Walker and Repatriation Commission
[2004] AATA 915
•1 September 2004
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 915
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2003/277
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re RE ROBERT JOHN WALKER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member Date1 September 2004
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review in so far as it rejected Cervical Spondylosis and Cervical Discogenic Headaches as being related to eligible service. ..............(sgd R D F Lloyd)..................
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – ex Army (National Service) then Australian Regular Army – 1970 to 1976 – served in Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) – eligible defence service 1972 to 1976 – no operational service – claimed condition cervical spondylosis (and cervical discogenic headaches) – cited traumas do not fit the definition of SoP – claimed condition of cervical spondylosis not related to eligible service (and neither is sequela of headaches) – decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120, 120B
Statement of Principles concerning Cervical Spondylosis (Instrument No 51 of 2002 as amended by Instrument Nos 64 and 82 of 2002)
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 September 2004 Brigadier RDF Lloyd, Member 1. This is an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by Mr Robert John Walker (“the applicant”) for a review of a decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) dated 4 July 2003. That decision:
(a) affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”) of 26 February 2003 in so far as it rejected Cervical Spondylosis and Cervical Discogencic Headaches as being caused by eligible service; and
(b) continued disability pension at 100% of the General Rate.
2. The applicant attended the hearing and was assisted by his advocate Mr P Lofdahl. The respondent was represented by Mr C Ponnuthurai. The Tribunal had before it the documents filed pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T Documents”). In addition the following documents were taken into evidence:
(a) At the request of the applicant:
· Exhibit A1: Statement by R J Walker dated 7 October 2003
· Exhibit A2: Radiological Report (SKG) by Dr Cartoon re RJ Walker, dated 26 May 2004.
· Exhibit A3: Medical Report by Dr Wang re RJ Walker, dated 26 February 2004.
· Exhibit A4: Medical Reports by Dr Khong and S Jung of CRS Australia re RJ Walker, dated 14 and 23 June 2004.
· Exhibit A5: Copy of an Extract from WA Newspaper re St John Ambulance, dated 2 August 2003.
(b) At the request of the respondent:
· Exhibit R1: Medical Report by Dr Dare re RJ Walker dated 5 November 2003 with attached DVA Form ( Ability to Work) dated 31 October 2003.
3. No respondent witnesses were called to give evidence. The applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing, was examined by his advocate, cross-examined by Mr Ponnuthurai and answered questions raised by the Tribunal. As a result, the Tribunal regarded him as an apparently credible and forthright witness. He seemed as reliable in his accuracy as one would expect in recollecting events and details in his service dating back some 30 years ago, although this oral evidence provided further variations to his and other documented evidence contained in the T documents.
4. As a preliminary matter and after discussion involving both parties, it was agreed by the applicant that it was the entitlement matter that was of primary concern and that if the Tribunal were to accept Cervical Spondylosis as being defence-caused, then the sequela type condition of headaches would automatically be accepted also. In that case it was common ground, and the Tribunal agreed, that the matter of assessment of pension would be remitted to the respondent. Also should the Tribunal reject Cervical Spondylosis as claimed, then the headache condition claim would automatically fail. In that rejection circumstance the applicant’s decision is to not pursue the pension assessment aspect at this time, i.e. that aspect of the application would then not be dealt with by the Tribunal. The respondent’s representative raised no objections to this procedure, rather his support for it. The Tribunal consequently agreed to follow that course should the decision be against the applicant in regard to the claim for Cervical Spondylosis.
applicant’s service and related matters of law
5. Mr Walker entered the Army as a National Serviceman in 1970 and after recruit and initial employment training sought and gained acceptance to serve in the Special Air Service Regiment (“the SASR”) – a particular goal not achieved by many. He took his discharge from the Army, whilst still serving in SASR, in 1976. His eligible service under the Act is defence service as defined and is limited to the period 7 December 1972 until his discharge on 14 March 1976.
