Stierznow-Almer and Almer

[2009] FamCA 577

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STIERZNOW-ALMER & ALMER [2009] FamCA 577

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM FINANCIAL – Injunctions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Stierznow-Almer

RESPONDENT: Mr Almer

FILE NUMBER: PAC 777 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 13 May 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Loughnan JR

HEARING DATE: 13 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Navado Lawyers & Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Husband in person

Orders

1. Leave is granted to the parties to inspect documents produced on subpoena by the wife.

2. Orders are made in terms of paragraphs 2, 5, 8 and 14 of Annexure B to the wife’s Initiating Application filed 20 February 2009 as set out hereunder:

   “2.That until further order, the Respondent pay direct to the Applicant, for her maintenance, the sum of $500 per week, and that:

   a.The first payment, pursuant to these orders be made one week from the date of this order.

   b.That such payment be made into the account No […] in the name of the Applicant [Ms Stierznow-Almer] at the [S], branch BSB No […] of the National Australia Bank.

   5.That in consideration of the $500 per week being paid to the Applicant in accordance with Order 2 above, that the Respondent be entitled to draw the sum of $500 per week from the Company accounts for his own personal use and benefit.

   8.That until further order, the Respondent be responsible for making all mortgage payments to the Commonwealth Bank pursuant to Mortgage No. […] with respect to the matrimonial property at [S] being the whole of the land situate in Folio Identifier […].

   14.That the Respondent in his personal capacity or as director and/or shareholder or as trustee, partner or joint venturer be hereby restrained from selling, disposing, transferring, further encumbering or dealing with in any manner whatsoever other than in the normal course of business:

   a. The shares, vehicles, equipment (including all [audiovisual] equipment) and any other assets and property of [TS] Pty Limited ACN […] ("The First Company") and any other business, company, trust or partnership that the Respondent or The First Company may have a whole or partial interest in;

   b.The shares, vehicles, equipment (including all [audiovisual] equipment) and any other assets and property of [AL] Pty Limited ACN […] ("The Second Company") and any other business, company, trust or partnership that the Respondent or The Second Company may have a whole or partial interest in;

   c.The matrimonial home situated at [S] being the whole of the land described in Folio Identifier […].”

3. That until further order, in addition to his legal obligations to make any other payments whether by his personal capacity or in his capacity as a director or shareholder of any company, the husband is to be responsible for the payment of the hire purchase instalments relating to the Saab motor vehicle driven by the wife including as soon as practicable bringing up to date any arrears in those instalments.

4. By consent these proceedings are transferred to the Sydney Registry of this Court AND the Court noted that the parties consent to the matter being heard on a final basis before Judicial Registrar Loughnan.

5. The document titled “Draft Order” attached hereto, is Exhibit A.

6. The substantive proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed before a Registrar assigned as the Docket Registrar for these proceedings for consideration of the appointment of a single expert to value the corporate entities TS Pty Ltd and AL Pty Ltd, whether in accordance with Exhibit A or otherwise, and for the making of any other orders for the purposes of preparing these proceedings for final hearing.

7. Stand over proceedings in relation to subpoenas issued to C Pty Ltd and O Pty Ltd to the date allocated by the Registry pursuant to the last direction.  That the solicitor at whose request the subpoenas issued notify the addressee as soon as practicable of the adjourned date.

8. The Court requested that the Docket Registrar either appoint or dispense with, a Case Assessment Conference Financial and Conciliation Conference in these proceedings.

9. The Court formally noted that these orders are made in terms of the Undertaking as to Damages given in the terms of paragraph 144 of the wife’s affidavit filed 20 February 2009 through her counsel today.

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

EXHIBIT A

PAC 777/2009

DRAFT ORDER

1. Mr [Mr P] Chartered Accountant be appointed as a single expert  to value the companies [TS] P/L and [AL] P/L.

1. The parties shall equally pay the costs of the valuation.

1. Both parties are directed to write separately a letter of instruction to Mr [P].

1. Both parties shall:

4.1Answer promptly any question and provide information requested by Mr [P].

1. Noted the financial records in relation to the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2008 for [TS] P/L are presently held by accountants in [S].

