Solder and McCabe

[2008] FamCA 371

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOLDER & MCCABE [2008] FamCA 371

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – COSTS – Father’s claim against mother for costs of and incidental to  child proceedings – Costs of one trial day thrown away awarded on indemnity basis – Other costs claimed not awarded – Half of the costs of the costs application awarded on the standard basis

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A)

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Munday and Bowman (1997) 22 FamLR 321
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT: Mr Solder

RESPONDENT: Ms McCabe

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2053 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: O'Reilly J

HEARING DATE: 21 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Fisher

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: Neumann & Turnour

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1The mother pay the father’s costs of the attendance by his solicitor and Counsel on the second day of the hearing on 20 March 2008, on the indemnity basis, assessed at $3,374.00, the payment of that sum to be made by the mother to the father or his solicitors within 30 days.

2The mother pay half of the father’s costs of and incidental to his costs application, on the standard basis, assessed at $648.65, the payment of that sum to be made by the mother to the father or his solicitors within 30 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Solder & McCabe is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2053/07

MR SOLDER

Applicant

And

MS MCCABE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1.This is an application for costs by the father, against the mother, in relation to parenting proceedings concerning the child born in April 1998 now 10 years.

2.The mother has not appeared on the application.

Service

3.The father's costs application was filed on 26 March 2008.

4.On 20 March 2008 I ordered:

(5)The father file any application for costs by 4 pm on Wednesday 26 March 2008 and as soon as possible serve on the mother by express post addressed to her at […]:

(a)      a copy of that application;

(b)      a list of the material to be relied upon in support of it, and

(c)a copy of any material to be relied upon not previously served on her.

(6)The mother file and serve any response to that application and any material to be relied upon by 4 pm on Tuesday 15 April 2007;

(7)The father's costs application be listed for hearing and determination at 10 am on Monday 21 April 2008.

5.A notation to those orders provided:

The mother should in her material in response depose to her financial circumstances and such other matters referred to in s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as she considers relevant.

6.The address referred to is the mother's address for service and her address last known to the Court.  See the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, par 7.

7.I am satisfied that the father complied with the service order (order (5) above) and that the mother also has received from the Court a sealed copy of the orders made on 20 March 2008, thus providing notice of the hearing.  See the affidavit of Steven Potts, solicitor, filed by leave on 21 April 2008, pars 10-16, in particular pars 11 and 13.

Exclusion of certain material

8.The material served on the mother comprised copies of the father’s costs application filed on 26 March 2008, the father’s affidavit filed on 20 March 2008 and the father’s written submissions provided to the Court on 20 March 2008 prepared by Mr Fisher of Counsel (pages 40-44 of which dealt with costs).

9.On 21 April 2008 I allowed the father to file by leave an affidavit of Stephen Potts, solicitor, sworn on that date.

10.However I allowed the father to rely only on pars 1 and 2 of Mr Potts's affidavit, which are formal, and pars 10-16 together with annexures SDP7 and 8, all of which relate to service and subsequent communication between the father’s solicitors and the mother.  I did not allow the father to rely on pars 3-9 of that affidavit nor annexures SDP1-6, to ensure procedural fairness to the mother, having regard to the orders made on 20 March 2008 to which I have referred.  Paragraphs 3-9 and annexures SPD1-6 therefore were and are excluded from the evidence and I have had no regard to them.

11.Annexure SPD7, a letter from the father’s solicitors to the mother dated 28 March 2008 which accompanied the father’s material served on the mother, referred to the father’s intention to rely also on his affidavit filed on 22 February 2008 (in the principal proceedings).  I did not allow the father to rely on that affidavit for the purpose of the hearing of his costs application.

Substance of the application

12.The father's costs application seeks:

1That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings (including the substantive proceedings and costs application):

1.1      On an indemnity basis; or

1.2      In the alternative, to be taxed on a party and party basis.

2Such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court thinks fit.