6. As the applicant’s service does not involve operational service, the matter before the Tribunal is to be determined in accordance with s 120(4) of the Act. Under this provision, the Tribunal is required to decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction, i.e. on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, as the claim was lodged after 1 June 1994, by virtue of s120B of the Act, the Tribunal is required to assess the matter in accordance with any relevant Statement of Principles (“SoP”) issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority (“RMA”).
diagnosis of claimed condition and clinical onset
7. As the initial step in its review process, the Tribunal must be relevantly satisfied as to the appropriateness of the diagnosis and description of the claimed condition(s). The standard of proof in this regard is that of reasonable satisfaction, i.e. the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities concerning the diagnosis and description of the condition(s) involved in the applicant’s current claim.
8. Mr Walker’s initial claim stated, in relation to the matter now before the Tribunal, that he suffered “headaches and cervical spondylosis, radiating pain and discomfort”. Subsequently, with specialist medical opinion provided, these conditions were diagnosed and described as “Cervical Spondylosis and cervical discogenic headaches.” There is no dispute between the parties in this regard and based on the documented evidence before it, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that this diagnosis/description is appropriate for the applicant’s claim. The Tribunal notes in doing so, that the medical opinion evidence emphasises that the headache problem is not a separate condition or disease, but a symptom or sequela of his particular cervical spine disability.
9. The clinical onset of Mr Walker’s Cervical Spondylosis from the evidence available appears to be in the early 1980s. This is common ground and in any case, in terms of the relevant SoPs, a more precise time between service injury and clinical onset in this instance is not an issue which would affect the outcome of the current review of the applicant’s claim.
applicant’s contention re claimed condition
10. Mr Walker’s contention and in summary his related evidence is that he had no cervical spine problems prior to his service in the Army and more specifically prior to his SASR employment. The documented Service medical records in the T documents support this contention. The causes, he contends, were injuries occurring during that SAS employment period.
11. Mr Walker describes the physical stress and strains of SASR life and activities as being above and beyond that involved in other Infantry Units. He also describes the attitude of not, if it could be avoided, divulging to the Regiment’s authorities, physical injuries and incapacities that might result in a member being found to be medically unfit to continue with SASR. The parties were reminded of my own military experience and personal involvement with SASR, both during and post service, and in that regard the Tribunal has no disagreement with the applicant’s general description of life as a member of SASR in a non operational context. It fairly accurately captures the picture during the 1970s and as it would, to a significant extent, today also. This aspect of his service is an important framework for the Tribunal to acknowledge, and onto which specific incidents/injuries must then be added, when considering the matter before it. The Tribunal does acknowledge this and takes due account of it in its review process.
12. Mr Walker’s more recent and currently provided evidence selects three particular incidents involving, he believes, injury to his neck/upper spine which occurred during his eligible service period (1972-1976). These are set out in some detail in his statement dated 7 October 2003 (Exhibit A1), on which he elaborated in his oral evidence before the Tribunal (Transcript refers), and hence will not be repeated in full again here. Suffice to summarise these three events, and with appropriate comment, as follows:
(a) The first incident: about which Mr Walker states: “… the first time I suffered a cervical injury was during a parachute jump…in the Serpentine area…”, and was part of an SAS exercise involving some 60 (plus) soldiers. He believes this was probably in early 1973 (Transcript). He says the wind was bad and under normal circumstances the jump would not have proceeded. However, it did and his evidence is that some 30 out of the 60 odd were injured “… with quite a few fractures to the legs and arms.” Mr Walker states that he briefly lost consciousness, apparently on hitting the ground, and he couldn’t remember the landing itself. When he regained his senses he maintains he had a painful neck and a headache, “ …but compared with my mates I thought I got off lightly…” and he helped treat the injured. He states that he was able to continue with the exercise despite the fact that “…I had a very painful neck at this stage…” and “…I was managing it by high doses of Doloxene [pain relief medication]”. A day’s ‘walk’ was then involved, then a ‘lay-up’ for about 4 days, during which time he says he did not have to move about. This was followed by a 24 hour ‘walk out’ at the completion of the exercise, which he was able to achieve unaided. On return to the SASR Barracks, Mr Walker states that he did go to the Regimental Aid Post (RAP), but did not report his injury. He, being the patrol ‘medic’, simply restocked his medical kit at the RAP, including the supply of Doloxene which he states he had exhausted during the exercise to relieve his post parachute landing neck pain and headache. He and the others then had a week’s break, which in his case he spent at home resting up, and also taking further pain relief medication (Doloxene). Since this parachute landing incident Mr Walker says he has had aches in his neck, which clicks and is stiff to move. As well he gets short sharp headaches, and pins and needles in the fingers at night. The following week, after the parachute incident, he and others were flown to Canberra where some training with RAAF helicopters involving repelling and ‘hot extractions’ took place and in which Mr Walker participated.