1. Noted the wife asserts the website with Domain names […].com and […].com.au upon which [products] created by the husband was affected for sale and lease.

1. Noted the wife asserts the links to the websites became inaccessible during December 2008.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 777 of 2009

MS STIERZNOW-ALMER

Applicant

And

MR ALMER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings for a number of interim financial orders and injunctions in the context of proceedings for settlement of property which were commenced by the wife by her application filed 20 February 2009. 

2. The background involves the wife and husband who are 48 years of age and 45 years of age respectively. They started to live together in about June 1989, were married in Poland in June 1990 and separated on 24 December 2008.  The parties arrived in Australia in 1991. 

3. The orders sought include $500 a week for interim spousal maintenance; that the wife be able to draw that money directly from the company; that the husband return some money that he removed from company accounts to those accounts; that the husband return some money that he transferred to his private account to the company account; that the husband make the payments on the mortgage on the home; that the wife be indemnified in relation to the mortgage; that the wife be entitled to a charge on the property in respect of payments she makes; that the husband or the business in effect pay all credit cards in either party's names or in the name of the company or another company; that the husband or the company be responsible for paying all hire-purchase agreements and company debts; that the husband pay half the outstanding debt to P School in relation to the parties' eldest daughter; that the husband be restrained from dealing with a number of things, including the home, except in the ordinary course of business, including assets of the company, shares in the company, and there is another company mentioned; that the husband pay $12,000 by way of interim costs and how that would be applied; and that the husband pay the costs of today.

4. The husband substantially opposes those orders.  The husband seeks that the wife pay him $1000 a week.  He wants a stay of the operation of orders about child support. I do not think there are any orders about child support. He wants the wife out of the home.  He wants to be declared the owner of the property. 

5. The affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant contains more detail than could be relevant to an interim hearing, probably more detail than would be relevant to a final hearing. That volume of material misled the husband into thinking that he should respond in kind. I am left to two voluminous affidavits in relation to what orders I should make for an interim period. We are regaled with the exciting story of why the parties chose a Mercedes motor vehicle over a Subaru motor vehicle some time in the past and other entirely irrelevant matters.   

6. The relevant facts seem to be there: The parties have two children, a daughter and a son, who are 18 and 16 years of age respectively. The parties met at university in Poland and each graduated in a profession. They were married in June 1990.  At some point the husband was given a flat by his grandmother in a town that I cannot pronounce in Poland.  The parties moved to Australia, arriving in Sydney on 14 March 1991. They lived in rented premises.  The parties’ daughter was born in May that year.  The parties established a partnership called TS Partnership.  The husband was developing a product and the wife tested it.  The husband also started repairing and building electronics for sale through the Trading Post.  The parties’ son was born in September 1992.  He suffered some bad health.  The flat in Poland was sold in 1993 and the parties received about $40,000.  In April of that year the parties bought S property, paying $295,000.  

7. In 1996 the husband commenced an enterprise in the audiovisual field.  In March 2000 the husband began consulting with a company W Company earning about $80 an hour. The wife says that in 2000 the husband lent his friend, Mr T, $70,000 without canvassing that with her first. She says the husband in December 2001 was fired or terminated by W Company and that in October 2002 he commenced proceedings against W Company for breach of contract.  In 2003 the parties incorporated TS Pty Ltd to conduct the business of the partnership. 

8. The wife says that in January 2007 the husband sold some audiovisual material from overseas trips and received $100,000.  She understands that he used that money to fund further trips.  She says in June of that year he borrowed $100,000 for his legal fees in respect of the W Company case. 

9. He bought a camera for $30,000 in April 2008 and in June he bought a lens for $90,000. The wife says those two purchases were funded from the parties' mortgage. In July 2008 the wife says she ceased working for the company because she suffered from what she has been told is Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in her left leg.  The husband opened a personal bank account with the Commonwealth Bank in September 2007. 

10. The chronology is out of sequence in the wife's affidavit.  The wife says on 5 January last year the husband withdrew $30,000 from the offset account.  The wife says in April of last year she vacated the parties' bedroom.  The husband told her that he wished to relocate to Tasmania.  On 2 May last year he said that he had found a good property in Tasmania.  I think the situation is that the husband injured his back in August of last year and in October of last year had surgery to his back.  The wife says the husband's parents sent the parties $8000. 