In the alternative:

3That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings (including the substantive proceedings and costs application) from 17 December 2007 to 21 April 2008 (inclusive):

3.1      On an indemnity basis; or

3.2      In the alternative, to be taxed on a party and party basis.

4         Such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court thinks fit.

In the alternative:

5That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings (including the substantive proceedings and costs application) from 20 March 2008 to 21 April 2008 (inclusive):

5.1      On an indemnity basis; or

5.2      In the alternative, to be taxed on a party and party basis.

6         Such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court thinks fit.

Procedural history and final orders

13.I would refer to the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008 as to the procedural history of the matter, pars 2-20.  In particular, the final phase of the Div 12A hearing proceeded on the undefended basis as against the mother, she having had little involvement in the proceedings after Day 1 of the Div 12A hearing on 26 July 2007.

14.Final orders were made by consent between the father and the independent children's lawyer on 20 March 2008 providing that the child live with the father and spend time with the mother on alternate weekends and for half of the school holidays, with other comprehensive orders comprising 24 paragraphs.

15.The final orders largely reflected those sought by the father in his amended application filed on 21 February 2008, for which leave to file was granted on 12 March 2008, and which was served on the mother by special service on 13 March 2008, but with modifications made during the course of argument on 20 March 2008, as fully explained in the Reasons for Judgment of that date.

Principles

16.Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies. Pursuant to s117(1) and (2) the parties are to bear their own costs unless the Court forms the opinion that there are circumstances to justify a costs order in which case it may make such order as it considers just. Before making a costs order, the Court must identify the circumstance or circumstances on which it relies to justify the order and must have regard to the matters in s117(2A).

17.In Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 the High Court said at 315:

It is an accurate description of s.117(1) to say that it expresses a general rule, provided that it is firmly understood that the sub-section is not paramount to s.117(2). As sub-s. (1) is expressed to be subject to sub-s. (2) the former must yield whenever a judge finds in a particular case that there are circumstances justifying the making of an order for costs.

Sub-section (2) requires a finding of justifying circumstances as an essential preliminary to the making of an order.  Beyond this there is nothing in the subject matter or in the interrelationship of the two provisions which imposes any additional or special onus on an applicant for an order for costs. … (emphasis added)

Grounds

18.The father relies upon the following s 117(2A) matters to invite favourable exercise of the discretion:

· Section 117(2A)(a): the parties' financial circumstances

· Section 117(2A)(c): conduct of the mother

· Section 117(2A)(d): non-compliance by the mother with Court orders

·Section 117(2A)(e): the mother was wholly unsuccessful in her application that the child reside with her

·Section 117(2A)(f): the father offered the mother settlement in late November 2007 in substantially the same terms as the consent orders made on 20 March 2008 between the father and the independent children's lawyer (the mother not attending the hearing on 19 and 20 March 2008)

·Section 117(2A)(g): if the mother had earlier given proper consideration to the matter it could have been resolved by consent orders without the necessity for the father to incur the hearing costs on 19 and 20 March 2008, the father having given the mother that opportunity in late November 2007 and early December 2007 by offering consent orders, and, in forcing the father to the hearing on 19 and 20 March 2008, she acted imprudently.

19.It is convenient to deal with each of these matters in turn.

Section 117(2A)(a): the parties' financial circumstances

20.The father deposes that he and his wife sold their home to pay the legal costs associated with the parenting proceedings concerning the child and that after the sale costs and agent's fees they were left with about $50,000.  After the repayment of a debt of $10,000 and the payment of legal fees of $28,100.68 up to 28 February 2008, they have about $10,000 left to pay the fees incurred between 28 February 2008 and today’s date.  The affidavit material is silent as to the father's current debt to his solicitors.

21.The father’s and his wife's financial circumstances otherwise are set out in his affidavit filed on 20 March 2008, pars 22-26, showing modest income and allowances, and considerable expenses for themselves and their family which includes J, about 4 and a half years, and R, about 2 years, as well as the child, in relation to whom the father deposes he does not receive any financial assistance from the mother for the child’s medical and school costs.