(b) The second incident referred to by Mr Walker, which he believes contributed to his Cervical Spondylosis, occurred during an unarmed combat course. He states that his neck suffered some injury during that training which he thinks aggravated his earlier parachuting injury and which, in his view, “…had not fully recovered…”. He says he managed the resultant pain during the remainder of the 3 week course by taking self administered pain relieving medication (again Doloxene). He further states that his neck problem settled down a few weeks after the course and he then went on annual leave. He maintains that, at some stage, he did ask the Regimental Medical Officer (RMO) at SASR about his pins and needles who is said to have advised that it was “…properly (sic) a pinched nerve and it should settle down in time” (Exhibit A1).
(c) The third time he recalls receiving a relevant injury was while rock climbing in the rugged country of the Kimberley region in the North-West of WA. A large slab of rock is said to have broken away from the cliff face when he and others were climbing and it fell 12 to 15 feet hitting Mr Walker on the head. He was wearing a helmet but he says “…it was enough force to split my helmet and rip the webbing away from inside. I must have been unconscious for a while. When we got down [the cliff] I was quite shaken up, and one hell of a headache, also my neck was very painful. As I was the medic for the trip I managed the pain with Doloxene and I rested up in the base camp until we pulled out 5 days later.” He describes a long and painful trip back to Swanbourne Barracks, again using Doloxene for pain relief. Here he did not report for medical treatment, but as before just restocked his medical kit at the RAP and he (and his colleagues) then went home and “…had a good break…” (Exhibit A1)
13. Mr Walker in his evidence gives particular emphasis to two other aspects of his SASR service as follows:
(a) He was trained as a Patrol Medic – went to specialist medic courses at the School of Army Health and also had weeks of secondment to the casualty departments of hospitals in Perth and Fremantle, and then further time with St John Ambulance. ‘In-house’ training he says was also conducted regularly for the medics by the RMO of SASR. It is on this basis Mr Walker maintains that he was able to treat himself for his injuries, particularly whilst in the field.
(b) He also emphasises the “culture” within SASR. Members suffered and carried injuries, keeping knowledge of them from the RMO and others – because that was what was expected. And also, importantly, to avoid any suggestion of being found wanting, or of being medically down-graded. The latter he says would result in removal from SASR – a fate apparently (and understandably) worse than anything imaginable. Paragraph II of these Reasons has also discussed this aspect and includes the Tribunal’s acknowledgement of the ‘culture’ involved.
(c) Mr Walker also states that at the time he served in SASR the equipment and specialist clothing for the activities involved were not as good or safe as it is now. As a consequence he believes more injuries, including the kind he suffered, occurred.
14. The Tribunal notes that Mr Walker’s description of these three incidents, as provided by him in his statement at Exhibit A1, varies in some aspects from that given by him orally at the hearing and noticeably from that provided by him in earlier information contained in the T documents. Nevertheless it is the applicant’s contention now that it is the three particular incidents in SASR during his defence service - as summarised in paragraph 13 above, augmented by his oral evidence, that provide the facts. It was these injuries, he maintains, that were causally relevant to the subsequent development of Cervical Spondylosis, and therefore this condition should be accepted as defence-caused.
