdale had disposed of any possessions in the designated spaces and any action which Ms Simjanovska sought to preserve or pursue based on the refusal by the Registrar and duty judge to deal with the application at that time would have no prospects of success.
REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS
First paragraph of the application lodged on 12 May 2017
Undertaking as to damages
The relief claimed in the first paragraph of the 12 May 2017 application was in the nature of an injunction. Ms Simjanovska indicated that she would have been willing to provide an undertaking as to damages in support of her application for an injunction lodged with the Court on 3 April 2017. However, she considered the application made on 12 May 2017 to be an application for a freezing order and was not prepared to give any undertaking as to damages in support of it.
Whether the relief claimed in the first paragraph of the application is treated as a freezing order or as an injunction, in my view, the claim for relief of this kind should be supported by an undertaking as to damages, albeit that the period in respect of which the restraint is claimed in the interlocutory application of 12 May 2017 is short.
Merit of originating application
I am not satisfied that the substantive proceedings, which Ms Simjanovska commenced under an originating application lodged on 3 April 2017, have any reasonable prospect of success. In discussing the merit of the grounds of Ms Simjanovska’s originating application, I will refer to the summary of those grounds set out at [6].
The first ground is that Storage King Rockdale denied natural justice and procedural fairness to Ms Simjanovska when it refused to include her name in the agreement for storage space C389. No commercial entity owes a person an obligation to contract with them. On the submissions made, Storage King Rockdale was only prepared to enter into an agreement with one person (not two) and that was Mr Henderson. That ground has no prospect of success.
The second ground is that Storage King Rockdale breached the agreement for storage space C389 and has defaulted under the agreement and breached other laws in respect of the applicant and Mr Henderson. Ms Simjanovska is not a party to the agreement and on that basis that ground must also fail. I note that at a point Ms Simjanovska and Mr Henderson both appear to have been under the impression that the agreement had been assigned to Ms Simjanovska, and the Court has received correspondence to that effect from Mr Henderson. However, the “Standard Self Storage Agreement” signed by Mr Henderson has an express provision excluding a right of assignment. There is no evidence that Storage King Rockdale has been given notice of an assignment or that it consented to one. Based on Ms Simjanovska’s affidavit in support of her originating application, it appears that Storage King Rockdale would have been prepared to consent to an assignment subject to receipt of specified documents from Mr Henderson and payment of all outstanding fees; however, it does not appear that any such conditions have been met.
In relation to ground three, Ms Simjanovska says that she and Mr Henderson were paying for storage together. Whether or not that is true, Storage King Rockdale entered into an agreement with one party: Mr Henderson. Ms Simjanovska plainly knows that. This ground also complains of the attempt by Storage King to auction the contents of storage unit C389 on 1 April 2017. As that auction was wholly unsuccessful, and in those circumstances, it is difficult to see that that ground provides any basis for relief.
I understand the fourth ground to mean that Ms Simjanovska claims damages as a result of alleged breaches by Storage King Rockdale of the agreement between it and Mr Henderson and she has offered to offset the value of the damages she claims against unpaid storage fees. She goes on to note that the respondents have neither denied nor accepted liability concerning defaults of the agreement. Insofar as this ground seeks to rely on defaults of an agreement to which Ms Simjanovska is not a party, I do not see that it has any reasonable prospect of success.
The fifth to seventh grounds relate to claims that the proposed auctioning or disposal of her possessions would dispose of evidence in certain proceedings which Ms Simjanovska has commenced and may commence against various government agencies, which “expose[s]” present or former office holders. The auction that occurred on 1 April 2017 resulted in no sale of any of Ms Simjanovska’s possessions. Both before and since the filing of the originating application, Storage King Rockdale afforded Ms Simjanovska the opportunity of removing all of her property, including any documentary material. As at today, that offer remains open until 5 pm on Wednesday, 24 May 2017. On that basis, there is no reason to think that any of these grounds have merit.
