TEGUIR & TEGUIR

[2013] FamCA 998

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TEGUIR & TEGUIR [2013] FamCA 998

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY ORDERS –– Where the wife sought interim orders in relation to periodic spouse maintenance and lump sum payment to her – Where the husband conceded that the wife should receive a lump sum payment characterised as interim property settlement – Where the court determined that it is just and equitable to make an for alteration of property interests – Where order made for the wife to receive a lump sum payment characterised as interim property settlement – Where order made that the husband pay the wife interim periodic spouse maintenance pending receipt of the interim lump sum payment
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the wife sought a child support departure order – Where the wife has not sought an administrative review of the current child support assessment – Where it was preferable that the wife avail herself of that option before she approached the court with an interim child support departure application – Where the wife’s application for an interim child support departure order is dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS – Where the wife sought interim parenting orders – Where the parties had negotiated a parenting arrangement with the assistance of a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner – Where the parties had met with the family consultant – Where the parties are shortly to attend a Children and Parents Issues Assessment Conference – Where the court determined that the additional expert evidence would be of considerable assistance to the court in formulating interim parenting orders which are in the best interests of the children

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 74, 75(2), 79, 80(1)(h), 117
Strahan & Strahan [2010] 42 Fam LR 203
Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52

.

APPLICANT: Ms Teguir

RESPONDENT: Mr Teguir

FILE NUMBER: SYC 538 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 24 September  2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Stevenson J

HEARING DATE: 30 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Richards

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Landerer & Company Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Campton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Karras Partners Lawyers

Orders

PENDING FURTHER ORDER:

1. That the husband pay to the wife, within six (6) weeks of the date of these orders, the sum of $400,000 which amount is characterised as an interim property settlement.

2. That both parties do all things and execute all documents required to give effect to order 1, including the taking of all steps necessary to raise funds by way of a mortgage advance secured on the title to the property situate at and known as B Street, Suburb C in the State of New South Wales (“the Suburb C property”) at the election of the husband.

3. That the husband shall pay or cause to be paid all instalments of principal and/or interest in respect of any mortgage secured on the title to the Suburb C property promptly as such instalments fall due.

4. 4.1That, in the event that the husband fails to make payment to the wife in accordance with order 1, he shall forthwith cause the sale of a parcel of real estate of his choice and distribute the proceeds of such sale as follows:

   4.1.1in payment of agent’s commission and expenses and legal costs and disbursements incidental to such sale

   4.1.2in discharge of any mortgage registered on the title to the property

   4.1.3   in payment of the sum of $400,000 to the wife

   4.1.4in payment of the balance into an interest-bearing account as arranged by the solicitors for the parties.

   4.2That the husband shall select a property for sale in accordance with this order on the basis that the Suburb C property is excluded and the property sold has net equity sufficient to generate net proceeds to enable a payment in the sum of $400,000 to the wife.

5. That the parties do all things and execute all documents required to effect the sale, for the best price reasonably obtainable, of the property situate at and known as D Street, Suburb E in the State of New South Wales and to distribute the proceeds of such sale as follows:

   5.1      in discharge of the mortgage on the title to the property

   5.2      in payment of agent’s commission and expenses

   5.3      in payment of legal costs and disbursements incidental to the sale

   5.4in discharge of any mortgage secured on the title to the Suburb C property pursuant to order 1 hereof

   5.5in payment of any balance then remaining to an interest-bearing account as arranged by the parties’ respective solicitors.

6. That the husband pay to the wife by way of interim spouse maintenance an amount of $1,400 per week until she receives the sum of $400,000 pursuant to order 1, with the first such payment to be made within 7 days of the date of these orders.

7. That the wife’s application for an interim child support departure order is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Teguir & Teguir has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 538 of 2013

Ms Teguir

Applicant

And

Mr Teguir

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

the proceedings  

1. On 5 February 2013 the wife, Ms Teguir, filed an Application for alteration of property interests.  The husband, Mr Teguir, filed a Response in relation to financial issues on 25 March 2013.  On 19 June 2013 the wife filed an Amended Application and on 24 June 2013 the husband filed an Amended Response in relation to financial and parenting issues.  The wife filed a Reply in relation to parenting matters on 19 August 2013.