statement of principles and its requirements
15. There is a SoP in force, determined by the RMA, dealing with the claimed condition of Cervical Spondylosis. This is SoP Instrument No 51 of 2002 (as amended by Instrument Nos 64 and 82 of 2002). This is the current SoP and, with amendments, is the one used also by the respondent in the initial determination in this matter. Of the factors listed in the SoP which it is stated at least one must exist for there to be a connection with service, the only relevant one is 5(g), which states as follows:
“5(g) suffering a trauma to the cervical spine within 25 years immediately before the clinical onset of cervical spondylosis; or”
16. The condition itself is defined in the same SoP at paragraph 2(b) as follows:
“For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, “Cervical Spondylosis”means degenerative changes affecting the cervical vertebrae or intravertibral discs, causing local pain and stiffness or symptoms and signs of cervical cord or cervical nerve root compression, but excludes diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis…”
17. The other important definition prescribed in the SoP is that of trauma to the cervical spine and is contained in paragraph 8 of the SoP. It reads (as amended by Instrument No 64 of 2002) as follows:
“trauma to the cervical spine means a discrete injury to the cervical spine that causes the development, within 24 hours of the injury being sustained, of symptoms and signs of pain and tenderness, and either altered mobility or range of movement of the cervical spine. These symptoms and signs must last for a period of at least 10 days following the onset, save for where medical intervention for the trauma to the cervical spine has occurred, where that medical intervention involves either:
(a) immobilisation of the cervical spine by splinting, or similar external agent; or
(b) injection of corticosteroids or local anaesthetics into the cervical spine; or
(c) surgery to the cervical spine.”
evidence – variations – tribunal conclusions
18. As already noted, there are considerable variations in the evidence provided by the applicant concerning the incidents/injuries contended by him to be causally relevant to his development of Cervical Spondylosis, the clinical onset of which is agreed to be post-service in the early 1980s. The noticeable differences are between Mr Walker’s evidence as provided to the VRB in both September 2001 and July 2003, that contained in the “Claimant Report – Trauma to the Cervical Spine – Cervical Spondylosis” dated 10 September 1998 (T17), that provided in the Claim Form of 8 July 2002 (T25), his Statement of Evidence of 7 October 2003 (Exhibit A1), and finally his oral evidence before this Tribunal. In some respects this is a matter of detail, which is partly understandable and about which one can readily give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. In other respects however the differences are much more basic and marked. This is of considerable concern to the Tribunal, a concern that was raised in these terms by myself at the hearing as well as by the respondent’s representative. The variations are obvious when the sources are assembled and compared. The content appears to evolve as the requirements (including that in SoPs) become better understood in the process of the claim. Mr Walker’s case is not unique in this regard and in some degree the Tribunal’s experience is that some of this is almost inevitable. Despite that, the Tribunal after examining all the material must arrive at a conclusion – to its reasonable satisfaction – as to where the actual facts lie.
19. Apart from the sources of evidence already referred to, there is the report by Dr W M Carroll (Neurologist) contained in the T documents at T15. Unfortunately this report does not really help to clarify the variations in evidence that are of concern, rather the doctor’s comments tend to add to the problem. Mr Walker was actually sent to Dr Carroll by DVA in relation to his claim for his headache condition, and this should be borne in mind in reading the Carroll report. In this regard, at the hearing the applicant was critical of the approach taken by Dr Carroll when seen by him on 1 September 1998 and also of his subsequent report. Nevertheless, Dr Carroll’s comments concerning the October 1997 CT scan of the cervical spine (said to be normal), and the statement purporting to have come from Mr Walker that “…he has had no head or neck injuries…” are rather puzzling. The applicant now denies that he provided the latter information. In the end result Dr Carroll advises in his report as follows:
“…There were no signs of any significant intracranial or spinal dysfunction…The more frequent left-sided headaches are cervicogenic....”
Subsequent to that report, Dr Yin (DMO) makes a file note at T16 giving the opinion that:
“…the cause [of the headaches] is in the neck. This claim can only succeed if he [Mr Walker] has cervical spondylosis which is service related”.
