Suh v Cho

[2011] VCC 82

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised

(Not) Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CIVIL DIVISION

COMMERCIAL LIST – GENERAL DIVISION

Case No. CI-10-02523

JUNG WAH SUH and ORS	Plaintiffs
v
JEFF W CHO and ORS	Defendants
---
JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANDERSON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 January 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 February 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Suh & Ors v Cho & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VCC 82

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

---

Catchwords:  Practice and procedure – Application to set aside default judgment – Failure
by defendants to particularise allegation that document executed “under
economic duress”.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S S R Lee	KCI Lawyers
For the First Defendant	Mr J Cho (in person)
For the Second Defendant	Ms C Ho (in person)
For the Third Defendant	Ms C Ho (a director by leave)
HIS HONOUR:

1           The court must determine two applications:

a.	the first plaintiff’s Summons filed 30 September 2010 for summary judgment against the first defendant for $150,000 plus statutory interest. This is only part of the relief sought by the two plaintiffs against the three defendants in the Amended Statement of Claim filed 30 August 2010;
b.	the first defendant’s Summons filed 22 November 2010 to set aside the default judgment entered on 17 November 2010.

2           To put these applications into context it is necessary to set out in some detail the history of the proceeding and the dispute between the parties. On 11 June 2010 the two plaintiffs, Jung Wah Suh and Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd, issued a Writ against the three defendants, Jeff W Cho, Christi Ho and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd. The non- corporate parties are members of the Korean community. The first defendant, Mr Cho, is a licensed plumber. The second defendant, Ms Ho, is his wife. The second plaintiff is a company incorporated in September 2005 by Mr Cho through which he operated a plumbing business. Mr Cho was the sole director of the company.

3           In about February 2009, the first plaintiff, Mr Suh, entered into an agreement with Mr Cho to become an equal shareholder in, and director of, Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd. The first plaintiff was not a licensed plumber and the “hands on” plumbing work of the company continued to be performed by Mr Cho. The relationship was not successful and in June 2009 Mr Cho left the business and effectively the relationship between Mr Cho and Mr Suh ceased. Also in June 2009, the third defendant, Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd, was incorporated. Ms Ho was a director and the sole shareholder of the company. The company provides plumbing services and Mr Cho works in the business.

4           Mr Suh claims that between March and June 2009 he advanced sums totalling $150,000 to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd by way of personal loans to Mr Cho. Further claims were made by the plaintiffs which are contained in an Amended Statement of Claim dated 30 August 2010, as follows:

a.	a claim by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd against Mr Cho for repayment of unpaid loans totalling $30,000;
b.	a claim that Mr Cho made representations to Mr Suh in March 2009 which induced him to invest in Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd. These “investment representations” were alleged to be misleading and deceptive in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974;
c.	a claim that the defendants had “taken possession of the plumbing business” conducted by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd and thereby converted it;
d.	a claim that Mr Cho had breached equitable and fiduciary duties and obligations owed to the plaintiffs by his conduct in relation to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd and that Ms Ho and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd had assisted Mr Cho in the breaches;
e.	a claim that Mr Cho had breached his obligation pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 as a director of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd and that Ms Ho and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd were involved in those breaches.

5           As a consequence of these matters, the plaintiffs sought damages and other relief against the defendants.

6           In their Amended Defence dated 14 September 2010, the defendants alleged that:

a.	in March 2009, Mr Suh and Mr Cho had agreed that Mr Suh would become an equal shareholder and director of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd;
b.	in April and May 2009, Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd had loaned sums totalling $32,000 to Mr Cho, of which $2,000 had been repaid and the balance was to be repaid without interest after five years;
c.	between March and May 2009, Mr Suh had advanced the sum of $200,000 by way of loan to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd as working capital;
d.	in May 2009, Mr Suh agreed to lend the further sum of $100,000 to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd as working capital;
e.	an alleged agreement dated 2 June 2009 acknowledging a debt of $150,000 by Mr Cho to Mr Suh “was executed by the first defendant under economic duress”;
f.	the other allegations by the plaintiffs giving rise to the claims for damages against the defendants were denied.