22.In relation to medical costs, the child has a severe medical condition. See the report of Dr M, paediatrician, referred to in the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, pars 28-29.  The father's affidavit filed on 20 March 2008 refers to other costs for the child, including optometry costs.

23.There is no doubt on the evidence that the father is in poor financial circumstances and carries a considerable financial burden, worsened by the incurrence of legal fees in the parenting proceedings concerning the child.

24.The mother did not appear on the costs application, nor provide any material (despite order (6) and the notation) so that little is known of her financial circumstances. 

25.Mr Fisher of Counsel, for the father, however, properly made the following concessions as to non-controversial matters: the mother does not own any real property, she has two children to a Mr McCabe, H 6 years and S 4 years, and presently is expecting a further child in a few months' time.  The father of the mother's newly expected child is a Mr K.

26.According to the family report prepared by Mr H, family consultant, dated 20 February 2008, pars 26-29, Mr K has two children, Y about 9 years and N about 6 years; the mother works in a supermarket but proposes not to after her new child is born; and she hopes to establish a business importing and selling sporting goods.

27.As this material in Mr H’s report is untested, however, it is not appropriate that I rely on it and I do not do so.  Indeed, during argument I acknowledged as much to Mr Fisher, on the basis that the father's material to be relied on, as advised to the mother, did not include information provided by the mother to Mr H, and further, on the basis that as the father’s costs application is for a final order (and it being outside Div 12A) it is not appropriate to admit or rely on hearsay evidence.  For all purposes therefore, although I have made reference to pars 26-29 to Mr H’s family report, I exclude it from consideration.

28.I propose therefore to limit my consideration of the mother's financial circumstances to the concessions properly made by Mr Fisher, and the circumstance that the mother has chosen not to disclose her financial circumstances to the Court for the purpose of the father's costs application, despite opportunity.

Section 117(2A)(c): conduct of the mother

29.Reliance is placed by the father on the circumstance that the mother had little involvement in the proceedings after Day 1 of the Div 12A hearing on 26 July 2007, in that she did not comply with any of the Court orders for the development of the matter, did not attend at scheduled hearings listed on 14 September 2007, 12 March 2008 and 19 and 20 March 2008, did not prosecute her application (by her response filed on 20 November 2006) that the child live with her, and ultimately caused the matter to proceed on the undefended basis, as dealt with in the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, pars 2-18.  Mr Fisher of Counsel, for the father, emphasised my finding that the mother's non-attendance on 19 and 20 March 2008 was deliberate (Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, par 18).

30.The father's case is that on 29 November 2007 his solicitors formulated proposed consent orders which were sent to the mother (see the father's affidavit filed on 20 March 2008, par 19 and annexure CS2, which document subsequently comprised the substance of the father's amended application filed on 21 February 2008, in respect of which leave to file was granted on 12 March 2008, it being served on the mother by special service on 13 March 2008) and that she delayed until mid-March 2008 to provide a meaningful response (her letter 17 March 2008, annexure CS1 to the father's affidavit filed on 20 March 2008) which response, when provided, made little challenge to the father's proposal, but in the meantime the father had been caused the expense of preparation for the main component of the Div 12A hearing on 19 and 20 March 2008.  This expense is detailed in the father's affidavit filed on 20 March 2008, par 20:

20.1Preparing, issuing and serving subpoenas on Dr [B] and Dr [C], together with conduct money;

20.2    Preparation of my affidavit material and that of my wife, […];

20.3My solicitor's appearance at the compliance hearing on 12 March 2008;

20.4Urgent personal service by a process server of my amended application;

20.5    Preparation of a summary of argument;

20.6Retaining my solicitor and Counsel for both days of the final hearing;

20.7All the telephone conversations, letters, emails and other communications incidental to the preparation for the final hearing.

31.Mr Fisher submitted that, acting reasonably, the mother ought to have made much earlier response to the father's proposed consent orders, particularly because her response in her letter 17 March 2008 made little challenge to the father’s proposal, and because ultimately she did not defend the matter. Thus, it was put, the mother ought to have consented to the father's early proposal (annexure CS2, referred to) to save him the expense of the steps detailed in paragraph 20 of his affidavit to which I have referred.