Grounds eight and nine relate to Ms Simjanovska’s claim that the respondents failed to issue to Mr Henderson proper notices for the intended auctioning and other disposal of the possessions in the designated storage space and failed to issue any notice to the applicant, in breach of s 130 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Ms Simjanovska was not able to take me to any provision of that Act beyond s 130. In the course of argument, reference was made to s 8 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), which deals with liens (among other things). However, submissions made on behalf of the respondents are persuasive that, insofar as the possessions of Ms Simjanovska are at Storage King Rockdale’s premises, they are not there as collateral for any of the fees which may be outstanding to Storage King Rockdale and that the simple request made by Storage King Rockdale is that Ms Simjanovska now remove her goods. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that either of grounds eight or nine have merit.
Ground ten is that the respondents failed to acknowledge public interest of the evidence and the documents that they want to dispose of “today” (which I take to be a day in early April), and they failed to act in the public interest in any way. That ground discloses no justiciable issue in the circumstances (in any event), but particularly in circumstances where Ms Simjanovska has had a period of weeks in which to remove the materials and still has until 24 May 2017.
Balance of convenience
Turning to consideration of the balance of convenience. Insofar as Ms Simjanovska seeks to restrain the respondents from proceeding with any auction or other disposal of assets or possessions, Ms Simjanovska has until 24 May 2017 at 5 pm to remove her materials. I have been given an undertaking on the record that Storage King will not seek to auction those belongings. I note that no undertaking or information has been given to the Court as to what it would otherwise do with the materials after 24 May 2017. However, in my view, that does not result in the balance of convenience tipping in Ms Simjanovska’s favour given that her own evidence discloses that she has been offered many opportunities since at least March 2017 to remove her property without charge.
For the same reason, I do not consider that Ms Simanjovska’s application to restrain disposal of her goods would be justified on the basis that damages would not be an adequate remedy. She has had more than ample opportunity to take from storage any valuable property which was irreplaceable.
Second paragraph of application lodged on 12 May 2017
The boxes referred to at the hearing on 4 May 2017 have been provided.
Third paragraph of application lodged on 12 May 2017
I see no basis for making that order.
Fourth paragraph of application lodged on 12 May 2017
The fourth paragraph relates to the suppression of contact details for Mr Henderson. Ms Simjanovska has asserted concern for Mr Henderson’s safety and mental wellbeing if his personal information were to become more widely available. Although Mr Henderson has made no such a request in his communications with the Court, I have regard to the fact that the respondents were prepared to undertake that they would not disclose that information, the apparent fragility of Mr Henderson’s mental state and Ms Simjanovska’s desire to protect her former partner such that her concerns were likely to lead to more costly and protracted proceedings which could not be justified as the public availability of Mr Henderson’s contact details now serve no useful purpose in these proceedings. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that Mr Henderson’s address and phone number be suppressed on the Court file for a period of 12 months. I am required under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to impose a time limit. It will be for a period of 12 months, or further order.
Fifth paragraph of application lodged on 12 May 2017
This paragraph claims correspondence from the Court to Mr Graham Henderson dated 8 May 2017 be corrected and re-issued to Mr Henderson. I am not prepared to grant that relief. Despite the fact that the correspondence with Mr Henderson was, in error, issued on the letterhead of the Federal Circuit Court and included an inaccurate file number, the correspondence plainly dealt with issues related to the storage agreement and I am satisfied that Mr Henderson understood that when he communicated with the Court in response.
Request for costs and damages
There is a request that costs and damages be awarded to the applicant. As Ms Simjanovska has been wholly unsuccessful in the interlocutory application lodged on 12 May 2017, any request for costs and damages is not well founded.
OTHER MATTERS
I have not considered the respondents’ submission that the originating application lodged on 3 April 2017 should be struck out. For reasons previously given, I consider that the application in its current form lacks merit. However, Ms Simjanovska has asked for an opportunity to amend it. It is appropriate that that opportunity be given to her. I do note that, insofar as any of the claims are claims to be properly made by Mr Henderson, he has indicated that he is not in a position to deal with any matters himself. No amendment will cure that, unless Mr Henderson wishes to bring an application himself.
I am prepared to give Ms Simjanovska until 13 June 2017 to amend her application. I am conscious that Storage King is also entitled to the efficient administration of claims made against it. However, Ms Simjanovska is self-represented, and she should be given the opportunity to put any claims that she has in proper form.
As Ms Simjanovska has been wholly unsuccessful in relation to the interlocutory application lodged on 12 May 2017, I order that she pay the respondents’ costs of that application.
I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Farrell. Associate:
Dated: 17 May 2017
1
0
3