11. In October there was a matter of controversy between the parties relating to a holiday the wife had to northern Queensland.  On 13 October the husband sent the wife a proposed division of property settlement.  She says that on 24 November 2008 the parties agreed to end their marriage.  I think they each say separation occurred on a different day, perhaps January 2009 under one roof from the wife's point of view.  On 12 December or about that time the wife says she received a call from her solicitor, (though I understand she means ‘a solicitor’), to say that her husband was purchasing a property in Tasmania.  On 5 January the wife says that she ceased to provide any household services to the husband and on 7 January she caused a caveat to be lodged on the title of the home.  A lapsing notice was served.  The husband registered AL Pty Ltd in January 2009 and I think the wife represents - and it may be agreed - that in effect the husband moved the enterprise out from under TS Pty Ltd to conduct the business through AL Pty Ltd.

12. A letter from went the wife's solicitors on 2 February asking the husband to refrain from encumbering or disposing of assets.  The husband requested an extension of time till later in February.  The wife says that there was physical violence between the parties on 10 February. On about 18 February this year the wife heard about two deeds of sale for company equipment.

13. On 30 March the matter came before me at Parramatta.  The wife was present and represented.  The husband attended by telephone from a site I think in South Australia where he was engaged in work.  I made the following orders in effect, adjourning the matter to today, noting that the matter was listed in Sydney without formally transferring the proceedings to this registry.  I noted that the matter might be appropriate for the Federal Magistrates Court because of the parties' assets, and I restrained the husband until 6 o'clock today in terms of two paragraphs of a minute I was provided. The effect of that order was that the husband in his personal capacity or as an officer of the company was restrained from selling, disposing, transferring, further encumbering or dealing with, other than in the ordinary course of business, shares, vehicles, equipment and other assets and property of TS Pty Ltd and AL Pty Ltd, and restrained from taking any step to cause the S property from being sold or further encumbered unless the parties agreed to the contrary.  I noted for the avoidance of doubt the husband was not to put the property to auction pending further order, except with the written consent of the wife.

14. The husband has reminded me today that there was an auction fixed for about 18 or 19 April and that auction did not go ahead because of those orders. 

15. There is a document whereby the wife sets out what she understands to be the assets of the parties.  She puts the S property at $650,000, a bank account of $2460, the husband's account that may be empty, a Saab motor vehicle worth $17,000, household contents she thinks in a total of $7000 that are mostly with the husband. The wife does not know the value of the company TS Pty Ltd.  She says the mortgage debt is $190,000 but she apportions that to each of the parties. I think her evidence is that the debt is $380,000. In his Financial Statement the husband puts the debt at $325,000. The wife says that the husband owes unpaid income tax of $145,000, a Westpac Ignite MasterCard of $11,000, American Express of $5000, GE Money $10,000 and a debt of the company TS Pty Ltd of $3000.  She says she has a Citibank Visa card of $2500, a Myer Visa card of $2000 and a debt to GE Capital Finance - that might relate to the motor vehicle - at $5470. 

16. So the net assets of the parties on her calculation, different to the husband's presumably because of the different figures for the mortgage puts the net assets at less than $200,000. That will depend on the valuation of the company. 

17. The first claim for relief is for spousal maintenance.  That is a remedy available between parties to a marriage where one party is not adequately able to support themselves from their own resources.  The other party can be called upon to provide support to the extent of their reasonable capacity.  As luck would have it, both parties have sought maintenance against each other. The husband does not seem to have a very light-hearted attitude to the proceedings, but I think his application might be a little tongue-in-cheek. He would be aware that his wife has no significant income, independent of any work that she has done recently for the company. As to her earning capacity, the wife traces through her work history from working for a firm in Gdansk I think. Since arriving in Australia her paid employment has been limited to the parties' enterprise.  She made an attempt at a children’s enterprise, but it is not suggested that was a significantly remunerative exercise. 

18. The husband has been the primary focus of the family income.  He has been the one doing the main work, whether it be related to his audiovisual activities or the product development activities or anything else.  The wife's recent role, acknowledged by the husband, has been that she has prepared the preliminary accounts for the enterprise which were then provided to an accountant for the purpose of creating the formal records and income tax returns. 

19. So the wife's evidence is that she has no income and she has an expenditure of $812 a week.  That is made up of $312.50 a week payable to the Commonwealth Bank.  I am not sure whether that is half the mortgage or all the mortgage payment. She pays rates at $45 a week, life insurance at $32, car insurance at $25, hire-purchase payments on the vehicle at $207.50, Visa card payments just below the minimum payment of $33 a week to Citibank and again just below the minimum payment too on a Myer Visa card, and similarly in relation to another Citibank Visa card at $40 a week.  She says that adds up to $812.  I have not checked that.  She also says, as she is obliged to in a spousal maintenance claim, that she has recurrent living expenses of $1070.25 a week made up of $197.50 applied to her own needs and $733.75 to those of the children. The lion's share of the children’s expenses are represented by their daughter’s school fees. 

20. The wife's claim is for $500 a week.  She shows a shortfall in her financial statement of over $1000.  There is nothing in the categories of those expenses that would be inappropriate.  Some of the things in the past have been paid directly from company funds.  I apprehend the car lease and mortgage payments might have been.  But, for example, she claims $50 for food, $10 for household supplies, $4.50 for telephone. There is nothing there of any extravagance.  Interestingly, the husband complains about the wife’s lifestyle expenses, such as gym fees and liquor costs. The wife makes no claim for anything like that.  So no part of the wife's claim for maintenance is based on the fact that she needs to go to a gymnasium. 

21. The wife's case about capacity is she has been out of the paid workforce, apart from the business, for a long time.  She said there was a difficult period early in the relationship in terms of her working up her facility in English.  That was prevented to some extent because she had young children to care for, could not complete a TAFE course and so on.  And she said it was the parties' arrangement that her work was largely within the household. The husband put to me in the course of submissions words to the effect: "The wife has the same qualifications as I have."  That may be true, but as far as I know, he does not use his tertiary qualification for either his audiovisual work or his product development.  I may be wrong about that.  But nobody, not the wife, not him, says that the wife has worked in the professional field for many years. The parties' arrangement had the wife in the household and assisting with the business. That is not unusual.  The wife says since then her health has been compromised.  She says she has a pain condition.  For the purposes of today there is no evidence of real assistance about that.  That is a matter that would fall to another day.  But for the purposes of interim proceedings the wife explains why she does not have an income.  It is not objectively incredible, it is consistent with the bare facts, and it seems to me I should accept her for the purpose of today. The wife has a weekly budget shortfall well in excess of her claim. She has a proper reason for requiring support.

22. Next, we come to the husband.  The problem there is that the husband discloses an income of $462 a week as an employee of AL Pty Ltd, working in product development and audiovisual. He says that - and this is where we start to have problems - his weekly income tax obligation is $375 a week.  He puts the mortgage payment at $500 a week, payments on the Saab motor vehicle at $215 a week, all other expenditure $500 a week, bringing him to $1662 a week.  Unfortunately, as recently as February of this year he represented to the Commonwealth Bank that he had cash or savings of $13,217.12, that he paid $23,000 as a deposit on a home, that his annual income was $184,000 a year and that his monthly salary or wages were $15,333.33.  He confirmed that in a document that he promised that was true for the purposes of the Commonwealth Bank's low documentation loan declaration on 8 December 2008. he said his income was $184,000 per annum. 

1. Now, there was a principle referred to in the authorities called the Elias principle whereby Goldstein J found that a person could not repudiate in the course of proceedings a false declaration made for improper purposes.  There is a High Court decision of Nelson which says that is not the case and that the Court is not relieved of its obligation to make a finding as to the truth of something.  That is not to say that there would be no consequences as a result of the false declaration. The problem here is that it is not out of the realms of possibility that the husband’s declaration to the bank was correct. The husband concedes that something like that was his income in times past.  He has shown me preliminary accounting records prepared by his wife that put for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 financial years retained profits in the enterprise after wages of $70,000-odd had been paid, at something like $52,000, $100,000 and about $134,000. That suggests that the husband may have an expectation of a total income of the order of that which he represented to the bank, even allowing some generous margin for wages the wife might have been earning at that same time. 

2. He said to me in the course of submissions that that is what had earned and I put to him that he may have a reasonable expectation that he will return to that level of income. Return he must because the purpose of the declaration was to secure a borrowing I think of about $207,000. Part of the covenant that he made with the bank was that he would have the wherewithal to make the necessary repayments. He made that commitment knowing that there was a property settlement in the wind and no doubt that his wife would be paid something. Further than that, the property in Tasmania is a vacant block of land.  So in addition to the $207,000 worth of borrowing he was contracting to service, there was going to be some sort of dwelling installed or built.  He said to me - I do not know if there is any evidence about it - that his plan is for some modest accommodation to be installed on the property.  But even if that was a relocatable home or a fixed van, there are thousands of dollars one would expect of obligation involved in that exercise, including site costs. 

3. The husband does not have to pay maintenance out of income.  Spousal maintenance can be paid out of financial resources.  It can be paid out of assets.  It can be paid out of borrowings.  It can be paid out of income.

4. There is a level of irregularity about the husband's financial dealings.  He says he has other people's money coming through his accounts.  He has what seems to be a relatively non-commercial arrangement with his father in terms of advances of money. That is to say, advances were made over many years and not called in. The husband's evidence would be that advances were made recently and then suddenly part of the entire debt was called in.  It is not represented that there is a document that sets out the arrangement between the husband and his father.  So it may be that there is some flexibility there. 

5. But for the declaration he made to the Commonwealth Bank, the husband  would say that because of his back injury since August 2008, there has been at least some limitation in his capacity for paid employment. We know the injury does not prevent him working because, as I said, on 30 March he was on site in South Australia. So that excludes any restrictions on his capacity to travel to undertake that sort of work. As I said, we have the overarching problem caused by his representations to the bank. 

6. So for the purposes of today, it seems to me that I should accept that the husband has access to the sort of funds by way of income that would service this sort of obligation. There may be swings and round abouts with delays in moneys being paid to him and lumpy payments coming in. As recently as late last year when the husband says there had been a misappropriation over three years by the wife of up to $330,000 from company accounts, the parties were still able to maintain the payments on the mortgage on the home and body and soul was kept together.  The household functioned, school fees were paid, recurrent expenses were paid and so on. 

7. It seems to me in those circumstances I should accept that there is a capacity to pay. I propose to make the order in relation to interim spousal maintenance.  If the wife is paid $500 a week it is sought that the husband be permitted to draw a similar amount.  That is not a remarkable order.  I will make that.  

8. The next order sought, at paragraph 6, is that the husband return to the parties' joint account $30,000 drawn on 5 January 2009.  The problem with this - and a number of other orders, (interim costs, transfer of funds from one account to another) is that one has to have a view to enforcement. It is conceded on behalf of the wife, that she cannot point to a fund that these moneys can come from.  I am already worried that there may be a very modest pool of assets.  It might be that this company is not worth much or that the wife cannot prove that it is worth much and therefore there are few assets.  In those circumstances I do not want the parties consumed with enforcement proceedings.  Certainly the matter could come back if there is a fund pointed to.  But for the purposes of today, I do not propose to make order 6 or order 7. 

9. I will make order 8, which relates to the husband being responsible for the mortgage payment.  I mean, it is not saying anything new.  He is responsible at law for the mortgage payments.  But for the same reason that I indicated body and soul was kept together for a period late into last year, it seems perhaps that there is a coincidence between everything breaking down soon after separation and the husband wanting the property sold. 

10. I do not think the indemnification orders sought at paragraphs 9 and 10, are orders that mean anything in family law.  What will be will be in terms of the final settlement.  It is not likely that the settlement of the sale, even if in the worse case scenario it is under a mortgagee sale, could be affected without some supervision from the Court.  So it does not seem to me that those are necessary orders.  I do not propose to make an order in relation to credit card payments.  I do not know quite what is meant by that.