32.However, balanced against the matters referred to, and the submissions in relation to them, is the circumstance that the family report in the matter prepared by Mr H was not released until 20 February 2008.

33.Mr Fisher properly conceded that the mother would not have received a copy of Mr H’s family report until about 3 March 2008 at the earliest, the father having received it on that date, but perhaps not until 5 March 2008, having regard to the location of the mother's residence.

34.The mother then, on 3 or 5 March 2008, was confronted for the first time with Mr H’s recommendations (contained in the family report) that the child live with the father and spend alternate weekends and half of the school holidays with the mother, and that the father have parental responsibility (meaning, in context, sole parental responsibility) for decisions concerning the child’s schooling and organised sporting activities.

35.I have mentioned earlier exclusion of reference to pars 26-29 of Mr H’s family report, in a different context. However, in my view reference to his recommendations is appropriate, not only because they cannot be a matter of controversy as between the parties, but also because they comprise part of the Court record, thus falling into a quite different category from the paragraphs of the report to which I earlier referred but excluded from consideration.

36.Further, although the mother did not involve herself in the development of her case for the main component of the Div 12A hearing on 19 and 20 March 2008, it is plain from Mr H’s family report that the mother participated in the interviews undertaken by Mr H for the purpose of its preparation.

37.Next, it is necessary to consider, from the mother's perspective, her stated reasons for not continuing to prosecute her application for the child to live with her, and her stance taken on 17 March 2008, by her letter to which I have referred, reluctantly to yield to most of the matters in the father's proposal, save for the minor matters set out in her letter which I have canvassed in the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, pars 21-24.

38.The introductory and closing parts of the mother's letter (sent by facsimile to the father's solicitors on 17 March 2008) are important, and in my view show that despite her own wishes and application that the child live with her, after receipt of the family report she acted properly and in the child’s best interests in agreeing that the child should live with the father, and in suggesting what she considered to be "a few alterations" to the father's proposal, as set out in her letter:

This letter is confirmation that I am willing to settle out of court.  You have sent me Consent orders and there are a few alterations that I wish to be made in order to settle out of court.

Please understand that [the child] has indeed said to me that he wishes to live with me, and even tho in the Family Report done, he has explained to me why he said what he said.  It is my understanding that when [the child] is 12 his say does count, but I do realize that he is happy at [M] State School and settled and has some great friendships and also he is Class Captain and given this, this is my reasoning below:

[Five numbered paragraphs relating to the minor alterations sought by the mother to the father's proposal, not set out in this extract]

…

You can contact me at the above phone number today if your client agrees to this we can get the consent orders drawn up today and signed.  If not I would like to know his good reasons, and why.

39.Whilst it is true that the matters of contention raised by the mother in the five numbered paragraphs (and referred to in the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, pars 21-24) were all determined against her, it was reasonable for her to raise them, and her letter showed proper thought in relation to each matter raised.  I would make specific mention, in this context, to the circumstance that in the final orders provision was made for the father to have sole parental responsibility for decisions concerning one aspect of the child’s health. This resulted primarily however from short oral evidence given by Mr H on 20 March 2008, as explained in the Reasons for Judgment of that date.

40.I have mentioned that the final orders made on 20 March 2008 largely reflected those sought in the father's amended application initially filed on 21 February 2008, but for which leave was not granted until 12 March 2008, the father's amended application then having been served on the mother by special service on 13 March 2008.  This was only four days before her letter 17 March 2008.

41.The father relies however on the circumstance that his amended application reflected his proposal formulated on 29 November 2007.  Mr Fisher conceded, properly, that assuming the father's solicitors posted the proposal annexure CS2 to the mother on or about that date, she is likely to have received it in the ordinary course of the post a few days later.  It was submitted that, allowing a reasonable period for the mother to consider the proposal after its receipt, the mother, acting reasonably, would have agreed to it or at least responded to it by about 17 December 2007, being 14 days or so after the approximately anticipated receipt date.  (Hence, the first alternative in the father’s costs application).