7

8 debt of $150,000 was issued on 30 September 2010 and made returnable on 28
October 2010. On 21 October 2010, the defendants’ solicitors were given leave to
cease to act. Her Honour’s order that day notes that Ms Ho appeared. On 27 October
2010, Mr Cho filed an affidavit stating that, as a result of injuries, he had been unable
to attend court on 21 October and would be unable to attend on 28 October. He said
that he was instructing Ms Ho to attend court on 28 October to represent him and to
seek an adjournment of the Summons. On 28 October 2010, the order of Her Honour
Judge Kennedy noted that, “Ms J Cho, the daughter of the first defendant” was
permitted “to address the court”. The orders made by Her Honour included the
vacation of the trial date, the refixing of the trial on 14 December 2010 and adjourning Mr Suh’s application for summary judgment against Mr Cho in respect of the alleged judge.

Originally on 17 June 2010, Mr Cho and Ms Ho had filed appearances personally and Ltd. On 19 July 2010, solicitors filed a notice that they acted on behalf of the defendants. On 19 October 2010, the solicitors sought leave to file a notice of ceasing to act. Leave was granted by Her Honour Judge Kennedy on 21 October 2010. Since then, Mr Cho and Ms Ho have represented themselves and Ms Ho has, at various directions hearings, been permitted to represent Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd.

9           Paragraph 6 of the orders made on 28 October 2010 reads as follows:

“6. Unless on or before 4pm on 12 November 2010 the defendants:

(a)	file and serve an affidavit of documents;
(b)	file and serve further and better particulars of paragraph 18(b) of the Defence dated 14 September 2010

then the Defence of the defendants will be struck out and the plaintiff
be at liberty to enter judgment”.

10         The plaintiff was required to serve a copy of the order on the defendants by pre-paid mail.

11         On 10 November 2010, Ms Ho filed an affidavit on behalf of herself and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd. On 11 November 2010, Mr Cho filed an affidavit. These affidavits were in purported compliance with the order of Her Honour Judge Kennedy made 28

October 2010. Ms Ho’s affidavit was not an affidavit of documents. It did little more than state that she had not taken any assets of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd to establish Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd and that she did not assist her husband “set up a rival business of the secondnamed plaintiff”. The affidavit filed by Mr Cho was more extensive. The affidavit did not constitute an affidavit of documents. It generally denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs.

12         It is necessary to examine the affidavit material in relation to the alleged loan by Mr Suh to Mr Cho of $150,000 and the loan by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd to Mr Cho in respect of which it is claimed $30,000 is owing.

13         On 28 September 2010, an affidavit was sworn by Yunseok Lee in support of the first plaintiff’s summary judgment application. Mr Lee is a NAATI accredited Korean- English translator. He had translated the document in the Korean language dated 2 June 2009 signed by Mr Suh and Mr Cho. This is the document relied upon by Mr Sui in the Amended Statement of Claim dated 30 August 2009 as recording a further advance by Mr Suh to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd of $100,000 which it was alleged was to be allocated as follows:

“(a) $50,000 by way of a further loan from Suh to Cho, so that Cho now

owed Suh $150,000 (the ‘personal loan’); and

(b) $50,000 by way of a further advance from Suh to Jeff the Plumber, so that Suh’s advance to Jeff the Plumber now totalled $150,000.

PARTICULARS

The agreement is in writing and is dated 2 June 2009”.

14         It is in respect of this allegation, the defendants state in paragraph 18(b) of the Defence dated 14 September 2010 that “the agreement alleged does not constitute

an agreement but an acknowledgment which acknowledgment was executed by the

first defendant under economic duress”. No particulars of this allegation were given
by the defendants and Her Honour Judge Kennedy had, on 28 October 2010,
required the defendants to file and service further and better particulars of the
allegation by 12 November 2010, in default of which “the Defence of the defendants
will be struck out and the plaintiff be at liberty to enter judgment”.