11. Now, there is a general provision in relation to hire-purchase agreements, liabilities and other debts.  I suppose the only thing that is of any real concern relates to the motor vehicle.  Rather than making an order in the terms that are sought, I will make an order targeted at the motor vehicle.  There is a household of three members where the wife lives.  They need a motor vehicle.  Arrangements were made for a motor vehicle in the past.  The wife does not have the capacity to make the payments.  It seems to me that should be maintained.  I do not think there would be any complaint if the husband wanted to replace that motor vehicle with another one, the one he drives, or whatever.  But otherwise, it seems to me, unless there is some other solution to it, it would be appropriate that the members of the wife’s household be able to move around. 

12. As to the school debt, there is an issue which I raised with Mr Givney for the wife. Is that a child support matter. On reflection I think it is not. The parties have incurred an obligation. I am told that there is nothing in the husband's response that suggests that he wants his daughter removed from the school.  So there is no issue about that.  I suppose it is too late in effect.  The parties have an obligation to make this payment. The problem is, it is a lumpy amount and I cannot point to a fund.  So I am not going to make the order. It may be that as schools often do, this school would be willing to hold off taking action that would embarrass the child.  One would hope so. In any event I still need to make an order that is enforceable, and the parties have the obligation, in any event. 

13. Then a similar order sought to the one I made on the last occasion.  That is appropriate.  I put to Mr Givney that it may be that his client would come to realise that the S property has to be sold in any event.  That is not a point that she has reached today.  That is something that the parties need to be vigilant about.  The husband says it needs to be sold.  He may prove to be correct about that.  There is some exposure to the wife in relation to an undertaking as to damages she has given, which would cover all of these orders.  But I am told in fact that the wife agreed to the sale going through and then changed her attitude when she thought that it may be that the net proceeds of sale would be vulnerable to the purchase costs of a property in Tasmania. 

14. I am not going to make an order about preliminary costs for the reasons that I have said. 

15. Dealing with the rest of the husband's application, he wants 50 per cent of the credit cards and mortgage paid by the wife.  She does not have the wherewithal to do it.  He wants the sale of the property, and I am not going to order that today.  He wants the property cleaned up.  It does not need to be cleaned up if it is not going to be sold.  He wants 50 per cent of the utilities paid by the wife.  I think she will probably do that out of the maintenance he pays.  He wants the wife to pay 50 per cent of the home loan payments.  I am not going to make any particular order about that.  He wants damages for being kept away from his work while these proceedings are on.  That is not a permissible form of relief.  And he wants preliminary costs of $12,000, a reciprocal order of the one the wife seeks.  That is not appropriate.  He wants a repayment of one half of the retained profits for the years 04/05, 05/06, 06/07, 07/08, 08/09 that he says the wife withdrew. 

16. Just dealing with that, the husband points to payments out of various accounts totalling something like I think $330,000.  Mr Givney took me to the criticism by the husband of the wife in relation to her expenditure, including credit card expenditure, and showed me her credit card statements for calendar year 2008 and there was nothing remarkable.  The only questionable lifestyle expenditure on the sheets that I saw related to flights to northern Queensland, an issue that is dealt with in the parties' affidavits.  I think it was an event shared with the wife's sister.  But otherwise, doctors, petrol stations, food outlets - I do not mean restaurants, I mean Coles and Woolworths – are all unremarkable expenditure.  So I am saying at a prima facie level there is no evidence that there has been a significant amount misappropriated or appropriated by the wife.  There is no secondary evidence about it, no suggestion of a Polish bank account or any hidden funds, no suggestion of significant lifestyle expenditure.  I think the husband referred to hairdressing and cosmetics, but nothing to suggest travel to the casino, luxury boats, nothing of that sort of nature.

17. He wants the wife to pay all the tax, all the penalties and interest in relation to late tax.  That is an issue for another day.  And he wants all the payments made into a particular account.  That is not appropriate. 

18. To my horror, when I started giving reasons the husband handed up a minute of the final orders he sought and said to me that he thought today was the final hearing of his case.  I hope a reading of the transcript will reveal that there was no impression given about such a thing in anything that has been said or done today.  But I disabused him about that and said that we would look towards moving to a final hearing at some point and that today was just for the purpose of interim orders. 

I certify that the preceding forty (40) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judicial Registrar Loughnan

Associate: 

Date:  3 July 2009