42.I reject that submission, for the reason that as at that date, 17 December 2007,  the mother did not have the benefit of the release and receipt of Mr H’s family report.  Indeed, the interviews for the purpose of the family report were not conducted until 6 February 2008 (the father, the child, and the father's other family members) and 18 February 2008 (the mother, the child, the mother's other family members and one further family member on the father's side) and in my view, it was reasonable for the mother not to make any final decision as to the litigation concerning the child until after she had received the family report and had proper time to consider it.  As mentioned earlier, Mr Fisher conceded that the mother is likely to have received the family report, dated 20 February 2008, between about 3 and 5 March 2008.  In my view, having regard to the background of this matter, it is reasonable for the mother to have had about 14 days after her receipt of the report to consider it, her proper consideration of it being demonstrated in and by her letter 17 March 2008.

43.I would mention that the family report refers also to interviews on 20 July 2008.  These were for the purpose of Day 1 of the Div 12A hearing conducted on 26 July 2008.  However, the transcript of the proceedings on that date shows that Mr H, properly, did not make recommendations at that early stage as to the ultimate outcome of the matter.  Mr Fisher, on the hearing of the costs application, properly acknowledged this.

44.I have mentioned Mr Fisher's concession that the mother is likely to have received Mr H’s report between about 3 and 5 March 2008.  Mr Fisher further conceded, properly, that it is reasonable for the mother to have had a reasonable time to consider the content of Mr H’s report and his recommendations, conceding further, properly, that it is a relevant consideration for me to take into account when the mother first received Mr H’s report and recommendations.

45.The mother then, as I have recorded, received the father's amended application on 13 March 2008 and responded to it, properly and adequately in my view, by her letter 17 March 2008.

46.In all of these circumstances, I am not able to conclude that any conduct of the mother is conduct amounting to a justifying circumstance to award costs to the father, either of and incidental to the proceedings as a whole, nor from 17 December 2007.

47.Different considerations arise in relation to the father's costs claim in the third limb of his application, namely for costs from 20 March 2008 to 21 April 2008, the first date being the second date of the listed March 2008 hearing, and the second date being the date on which the father's costs application was listed for hearing and heard.

48.It is proper, I think, to separate the components of this head of claim into two parts, namely the father's costs of his legal representation at the listed hearing on 20 March 2008, being the second date of the listed March 2008 hearing, and the father's costs of and incidental to his costs application, as to which on 20 March 2008 I made the orders set out above.

49.In my view, for the reasons already set out, there was no conduct of the mother up to and including 19 March 2008 which is a justifying circumstance to award costs to the father, in that, in the circumstances which obtained, it always would have been necessary for the father to attend the hearing on 19 March 2008, which he chose to do by solicitors and Counsel.

50.On 19 March 2008, I was prepared to give the mother the benefit of the doubt as to whether her non-appearance on that date was deliberate. See the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, par 14.  However, as I subsequently determined, the mother deliberately did not appear on 19 and 20 March 2008. See the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, par 18.

51.Mr Fisher of Counsel, for the father, submitted that even if no other costs should be awarded, the mother should pay the father's costs of the appearance by his legal representatives on 20 March 2008, because if the mother had appeared on 19 March 2008 (which she had told the independent children's lawyer she intended to do: see the Reasons for Judgment 20 March 2008, par 11), the matter could and would have been dealt with wholly on 19 March 2008.  I accept this submission, and find that the mother's conduct is a justifying circumstance to award the father the costs of the appearance by his legal representatives, including Counsel, on 20 March 2008, and further that the mother's conduct to which I have referred fits the criteria for the award of indemnity costs for that day. See, generally, Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; Munday and Bowman (1997) 22 FamLR 321 at 322, in particular as to conduct causing loss of time to the Court and an opposite party.