15         In his affidavit sworn 11 November 2010, Mr Cho denied “that the sum of $150,000 was a loan to me”. He referred to paragraph 18(b) of the Defence dated 14 September 2010 and stated, “On 2 June 2009 I was pressured into signing a

document in Korean through verbal abuse and physical threats by the firstnamed

plaintiff”. Mr Cho referred to the document in Korean dated 2 June 2009 signed by
him and Mr Suh. The translation by Yunseok Lee of the first three paragraphs of the
document read as follows:

“1. Company name: Jeff the Plumber.
2. Participants: Jung Wah Suh, Jeff Cho.

3.  Initial capital: $300,000; each invests $150,000. $150,000 for Jeff will be borrowed from Jung Wah Suh.”

16         Mr Cho exhibited an alternative translation of the document (apparently prepared by a NAATI authorised translator, Jaesun Woo). Clause 3 in this translation reads:

“3. Initial capital: the initial capital is set for $300,000, to which each
partner invests $150,000 respectively. The portion of Jeff’s
investment is to be borrowed from Jung Wah Suh”.

17         In his affidavit Mr Cho stated, “I refute the statement that I owe the firstnamed plaintiff

$150,000, there is no evidence to prove”.

18         The plaintiffs considered that there had been a default by the defendants in complying with the terms of the order of Her Honour Judge Kennedy dated 28 October 2010. The plaintiffs’ solicitor, Mr Lee, filed an affidavit sworn 17 November 2010 asserting that the defendants had not filed and served either an affidavit of documents or further and better particulars of paragraph 18(b) of their Defence.

19         On 17 November 2010, a Registrar of the Court entered into default judgment for Mr Suh against Mr Cho for $150,000, together with statutory interest and costs and judgment for Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd against Mr Cho for $30,000, together with statutory interest and costs. Interlocutory judgment for the plaintiffs against each of the defendants was also entered for damages to be assessed.

20         Mr Cho’s Summons dated 22 November 2010 sought an order “that judgment entered against the defendant be set aside”. The Summons was heard by me on 16 December 2010 and adjourned for further hearing on 25 January 2011. The following affidavits have been filed in relation to Mr Cho’s Summons:

Jeff W Cho sworn 22 November 2010 (on behalf of the defendants)

Simon Spencer Reyner Lee sworn 13 December 2010 (plaintiffs)

Jeff W Cho sworn 15 December 2010 (defendants)

Christi Ho sworn 15 December 2010 (defendants)

Jeff W Cho sworn 17 January 2011 (2)(defendants)

Christi Ho sworn 17 January 2011 (2)(defendants).

21 inadequate material filed by the defendants. The order made on 16 December set out

The Summons was adjourned by me on 16 December 2010 because of the contemplate setting aside the judgments. These matters related to the merits of the defendants’ alleged Defences. I considered that the fact Mr Cho had filed an affidavit on 11 November and Ms Ho had filed an affidavit on 10 November indicated the defendants had wanted to comply with paragraph 6 of Her Honour Judge Kennedy’s order dated 28 October 2010, however inadequate that compliance may have been. It seemed that Mr Cho believed that by exhibiting what he considered to be relevant documents to an affidavit, that the document was an “affidavit of documents”. The original directions order of Her Honour Judge Lewitan on 24 September 2010 had, however, set out the requirements in regard to discovery of documents and the plaintiffs had served an affidavit of documents on the defendants’ former solicitor on about 11 October 2010, although Mr Cho, in a later affidavit, said that he had not received that affidavit until much later.

22         Also at the hearing before Her Honour Judge Kennedy on 21 October 2010, Her Honour had apparently questioned Ms Ho about her understanding of the obligation to make discovery. It was obvious, however, from the hearings on 16 December 2010 and 25 January 2011 before me that both Mr Cho’s and Ms Ho’s ability to represent themselves was limited. Submissions were made at different times by Mr Cho, Ms Ho and by Mr Cho’s daughter as they struggled to articulate their defences and they clearly had difficulty understanding the requirements of the court procedures.