20. According to Mr Walker he did a number of parachute jumps during his eligible service, some of which he states resulted in ‘hard landings’. However, he has clearly chosen, for the purpose of his review, to now single out one in particular, as set out in his statement at Exhibit A1 and in his oral evidence, as being causally significant to his developing Cervical Spondylosis (paragraph 12(a) of these Reasons refers). On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts:
(a)Mr Walker’s version of that incident, as now given, and its immediate aftermath;
(b)that he suffered some neck pain after the landing and for the rest of the exercise, but that this was assisted by self administered pain relieving medication;
(c)that he was able to walk, carrying his full load of equipment, for the rest of the exercise to the lay-up position and to subsequently walk out of the exercise area (each walk being about a day’s duration);
(d)that he was able to remain fairly still in that lay-up position during the exercise for about 4 days, while others of the patrol did the more mobile reconnaissance work, thus not having to fully test any affected mobility that may have resulted from the parachute landing; and
(e)that he then had about a week’s break (rest) at home after the exercise.
The Tribunal notes also however that after the short ‘rest’ at home post exercise, Mr Walker was then able to travel (by Service aircraft) to Canberra. There he engaged, he says, in exercising with 9 Squadron RAAF (helicopters), in which he did some ‘hot extractions’ but unlike the others he states he did no repelling (because of his neck). He advises that he did not want to miss the Canberra trip and the Tribunal deduces from his evidence that any injury he had would have had to have been significant for him to voluntarily pull out.
21. The second causal incident listed by Mr Walker in his evidence is the aggravation to this earlier parachuting injury by some unarmed combat training (paragraph 12 (b) of these Reasons). The evidence in this regard suffers from variations which make the significance of any injury involved and its place in the chronology of events for the applicant, from the Tribunal perspective, very unclear. The potential for an injury, or aggravation of an existing injury, is accepted by the Tribunal and it well recognises the physical demands of this type of training. Mr Walker’s ability to self medicate (for pain relief) in these circumstances again is recognised. Nevertheless, in regard to this second incident, the Tribunal is relevantly satisfied that with this contention there is inadequate evidence before it to consider further a causal connection via this route to Mr Walker’s cervical spine condition.
22. The rock climbing incident as described by Mr Walker is assessed and accepted by the Tribunal as being one likely to have resulted in injury of the kind described by him in his evidence. Such assessment utilizes its related military knowledge and previous experience. There is however some contradictory and/or conflicting material in the documented evidence and in various oral statements by Mr Walker in response to questions raised in cross-examination, that is of concern to the Tribunal. Nevertheless, on the whole, in the Tribunal’s opinion, the evidence generally rings true concerning the activity/incident involved. Again the applicant’s ability and action to self medicate after the injury is noted with respect to any abrasions and for pain relief. Further, it is noted he was able to ‘rest up’ in the base camp for several days after the event, thus not testing any effect of possible reduced mobility, before undertaking the long and uncomfortable trip home.
23. In none of the incidents, as a result of the injury he says occurred on each occasion, did Mr Walker formally report these injuries (including his neck problem) to an authoritative medical person or superior in SASR. The reasons for this have been emphasised by him in his evidence and the Tribunal accepts these reasons as understandable in the particular circumstances involved, especially in SASR. However, of interest, it is also apparent, at least from the evidence provided by him, that Mr Walker took no steps to seek any medical advice or treatment outside the Army system, as the Tribunal is aware many did (and still do) in such circumstances, particularly if the injuries are chronic and there is the likelihood of being found unfit to continue in SAS. Such action by a soldier of course is a matter of choice and the Tribunal does not regard Mr Walker as being at fault in this regard, rather it is something of an indicator of severity of injury, degree of ongoing symptoms and/or incapacity.
24. In view of the situation as described above, it would perhaps not be unexpected that injuries may not be featured in annual (etc) medical examination records. Nevertheless it is of note and puzzling that some things are reported/recorded whereas, at the same time, the description given of Mr Walker’s neck is shown as “normal”. I refer, in this respect, to the records in 1973 (T3 page 30), in 1974 (T3 page 31) and in his Reclassification Medical Board in 1975 where his spine once again was considered normal.
25. The Tribunal accepts Mr Walker’s evidence that he decided to take his discharge from the Army in 1976 because he was no longer regarded as medically fit for continued employment in SAS, and that that was a great disappointment to him. The Tribunal nevertheless notes the following, from his Final Medical Examination (T3 page 35):
(a) Despite claiming in his evidence that in the parachute landing and in the rock-face incidents he suffered head/neck injury (with possible concussion and loss of consciousness), Mr Walker’s discharge medical clearly indicates that his response to a question whether such injuries had occurred during service was that they had not done so. The Tribunal notes that at this stage there was no apparent reason for Mr Walker not to disclose all injuries/problems he had. It was to his advantage to do so, and although he gave a reason for this in his oral evidence, it was not a convincing one in the Tribunal’s opinion.
(b) And in those same discharge medical records, in response to the question “Any knee, back or joint injury?” Mr Walker replied: “Yes”. However, on the same page, in clarification of this by the examining doctor, the comment is specifically made that Mr Walker’s answer refers in fact to his right knee injury in 1975. There is no mention of a back (spine) or neck injury in this context or anywhere else in the discharge medical documentation.
26. Finally, the Tribunal is of the opinion that if the injuries described by the applicant had been significant to the extent envisaged in the definition of trauma to the cervical spine in the SoP, his self-medication treatment would not have been sufficient to enable him to ‘carry on’ after each injury to the extent he describes. The injury envisaged in the SoP would, in the Tribunal’s opinion, have resulted in him being an unacceptable handicap to his other team/patrol members. This is said with the realisation that in training some tolerance may be available (even to the extent of covering up for a colleague), compared with the situation that would apply in war or operations. In that regard it would seem, even in non operational circumstances such as applied in the case of Mr Walker, that either evacuation and/or immobilising, with significantly altered range of movement of the spine for at least 10 days, is what as a minimum one would expect. In that regard, simply an intake of pain reducing medication (in this instance only Doloxene, compared with that indicated in the SoP) and some self treatment, in the Tribunal’s opinion indicates a much lesser trauma/injury than is intended by the SoP to have a relevant causal or contributory effect.
Findings and conclusion
27. Without doubt Mr Walker, during his SAS service would, like most members of SASR, have suffered a number of injuries. The Tribunal needs no additional convincing of that. The Tribunal also accepts as fact the “SAS Culture”, as it has been described by the applicant and Mr Ponnuthurai during the hearing of this matter. Furthermore, the particular expertise of ‘medic’ personnel in SASR is also well understood and accepted by the Tribunal.
28. Notwithstanding all that, the Tribunal is obliged to assess the claim using the SoP relevant to the condition involved. It is not permitted, by virtue of the Act, to make adjustments or deviations to the wording used in the SoP to suit its need. The definition of “trauma to the cervical spine” in the SoP Instrument is quite specific. The injury must be a “discrete injury to the cervical spine” and it can not be the result of multiple smaller injuries or traumata of lesser significance, which, if allowable by the SoP, may well more readily fit Mr Walker’s case. However it does not allow it.
29. It is the Tribunal’s finding, from the evidence provided, that whilst it has no reason to question at least the particular parachute landing injury at the commencement of the Serpentine exercise, nor the North West rock climbing incident as having occurred, in neither case does the degree of trauma sustained meet the criteria prescribed in paragraph 8 of the SoP – even with its current amended wording.
30. The conclusion of the Tribunal in this matter, by virtue of its finding and the reasons given, is that it is reasonably satisfied that Mr Walker’s claimed condition of Cervical Spondylosis is not caused, or contributed to in a material degree, by his eligible service. That being the case the sequela of Cervical Discogenic Headaches is not causally related to that service either.
31. The applicant’s claim for Cervical Spondylosis and Cervical Discogenic Headaches having been rejected by the Tribunal, and as outlined earlier (paragraph 4 of these Reasons), that part of the application for review of the decision covering assessment of disability pension is taken to be a matter which the applicant now does not wish to pursue. It is therefore not considered by the Tribunal.
Decision
32. Pursuant to s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal decides to affirm the VRB decision under review of 4 July 2003 in so far as it rejected Cervical Spondylosis and Cervical Discogenic Headaches as being related to eligible service.
I certify that the 32 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member
Signed: .............(sgd V Wong)...................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 23 July 2004
Date of Decision 1 September 2004
Counsel for the Applicant Mr P Lofdahl
Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Ponnuthurai
0
0
0