2. The wife’s Amended Application of 19 June 2013 sought a number of interim orders concerning periodic spouse maintenance, a lump sum payment to her, child support departure and parenting arrangements for the parties’ three children.  She sought orders to the effect that the husband cause the sale of properties F Street, Suburb G or alternatively H Street, Suburb I in order to pay to her a lump sum equal to 70 per cent of the net proceeds.

3. The husband’s Amended Response to an Application in a Case filed on 19 June 2013 sought interim orders in relation to parenting and provision of a lump sum payment to the wife of $225,000.  This money would come from a mortgage advance of $350,000 secured on the title to the former matrimonial home at B Street, Suburb C (“the Suburb C property”).  The wife would receive a payment of $225,000 from the mortgage money or, in the event that the Westpac Bank declines to advance a loan to the parties, from the sale proceeds of a property at D Street, Suburb E (“the Suburb E property”).  The mortgage on the title to the Suburb C property would be discharged from these sale proceeds.  An amount of $100,000 would be set aside to meet the private school fees of the children.  The husband opposed the wife’s application for spouse maintenance and child support departure orders.

Background

1. The husband and wife, who are aged 49 and 45 respectively, married in 1999.  They separated on 2 August 2012, when the husband left the former matrimonial home.  The wife and the children have since occupied the Suburb C property. 

2. The parties have three children:

   J born in 2003 (10)

   K born in 2005 (8)

   L born in 2007 (6).

   On 9 May 2013 the parties attended a meeting with a Family Dispute Resolution practitioner.  The children have since spent time with the father each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5:00pm on Sunday and every other Tuesday afternoon.  There are no existing parenting orders.

3. The husband is a businessman and the wife has qualifications and experience as a lawyer.  She holds the degrees of Bachelor of Economics and Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws.  She last worked as a lawyer in 2008.

4. In September 2009 the parties established a business known as “M Pty Ltd”, which deals in hardware and equipment.  The wife has operated this business from the former matrimonial home since the separation. 

5. At the commencement of cohabitation the husband held 16.6 per cent of the shareholding in a company known as N Pty Ltd, which owned a house at O Street, Suburb E.  The remaining shares were held by the husband’s mother and other family members.  In 2009 this company wrongfully terminated the husband’s employment as managing director.  He commenced litigation for compensation and reached a settlement with his family in 2010.  The husband received approximately $3.3million in cash, two unencumbered home units at F Street, Suburb G and a luxury motor vehicle pursuant to this settlement. 

6. The Outline of Case document submitted on behalf of the wife contained a Balance Sheet in the following terms: 

Ownership		Description and Notes			Wife			Husband
ASSETS
1	Joint	B Street, Suburb C			4,500,000		5,000,000
2	Joint	P Street, Suburb Q			425,000		400,000
3	Joint (BB)	D Street, Suburb E			2,300,000		2,300,000
4	Husband (Z Trust)	H Street, Suburb I			3,500,000		3,500,000
5	Husband (Z Trust)	R Street Avenue, Suburb E			200,000		30,000
6	Husband (Y Trust)	F Street, Suburb G			1,700,000		1,700,000
7	Husband (Y Trust)	S Street, Suburb T			4,845,000		4,845,000
8	Husband	U Street, Suburb V			1,600,000		1,600,000
9	Joint	M Pty Ltd			60,000		300,000
10	Husband (Y Trust)	Motor Vehicle 1			23,000		20,000
11	Wife	Motor Vehicle 2			20,000		30,000
12	Husband (Y Trust)	Boat			75,000		50,00
13	Joint	Virgin Money Account			2,180		180,000
14	Wife	USD Trading Account			30,000		NK
15	Wife	St George Bank Account			6,000		48,000
16	Husband (Y Trust)	Commonwealth Bank of Australia Account No….			35,000		14,902
17	Husband (Y Trust)	Commonwealth Bank of Australia Account No…			Nil		1,025
18	Husband	Commonwealth Bank of Australia Account No…			Nil		3,205
19	Husband	ING Term Deposit			Nil		NIL
20	Husband	Contents, watches and coin collections			65,000		4,000
21	Wife	Jewellery			10,000		20,000
22	Joint	Suburb C contents			50,000		50,000
23	Husband	Campervan Trailer			39,999		39,999
24	Husband	SUV motor vehicle			40,000		40,000
25	Husband	Burial plot			10,000		10,000
Total Assets					19,536,179		20,186,131
LIABILITIES
26	Joint	Mortgage over P Street, Suburb Q			273,000			273,000
27	Joint	Mortgage to NAB over D Street, Suburb E			1,580,000			1,580,000
28	Husband	Mortgage to CBA over H Street, Suburb I (#…)			556,731			551,726
29	Husband	Mortgage to CBA over S Street, Suburb T (#...)			3,600,550			3,600,000
30	Husband	Mortgage to CBA over U Street, Suburb V (#...)			24,433			24,443
31	Joint	NAB Overdraft (GST)			88.933			NK
32	Joint	Loan			30,000			NK
33	Husband	CBA MasterCard			NIL			36,708
34	Wife	MasterCard (#4490)			3,500			NIL
Total Liabilities					6,068,303			6,065,877
SUPERANNUATION
Member		Name of Fund	Type of Interest		Wife’s Value			Husband’s Value
35	Wife	Teguir Superannuation Fund	Self-managed fund		260,193			260,193
36	Husband	Teguir Superannuation Fund	Self-managed fund		173,462			173,462
Total Superannuation					43,655			433,655
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
37	Wife	W Trust			NIL			NK
38	Joint	X Trust			6,276			6,276
39	Husband	Y Trust			NK			NK
40	Husband	Z Trust			NK			NK
41	Husband	AA Pty Ltd			NK			NK
Total Financial Resources					6,276			6,276
FINANCIAL SUMMARY				WIFE		HUSBAND
Total Assets				19,536,179		20,186,131
Total Liabilities				6,068,303		6,065,877
Total Superannuation				433,655		433,655
Total Financial Resources				6,276		6,276
NET ASSETS				13,907,807		14,560,185

1. I include this Balance Sheet in these reasons as an indication of the identity, value and ownership of the net pool of assets and superannuation.  The contents of the balance sheet are of some assistance in considering whether the interim relief sought by each of the parties can be accommodated within the range of outcomes sought on a final basis.  This document certainly does not bind the parties to a balance sheet at any future stage of the litigation.

2. The terms “BB”, “Z Trust” and “Y Trust” refer to three trusts, the corporate trustees of which have held or currently hold various parcels of real estate.  The husband and the wife are each directors and shareholders of BB Pty Ltd, which is the trustee of the BB Trust.  The husband is the sole shareholder and director of the corporate trustees of both Z Trust and Y Trust.

3. The Suburb E property was listed for sale in February 2013 and removed from the market in April 2013.  It was common ground that there is a non-functioning car stacker at this property.  It seems that both parties wish to dispose of this asset but it was submitted on behalf of the wife that the property “will be hard to sell and will not free up money”.  The husband took a more optimistic view of the property’s appeal to potential purchasers.  The parties have engaged real estate agents CC Real Estate, whose Mr DD recommended on 30 August 2013 a sale by auction at a reserve price in the range of $2 million to $2.2 million.

4. Since the separation the wife has withdrawn a total of approximately $393,000 from various accounts conducted by herself or the parties jointly.  She gave a detailed account of her expenditure of these funds in her affidavits.  Counsel for the husband conceded that “no doubt a great part of this expenditure was legitimate”.  He observed that both parties “have lived out of capital” since the separation, as was their practice during the marriage.

5. On 15 April 2013 the Child Support Agency issued an assessment whereby the husband is required to pay a total of $323.50 per month for the three children.  The previous assessment was for a total sum of $1,905.25 per month.  The wife has made no application for an administrative review of the assessment dated 15 April 2013.

The Evidence

1. The applicant wife relied on the following written evidence:

   1.Affidavits of Ms Teguir sworn on 5 February 2013, 18 June 2013, 9 July 2013, 28 August 2013 and 30 August 2013

   2.Financial Statement of Ms Teguir verified by affidavit sworn on 5 February 2013

   The respondent husband relied on the following written evidence:

   1.Affidavits of Mr Teguir sworn on 17 June 2013, 21 June 2013 and 29 August 2013

   2.Financial Statement of Mr Teguir verified by affidavit sworn on 29 August 2013.

   I digress to note that this documentation was of some five centimetres in thickness and the interim hearing involved five issues.  Nonetheless, I was expected to deal with the matter in a duty list.

Consideration

Lump Sum Payment To The Wife

1. In Strahan & Strahan [2010] 42 Fam LR 203 the Full Court addressed, inter alia, the proper approach to orders for interim property settlement. I respectfully adopt the formulation of the relevant principles set out by Thackray J as follows (at page 250):

   In my view, the two step approach advocated by senior counsel for the Wife aptly encapsulates the way the Court should approach an application for interim property settlement. The Court must first identify circumstances that make it appropriate to give consideration to exercising its power to make an interim order. It is at this stage that the Court has regard to the policy consideration that it is generally in the interest of the parties and the Court for there to be only one exercise of the s 79 power. However, once the Court has determined that the interests of justice require it to exercise the power, the conditions on which the power is to be exercised are governed only by the obligation to make an order that is “appropriate” and to ensure that the proposed order is “just and equitable” by reference to the matters set out in s 79(4).

2. The Case Summary submitted on behalf of the wife indicated that she relied on section 74, or sections 79 and 80(1)(h), or section 117 of the Family Law Act as the source of power pursuant to which the court is able to order payment of a lump sum to her at this stage of the proceedings. The imprecision of the wife’s evidence as to her anticipated legal costs makes me most reluctant to deal with her application pursuant to section 117 of the Act. That evidence went no further than the following:

   58.In addition to the above, I have been advised by my lawyer, Leslie Pozniak, and verily believe that I will incur further legal costs inclusive of GST approximately as follows:

   (a)Estimated further legal costs/professional fees up to and including the hearing yet to be allocated:  $150,000

   (b)Estimated further Counsel fees up to and including the hearing year to be allocated:  $150,000

   $300,000

   59. I have also been advised by my lawyer, Leslie Pozniak, and verily believe that Landerer & Company are not prepared to be responsible for payment of Counsel’s fees and/or expert witness fees and that Landerer & Company is not prepared to wait until the completion of this matter to receive its professional fees/profit costs.”

3. The wife adduced no evidence of any costs agreement with her solicitor. Mr Pozniak gave no evidence to justify his alleged estimates of his own costs and counsel’s fees to the conclusion of the proceedings. I have no idea whether she will actually require $300,000 to complete this litigation. In these circumstances, I cannot see my way clear to making an order for a lump sum payment to the wife pursuant to s117 of the Family Law Act (“the Act”).

4. I am also most reluctant to make an order for lump sum spouse maintenance, pursuant to s74, of the magnitude sought by the wife in the present circumstances.  It is impossible to predict how the vicissitudes of life may impact on the financial fortunes of either or both of the parties in the future.

5. It thus seems to me that an order for a lump sum payment to the wife should be made in exercise of the court’s power pursuant to s79 and s80(1)(h) of the Act and should be characterised as an interim property settlement. The orders proposed by the husband and the written and oral submissions on his behalf indicated clearly that he conceded that the wife should receive a lump sum payment on this basis.

6. Independently of this concession by and on behalf of the husband, I am satisfied that there are “circumstances that make it appropriate to give consideration to exercising…power to make an interim order”.  The parties’ net assets and superannuation have a value in the vicinity of $14 million, very little of which is currently accessible to the wife.  The parties and their three children enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle prior to the separation.  The wife has not practised as a lawyer since 2008 and has very limited income at present.  The wife clearly has a need for money with which to fund this litigation.

7. For the purposes of Stanford and Stanford [2012] HCA 52 I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order for alteration of property interests. Failure to do so, on an interim basis, would deny the wife access to the vast majority of the net pool of assets and superannuation at a time when the husband concedes that she has a need for “part of her property”. 

8. The husband sought orders which would result in a lump sum payment to the wife of $225,000.  The wife sought orders for sale of two properties in F Street, Suburb G and that she receive an amount equal to 70 per cent of the net proceeds thereof, with the balance being paid to the husband.  The wife at no stage proposed a precise lump sum figure, other than a vague reference to an amount of $550,000 per annum. 

9. In oral submissions counsel for the wife contended that she requires “at least $550,000 for each year, $300,000 plus $250,000”.  I was not sure how these figures correlated with her application.  It may be that $300,000 is the amount which she contended is necessary to meet her legal costs to the conclusion of the proceedings and $250,000 her estimate of annual living expenses for herself and the children.  That estimate of annual living expenses was itemised in her Financial Statement.   I did not understand why the wife would need an amount of $300,000 per annum on account of her legal costs. 

1. In her affidavit of 5 February 2013 the wife set out a financial history of the parties’ relationship.  In his affidavit of 17 June 2013 the husband stated:  “…broadly I agree with much of the history deposed to by [Ms Teguir]…”. Briefly, the wife recounted that each of the parties introduced assets into the marriage and both generated income during their cohabitation. It may be that the husband introduced assets of greater value than did the wife but it is unnecessary to determine that issue for present purposes. The parties have three children, for whom the wife assumed the role of primary carer. The wife at times earned a substantial salary, particularly during periods of employment in Sydney. The husband’s business activities generated substantial funds for the benefit of the family. The wife gave assistance with these projects, at times utilising her legal skills. There is thus no doubt that each of the parties made significant contributions for the purposes of s79 of the Family Law Act.

2. S75(2) factors are difficult to assess before the capital resources ultimately available to each of the parties are determined at the time of final hearing.  One known factor is that the children will almost certainly spend more time in the care of the wife than the husband.  His application for parenting orders contemplates that the children will live with him for five nights per fortnight and half of all school holidays.

3. The wife annexed to her Financial Statement of 5 February 2013 a detailed breakdown of the weekly and annual expenses for herself and the children.  The total annual amount for herself and the children was said to be $244,719, which includes approximately $63,000 on account of school fees.  These fees are currently paid by the maternal grandparents.

4. The husband seems to live a comfortable lifestyle and to have ready access to cash.  For example, he paid approximately $27,000 on account of credit card debts between March and August 2013 and provided $77,000 to his lawyers.  He maintains a boat to which he ascribes a value of $50,000 and he had $26,700 in bank accounts as at 29 August 2013.  He took a skiing holiday early in 2013.  The wife, on the other hand, deposed to a gross income of $307 per week and she has largely depleted the funds which she withdrew from bank accounts after the separation.

5. In the context of a net pool of property and superannuation in the vicinity of $14 million, an interim order for payment of a lump sum to the wife as contemplated by the husband could easily be reversed in a final distribution of the parties’ net assets and superannuation.  The same observation can properly be made in respect of an order for a larger lump sum payment by the husband to the wife.

6. In all of the circumstances it seems to me that I am left in a position where I must make a somewhat arbitrary assessment of the quantum of a lump sum payment to the wife.  It seems to me to be appropriate that she receive a sum of $400,000.  On her figures, this amount would meet the annual expenses of herself and the children, including school fees, for well over twelve months.  Additionally, funds would be available to the wife to finance her litigation.  It is entirely a matter for her to determine how she applies these funds.

1. In his oral submissions, counsel for the wife said words to the effect:

   An alternative might be for a lump sum order and leave it to the husband to determine the method of payment and an order for sale of a property in default.

   In my view, there is considerable merit in this suggestion.  The husband is fully aware of which mortgages attach to the various properties and the capital gains tax implications of any particular sale.  He is thus best equipped to make arrangements to raise a sum of $400,000 and for sale of a property in default of payment.

2. I see no difficulty with the raising of finance on the security of the Suburb C property, on condition that the husband assumes sole responsibility for mortgage repayments pending the sale of the Suburb E property.  The evidence of both parties indicated that they have discussed this prospect with a personal Westpac banker and, in my view, the husband should be at liberty to pursue this option.

3. The husband will thus be at liberty to raise whatever sum he deems appropriate by way of a mortgage secured on the title to the Suburb C property.  He is free to borrow an amount in excess of $400,000, so as to provide a fund to meet the mortgage repayments, in accordance with the scheme of his proposed orders.

Interim Periodic Spouse Maintenance

1. Once the wife receives a lump sum of $400,000, it would be extremely difficult for her to demonstrate that she “is unable to support herself adequately” for the purposes of s72 of the Act. I agree with the submission on behalf of the husband that “any spouse maintenance order should be of short duration until the wife receives capital”.  I thus infer that the husband conceded, for the purposes of s72 of the Act, that the wife is “unable to support herself adequately” until she receives a lump sum payment.

2. The wife sought an order for periodic spouse maintenance of $750 per week in her interim application.  She also sought interim orders that the husband pay a number of recurring expenses, being private health insurance and “gap” fees, as well as private school fees and incidental educational costs.  These expenses appeared to be included in her annual estimate of total costs for herself and the children. 

3. Counsel for the wife calculated the shortfall of her income over expenditure at $1,381 per week in his Case Summary.  Counsel for the husband made no submission as to an appropriate amount of interim periodic spouse maintenance.  I will adopt the calculations of counsel for the wife and order that the husband pay interim spouse maintenance in a rounded-off sum of $1,400 per week, pending receipt by the wife of a lump sum of $400,000.

4. I am prepared to infer that the husband has the capacity to pay this amount for a combination of reasons.  Firstly, he has obtained access to a minimum of $104,000 in cash in the past few months.  Secondly, he has funded a skiing trip and the operation of a boat.  Thirdly, his child support payment has reduced by some $1,600 per month since April 2013.  There was no suggestion that the husband encountered difficulty in meeting the original assessment of approximately $1,900 per month.

Interim Child Support Departure Order

1. As noted, the wife deposed that the husband’s child support assessment reduced from $1,905 to $323 per month on 15 April 2013.  She deposed in her affidavit of 18 June 2013:

   6(a)whilst there has been an administrative assessment of child support (case number 803514241 reference number 408960347108), initially for $1,905.25 per month but varied on 15 April 2013 to $323.50 per month for the three children of the marriage (based on tax returns for the year ended 30 June 2012 by the Husband in which he claimed capital losses as income losses in relation to a managed share portfolio that he held with CBA Securities)

   The husband responded to this evidence in his affidavit of 21 June 2013 but did not contest this proposition.

2. As noted, the wife has not sought an administrative review of the current assessment.  If the amended figure was calculated on the basis suggested by the wife, and not denied by the husband, the Child Support Agency should have little difficulty in correcting the situation.  It seems to me that it would have been preferable that the wife availed herself of that option before she approached the court with an interim child support departure application.  Accordingly, I will dismiss the wife’s application for an interim child support departure order.

Interim Parenting Orders

1. Counsel for the wife referred to the Memorandum to Court dated 13 August 2013 prepared by Family Consultant Ms EE.  I was informed that the Family Consultant recommended a Child Inclusive Conference, which she is able to arrange in October 2013.  On the basis of this submission, I had regard to Ms EE’s “Memorandum To Court” dated 13 August 2013.  Ms EE referred in her memorandum to “the parents’ acrimony” and “poor communication”.  She suggested that the parties take the opportunity to try to negotiate an agreement “after the input of CIC intervention”. 

2. In fact, an appointment has been made for a Child Responsive Program event on 21 October 2013.  I would anticipate that the Family Consultant will provide a Children and Parents Issues Assessment by mid-November 2013.  Such additional expert evidence would be of considerable assistance to the court in formulating interim parenting orders which are in the best interests of the children.  I do not accept that the court should be required now to determine the interim parenting dispute without that valuable expert assistance.  I do not accept that the views of children aged 10, 8 and 6 years should play no part in the determination of parenting issues.  I will make no interim parenting orders at this point.

I certify that the preceding forty one (41) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Stevenson delivered on 24 September 2013.

Associate:                 

Date:    24 September 2013