23         On 15 December 2010, Mr Cho filed a document headed “Further and Better Particulars of Paragraph 18(b) of the Defence dated 14 September 2010”. The particulars given of “economic duress” were simply that, “On 2 June 2009 I was

pressured into signing a document in Korean through verbal abuse and physical

threats by the first plaintiff”. On 17 January 2010 both Mr Cho and Ms Ho swore
affidavits of documents. The affidavits were generally in the form, required by the
Rules of Court.

24         The plaintiffs’ solicitor, Mr Lee, submitted that:

a.	the affidavits of documents were inadequate because there were obviously more documents than those disclosed, particularly relating to the operations of both Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd;
b.	the further and better particulars of paragraph 18(b) of the Defence were inadequate and the further affidavit material did not cure this inadequacy.

25         It is necessary to examine the further affidavit material in some detail. In his affidavit sworn 15 December 2010, Mr Cho said that he did not receive the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents until 14 December 2010. He said that this was the first time “I gained

an insight on the type of document to file and how to complete it”. The affidavit
traversed the events in late June 2009, when Mr Cho left the business of Jeff the
Plumber Pty Ltd, and what he said occurred in the following days. As a result of these
matters Mr Cho asked that the default judgment be set aside “because it is unfair that
I was judged without any trial hearings”. Mr Cho said he would like to ask the court

“to order the secondnamed plaintiff to sell all the company assets and wind up the

company”. He said, “It’s extremely unfair that I am unable to get justice just because I
am financially lacking”.

26         In the affidavit sworn by Ms Ho on 15 December 2010, she said that the affidavit she swore on 11 November 2010, “I think is the affidavit of documents that required by the order” dated 28 October 2010. Ms Ho also referred to the fact that she “did not

believe that I was sued for a legitimate reason and the plaintiffs have no evidence, as
Jeff & Sons Plumbing is home based, does not supply goods and only provides

plumbing services and cause no threat to Jeff the Plumber”. Ms Ho said, “It is unfair

that the plaintiffs have sued me for ridiculous reasons and I was judged without any
trial hearings. As a result of my financial hardship can’t affording to appoint a legal
representative”.

27         After the hearing on 16 December 2010 and the directions in the order requiring the defendants to address specific matters in any further affidavits, the first and second defendants each swore a further affidavit as to factual matters on 17 January 2011, as well as each swearing an affidavit of documents.

28         Mr Cho said in the further affidavit that the agreement signed by him and Mr Suh on 2 June 2009 was prepared by Mr Suh. Mr Cho said that when the document was produced he told Mr Suh, “I don’t want to sign any documents that made by you. We would need a lawyer to make the agreement”. Mr Suh replied, “I want to save money. It just a piece of paper”. Mr Cho continued in his affidavit, “I was sitting down at the

time of reading the agreement. During the reading, the first plaintiff stood up and with
clenched fists and teeth, in an incredibly threatening tone in front of me said, …‘My

wife will kill me if you don’t sign this agreement today’.” Mr Cho said that because of
all the work he had done for the business of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd, “I felt so
depressed and stressful”. He said, “I wanted the business to keep running and so I
signed the agreement at that time”.

29         In the affidavit, Mr Cho set out in detail some conversations he said he had with Mr Suh in about February 2009 about Mr Suh investing $200,000 to open a plumbing retail shop with Mr Cho remaining responsible for carrying out the plumbing work. Mr

Cho said that, “On many occasions, I have told the first plaintiff to make sure his wife was not involved in this business”. Mr Cho said that Mr Suh had requested that Ms Ho assist in the business. Mr Cho said that Mr Suh “invested $200,000 to open the plumbing retail shop and decided to share the profit with myself equally”.

30         Mr Cho said that on 17 May 2009 Mr Suh came to his house and in the course of a conversation with him “suggested investing another $100,000 to the company because we need the company to have cash flow”. Mr Cho said, “I did not say a word”. On 21 May Mr Suh “deposited $100,000 to the second plaintiff’s bank account”.

31         The other matters outlined in Mr Cho’s affidavit have no direct relevance to the basis upon which Mr Suh advanced money to Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd. Mr Cho did not, in any affidavit, address the matters raised by the plaintiffs in the Statement of Claim

and affidavit it support of the summary judgment application as the basis for the
advance of monies and specifically the allegation that half the monies were advanced
on behalf of Mr Cho as Mr Suh was lending that money to him. This fact appeared to
be acknowledged by Mr Cho in the document signed by him on 2 June 2009.

32         In relation to the loan to Mr Cho by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd, Mr Cho said that, “On or

around 27 May 2009 the first plaintiff offered to lend $30,000 to me from the second plaintiff’s bank account to pay off my credit card debts. The first plaintiff agreed to let me pay off this amount with no interest applying once I have surplus. One condition

applied which was that I have to repay the debts by using my credit card to pay off
the second plaintiff’s bills when the second plaintiff need money”.

33         Ms Ho’s affidavit sworn 17 January 2011 related to her own involvement in the business of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd and the events after Mr Cho retired from the business in late June 2009.

34         In my view, the defendants defaulted in complying with the order of Her Honour Judge Kennedy made 28 October 2010 by failing to file and serve affidavits of documents and further and better particulars of paragraph 18(b) of the Defence.

35         Mr Cho has applied by Summons to set aside the “judgment against the defendant”. I consider that strictly the application can only apply to the default judgment against him personally entered on 17 November, firstly in favour of Mr Suh for $150,000 together with interest and costs, and secondly the judgment in favour of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd for $30,000, together with interest and costs. The application, at present, does not seem to cover, the further interlocutory judgment against all defendants for damages to be assessed.

36 affidavit of documents and the inadequate particularisation of paragraph 18(b) of the
Defence. The default is in part due to his lack of legal representation and unfamiliarity

I am satisfied that Mr Cho has provided an explanation for his failure to file an to do so, provided any satisfactory evidence that:

a. in relation to the claim by Mr Suh for the repayment of loan monies that were acknowledged in the document dated 2 June 2009 executed by the parties that Mr Cho’s $150,000 share of the capital invested by him and Mr Suh in Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd was borrowed from Mr Suh, that the document had been executed by him “under economic duress” or that he “was pressured

into signing [the document] through verbal abuse and physical threats by the

first plaintiff”;

b. in relation to the claim by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd for repayment of $30,000 being the balance of the loan made to him, that “the sums lent are to be

repaid within five years of being lent with no requirement that interest be

paid”.

37 the $30,000 cannot succeed because the decision by Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd to
bring the proceeding was “made solely by the first plaintiff without the consent or
agreement of the first defendant” and that accordingly leave was required pursuant to

In paragraph 14 of the Defence, the defendants allege that the claim for repayment of brought. Mr Suh and Mr Cho are equal shareholders in, and the only directors of, Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd. Without further evidence as to the authority by which the proceeding was brought by the second plaintiff there would clearly seem to be some prospect of this defence succeeding. If leave were required under s. 237 before the action might properly be brought on behalf of the company, it would not be leave of the County Court but leave of the Supreme Court or Federal Court. Unless such leave is unnecessary, the judgment, insofar as it relates to the second plaintiff’s claim against Mr Cho for repayment of $30,000, cannot stand.

38         In relation to Mr Suh’s claim against Mr Cho for the alleged loan of $150,000, there is no proper basis for that judgment to be set aside and Mr Cho’s Summons dated 22 November 2010 in this regard should be dismissed.

39         Presently, there is no specific application by Ms Ho or Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd to set aside the interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed although the hearing on 16 December 2010 and 25 January 2011 proceeded on the basis that the application related to the judgment against all three defendants.

40         To regularise the matter, I would entertain an application by the defendants to amend the Summons dated 22 November 2010 to seek to have the judgments entered on 17 November 2010 against all defendants set aside. Before making such an order, I

would hear further submissions from the plaintiffs.

41 hearing on 25 January 2011, the plaintiffs’ solicitor, Mr Lee, indicated that the

The hearing for the assessment of damages was fixed for 31 January 2011. At the defendants provided proper discovery of all financial documents relating to a number of matters, including documents relating to the value of the assets of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd, which the plaintiffs assert were converted by the defendants, and the books of account of Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd, which would assist in calculating the losses of Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd.

42         If the interlocutory judgment against all defendants were not set aside, damages would be assessed on the basis that the allegations made by the plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim are to be accepted as true statements of fact. I consider,

however, that this would be unfair to the defendants and that the defendants have, in
the affidavits of Mr Cho and Ms Ho, demonstrated that they have an arguable
defence on the merits and, in those circumstances, the judgment would ordinarily not
be permitted to stand.

43 In the Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs alleged that Mr Cho had contravened ss.181, 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act and that Ms Ho and Jeff & Sons Plumbing Pty Ltd were involved in those contraventions and as a consequence the plaintiffs were entitled:

a.	pursuant to s.1317H of the Act, to a compensation order against Mr Cho and for relief against the other defendants;
b.	pursuant to s.1324 of the Act, for an order against all the defendants for the damages the plaintiffs have suffered.

44 Although the granting of relief pursuant to s.1317H of the Corporations Act may be within the power of the County Court, relief under s. 1324 (1) of the Act cannot be granted by the County Court but only by the Supreme Court or the Federal Court.

45         Mr Cho, in his affidavit sworn 15 December 2010, said he would like to ask the court

“to order the secondnamed plaintiff to sell all the company assets and wind up the

company”. In his affidavit sworn 11 November 2010, Mr Cho said that on “many

occasions I have tried to gain consent from the firstnamed plaintiff to liquidate the company, the secondnamed plaintiff, voluntarily by selling all the assets to avoid

further loss, however, failed to get a response from the firstnamed plaintiff”. Relief of
this nature could ordinarily only be granted by the Supreme Court or the Federal
Court.

46         In the circumstances, I propose to make the following orders:

a.	The first plaintiff’s Summons filed 30 November 2010 for summary judgment against the first defendant is dismissed;
b.	The first defendant’s application by summons filed 22 November 2010:

i.           insofar as it relates to the judgment in favour of the first plaintiff against the first defendant for $150,000 plus interests plus costs is dismissed;

ii.          insofar as it relates to the judgment in favour of the second plaintiff against the first defendant for $30,000 plus interest plus costs, unless it can be shown that leave of the court for Jeff the Plumber Pty Ltd to bring the claim was not required, the judgment in that regard should be set aside and the first defendant will have leave to defend the claim;

c.	Whatever order the court would make if application were made to amend the Summons to set aside the interlocutory judgment in respect of all defendants, eg. “Leave to the defendants to amend the first defendant’s Summons filed 22 November 2010 to substitute “judgments” for ‘judgment” and “defendants” for
“defendant”. The interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed entered on 17 November 2010 against the defendants is set aside”;
d.	Appropriate directions to determine the remaining matters in dispute including consideration of the appropriate forum for the dispute having regard to the fact that both the plaintiffs and the first defendant contemplate seeking orders
which the County Court does not have jurisdiction to make and which relief could only be granted by the Supreme Court or the Federal Court.

47         I will give the defendants time to consider whether they wish to seek an amendment to the first defendant’s Summons filed 22 November 2010. The plaintiffs would have the opportunity to respond to the application.

48 I will also hear the parties further in relation to the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 and whether there are consequential orders necessary for the determination of any matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

- - -

Certificate

I certify that these 14 pages are a true copy of the reasons for decision of His Honour Judge

Anderson delivered on 25 February 2011.

Dated: 25 February 2011

Hannah Christensen

Associate to His Honour Judge Anderson