Section 117(2A)(d): non-compliance by the mother with Court orders

52.The father relies on the mother's non-compliance with the procedural orders made on 26 July 2007 and 14 September 2007, particularly in light of pars 21 and 22 of the orders made on 14 September 2007, the latter of which invoked Rule11.02(2)(c) of the Family Law Rules 2004, to the effect that if the mother failed to appear at the continuation dates 19 and 20 March 2008, the matter would proceed on the undefended basis.

53.However, I am unable to accept that the mother's non-compliance with the procedural orders for the preparation and presentation of her own case, including all of the procedural orders made on 26 July 2007 and 14 September 2007 concerning her, has any cost consequence for the father, in the circumstances which have obtained.

54.Put shortly, the fact that the mother did not develop and present her own case, in my view, has had no cost consequence to the father in relation to the necessity for him to develop and present his own case.

55.Otherwise, the father's case under this head overlaps his case concerning other aspects of the mother's conduct, with which I have dealt already.

Section 117(2A)(e): mother wholly unsuccessful

56.I have sufficiently dealt with this aspect of the matter. 

Section 117(2A)(f): settlement offers

57.I have sufficiently dealt with this aspect of the matter.

Section 117(2A)(g): imprudent conduct by the mother

58.I have sufficiently dealt with this aspect of the matter.

Analysis and conclusion

59.Having considered all of the matters which I am required to consider, and all of the evidence, it seems to me that there is a justifying circumstance for the mother to pay the father's costs of the appearance of his legal representatives, including both solicitor and Counsel, on 20 March 2008, on the indemnity basis, but that there is no justifying circumstance for the mother to pay any other of the father's costs of the proceedings.

60.I am satisfied, having considered all of the matters which I am required to consider, and all of the evidence, that such a costs order, to be paid by the mother to the father on the indemnity basis, would be a just result between the parties.  I have taken into account, in particular, that whilst the mother's financial circumstances appear poor, so are the father's.

61.To save the parties further expense, in particular their attendance at a costs assessment hearing, and the costs of the preparation of material for such a hearing, I would invite Mr Potts to lodge with the Associate by lunch time today a short affidavit setting out the father's legal costs for the appearance on 20 March 2008, which amount, when deposed to, I would propose to include in the order for indemnity costs for that date.

RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

62.Mr Potts has filed by leave granted today the affidavit which I requested which sets out the father’s costs on the indemnity basis of the appearance of his legal representatives, including both solicitor and Counsel on 20 March 2008 as $3,374.00.

63.The order will be that the mother pay those costs to the father.

Costs of the father's costs application 

64.The father's costs of his costs application (claimed in his application filed on 26 March 2008, as set out above) are sought on the basis that although the father has not been wholly successful in his costs application, he has achieved an award of costs, including on the indemnity basis, not often awarded in this Court. 

65.In respect of those parts of the costs application for which the father was not successful, being the most of it, it was submitted that, in practical terms, the father's costs of the preparation of the costs application and of solicitor and Counsel appearing on it in effect would be roughly the same,  and that the costs of service of the costs application on the mother by express post pursuant to the orders for service which I made would have been the same, as would the preparation of Potts's affidavit filed by leave on 21 April 2008, save for the parts excised from reference to which I have earlier referred.

66.It seems to me that there is merit in these submissions, and I am persuaded in the circumstances that the father should have half of his costs of and incidental to his costs application.  I take into account that the major part of the costs application was lost, however, I am persuaded, and I accept, that even if the major part had not been brought, nonetheless it was necessary for the father to bring the application for the part for which he has been successful, and that largely the costs would have been the same.  The award of half the costs recognises this aspect of the matter.  

67.The affidavit filed by Mr Potts by leave today sets out half of the standard costs of the father’s costs application at $648.65.

68.The order will be that the mother pay those costs to the father.

RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

ADDENDUM MADE IN CHAMBERS

The time for payment

69.It is always appropriate that costs orders require payment within a specified time.  In all of the circumstances, in my view a reasonable time for the mother to pay the costs awarded is 30 days.

70.The order therefore will include that requirement.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Reilly

Associate: 

Date: