Williams and Comcare - [2001] AATA 985

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 985

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No A2000/287

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      Andrew Graham Williams
  Applicant
           And    Comcare
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal M J Sassella, Senior Member

Date3 December 2001
PlaceCanberra

Decision      The Tribunal, having received a written application from the Applicant, decides that the time for him to make an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the Respondent dated 17 October 1997 is to be extended to 2 August 2000.
  ...........M Sassella (Sgd).............
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION – Extension of time to appeal – delay in obtaining files and other relevant information - mail delivery problems – applicant's ignorance of review rights – reasonable excuse for delay found – agitation in other forums – no prejudice to respondent – sufficient merits of applicant's case

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – s65(1), (4)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1978 – s29(1), (2)(a), (7)

Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 23 ALD 309
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 7 ALD 315
Comcare v A'Hearn (1993) 119 ALR 85

REASONS FOR DECISION

M J Sassella, Senior Member

Chronology/history of the application

On 17 August 1992 Andrew Graham Williams ("the Applicant") lodged a compensation claim form with Comcare ("the Respondent") in respect of a left knee injury that occurred on 31 July 1992 (Ex TD1).
On 3 July 1997 the Respondent ceased liability for this compensable injury as at the close of business 5 June 1997 (Ex TD1).
On 10 July 1997 the Applicant lodged a request for reconsideration of the decision to cease liability in respect of the knee injury (Ex TD1).
On 17 October 1997 the Respondent affirmed the decision of 3 July 1997 to cease liability payments to the Applicant (Ex TD1). It was the Respondent's view that the medical evidence was overwhelmingly of the opinion that the Applicant could return to work and that there was no ongoing injury that was related to the original injury of 31 July 1992. Any continuing pain was not related to the compensable condition.
On 28 October 1997 the Applicant's solicitor at the time, Mr Bruce Howes, wrote to him informing him that the Respondent had ceased liability on and from 16 June 1997 (Exhibit R1). The Applicant was further informed that he had 60 days in which to lodge an application for review of this decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal").
On 29 October 1997 Mr Howes wrote to the Respondent stating that the Applicant had been advised of the decision to cease liability (Exhibit R2).
On 3 March 1999 the Applicant requested that Gary Robb and Associates represent him in his legal proceedings (Exhibit A7).
On 5 March 1999 the Applicant's file was requested by the new solicitors from his previous solicitors, Howes Powrie Rowe (Exhibit A7).
On 24 March 1999 the Applicant's previous solicitor informed Mr Redpath that the file could be transferred upon payment of outstanding legal fees (Exhibit A7).
In September 1999 Mr Redpath took carriage of the Applicant's file. On 29 September 1999 he wrote to the Applicant's previous solicitors requesting information as to the outstanding legal fees (Exhibit A7).
On 4 September 2000 the Applicant signed an affidavit regarding his legal proceedings (Exhibit A6). He stated that on "around" 3 March 1999 he decided to change his legal representatives and that he authorised his new solicitors, Gary Robb and Associates, to obtain his file from his previous solicitor.
On 18 October 1999 his new representative informed him that it had been impossible to obtain this file (Exhibit A6).
On 18 October 1999 Mr Redpath left a telephone message for the Applicant's previous solicitors. He also suggested on this day to the Applicant that he request his personnel file from the Australian Defence Force Academy ("ADFA") (Exhibit A7).
In late October 1999 the Applicant approached ADFA in order to obtain a copy of his personnel file. The Applicant's solicitors wrote to the Department of Defence requesting this file on 5 November 1999 (Exhibit A6).
On 21 October 1999 Mr Redpath wrote to the Respondent requesting a copy of the Applicant's various medical reports. He also wrote to the Applicant's previous solicitors requesting further information as to legal costs (Exhibit A7).
On 28 October 1999 Mr Redpath received a letter notifying him that costs had been assessed at $1,600 (Exhibit A7).
On 5 November 1999 Mr Redpath wrote to the ADFA requesting a copy of the Applicant's personnel file. Further, on this date he wrote to the previous solicitors requesting an approximate itemisation of the legal costs (Exhibit A7).
On 18 November 1999 Mr Redpath received a letter outlining a breakdown of the Applicant's legal fees (Exhibit A7).
In approximately April 2000 Mr Redpath received a copy of the Applicant's personnel file (Exhibit A7).
On 15 May 2000 Mr Redpath informed the Applicant that the Respondent had ceased liability for his knee injury. The Applicant "appeared to be surprised" upon learning this (Exhibit A7).
The Applicant said that on 15 May 2000 he was informed by his solicitors that the Respondent had ceased all liability since 3 July 1997, however the Applicant said he had received no prior notification of this decision (Exhibit A6).
On 5 June 2000 Mr Redpath received a letter outlining the details of the Applicant's previous legal costs (Exhibit A7).
On 6 July 2000 the Applicant's previous solicitors wrote to the Applicant asking for settlement of the outstanding costs (Exhibit A7).
On 7 July 2000 Mr Redpath replied to the previous solicitors' letter (Exhibit A7).
On 2 August 2000 Mr Redpath reviewed the Applicant's file and noticed that he had failed to lodge an application for review with the Tribunal (Ex A7). On that day the Applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for an extension of time in which to lodge an appeal to the Tribunal (Ex TD2) as well as the application for review itself (Ex TD1).
On 17 August 2000 the Respondent informed the Tribunal that it opposed the granting an extension of time in which to lodge an application for review (Ex TD3). It sought detailed reasons why there had been such a considerable delay in lodging an application.
On 18 September 2000 Mr William Redpath, solicitor for the Applicant, signed his own affidavit concerning the legal proceedings (Exhibit A7). He described the details of his dealings with the Applicant, the Applicant's previous solicitor and the Respondent. These have been referred to above in chronological order. In addition Mr Redpath stated that none of the correspondence from the Applicant's previous solicitors indicated that the Respondent had ceased liability and he was not aware that the Respondent had ceased liability until he examined the file on 15 May 2000.
On 21 November 2000 Mr Redpath swore an affidavit so as to state that he had received the Applicant's personnel file on 22 November 1999 and not in April 2000, as previously stated (Exhibit A8).
Hearing and appearances

A hearing on the application for an extension of time was convened on 20 September 2000 by the Tribunal in Canberra. The Applicant was represented by Mr Crowe of counsel, the Respondent by Mr Pilkinton, also of counsel. The following documents were taken into evidence at the hearing:

Exhibit TD1 – Applicant's application for review of decision including the reviewable decision of 17 October 1997, 2 August 2000.
Exhibit TD2 – Applicant's application for extension of time for lodging Ex TD1, 2 August 2000.
Exhibit TD3 – Letter dated 17 August 2000 from Respondent to the Tribunal.
Exhibit A1 – Report of Dr Roth dated 10 February 1995.
Exhibit A2 - Letter from Bruce Howes to Dr Roth dated 30 January 1995.
Exhibit A3 - Comcare form signed by Dr Roth dated 11 October 1994.
Exhibit A4 – Letter from Dr Cairns to Dr MacIver dated 21 October 1992.
Exhibit A5 – Documents from Comcare file relating to the Applicant.
Exhibit A6 – Affidavit of the Applicant dated 4 September 2000.
Exhibit A7 – Affidavit of William Redpath dated 18 September 2000.
Exhibit A8 – Letter from Gary Robb and Associates to Dr Schellenberger dated 25 September 2000.
Exhibit A9 – Report of Robyn Schellenberger dated 3 October 2000.
Exhibit A10 – Letter from Robyn Schellenberger dated 16 November 2000.
Exhibit R1 – Letter from Bruce Howes to Graham Williams dated 28 October 1997.
Exhibit R2 – Letter from Bruce Howes to Kristina King (Comcare) dated 29 October 1997.
Exhibit R3 – File note by Graham Williams dated 3 November 1997.
Exhibit R4 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to Dr MacIver dated 21 October 1992.
Exhibit R5 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to Dr MacIver dated 2 December 1992.
Exhibit R6 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to Dr MacIver dated 18 February 1993.
Exhibit R7 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to Australian Government Health Services dated 9 March 1993.
Exhibit R8 - Letter from Anthony Cairns to Dr MacIver dated 25 March 1993.
Exhibit R9 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to REACT 22 April 1993.
Exhibit R10 – Letter from Anthony Cairns to Comcare dated 26 March 1997.
Exhibit R11 – Comcare printout of the Applicant's paid medical expenses.

On that day the Applicant's representative sought an adjournment. The Respondent's representative opposed this largely on the assertion that the Applicant's case for an extension of time was weak. When he queried what an adjournment would achieve, it was suggested that Mr Williams could be re-examined medically. The Respondent queried how any specialist could conclude all this time later that the Applicant's knee problem is the direct result of his 1992 compensable injury, especially given Dr Cairns's opinion.
Mr Crowe suggested that Mr Pilkinton was asking the Tribunal to prejudge the whole case. He was critical of the Cairns report. The Applicant and his representatives had been unaware of certain evidence until the hearing day. In his submission the evidence against the Applicant did not justify summary dismissal of the extension of time. The Applicant was to see his doctor on 3 October 2000. An adjournment to mid-October was sought.
Mr Pilkinton explained that the Applicant's Comcare file was sent to Mr Redpath in December 1999. It seems that Mr Redpath did not receive it. Mr Redpath raised no query as to its non-receipt. Mr Pilkinton also suggested that, on learning of the cessation of liability, Mr Redpath could have sought file material from Comcare when he had difficulties with the Applicant's previous solicitors.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment and reconvened on 18 December 2000.
Relevant legislation

The provisions relevant to the application for an extension of time are:

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 65(1), (4).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act") ss 29(1), (2)(a), (7).

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998

SECT 65
Modifications of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
65. (1) This section has effect for the purposes of the
application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (in this
section called "the Act") in relation to a reviewable decision.
…
(4) Subsection 29 (2) of the Act has effect as if the reference to
"the twenty-eighth day" (first occurring) were a reference to "the
sixtieth day".

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

29 Manner of applying for review
(1)       An application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision:
(a)       shall be in writing; and
  (b)       may be made in accordance with the prescribed form; and
(c)except if paragraph (ca) or (cb) applies - must contain a statement of the reasons for the application; and
(ca)in respect of an application made under subsection 54(1) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 for review of a security assessment - must be accompanied by:
(i)        a copy of the assessment as given to the applicant; and
(ii)a statement indicating any part or parts of the assessment with which the applicant does not agree and setting out the grounds on which the application is made; and

(cb)in respect of an application under subsection 54(2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 - must be accompanied by a statement setting out the grounds on which the application is made;
(d)if the terms of the decision were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was furnished to the applicant or the decision is deemed to be made by reason of the operation of subsection 25 (5) - shall be lodged with the Tribunal within the prescribed time.

…
(2)Subject to subsection (3), the prescribed time for the purposes of paragraph (1) (d) is the period commencing on the day on which the decision is made and ending on the twenty-eighth day after:
(a)if the decision sets out the findings on material questions of fact and the reasons for the decision - the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is furnished to the applicant; or

…
(7)The Tribunal may, upon application in writing by a person, extend the time for the making by that person of an application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision (including a decision made before the commencement of this section).

…

Findings on material questions of fact with reference to the evidence and other material in support of those findings

Section 29(7) of the AAT Act permits the grant of an extension of time where the person seeking the extension has applied in writing. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant did so apply on 2 August 2000 (Ex TD2).
The AAT Act then says that the Tribunal "may" extend the time. The AAT Act provides no criteria. The Tribunal and the Federal Court have laid down criteria in Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 23 ALD 309 and Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 7 ALD 315, respectively. In essence those cases suggest that the relevant criteria are:

Whether the applicant has an acceptable explanation for the delay. The Federal Court in Comcare v A'Hearn (1993) 119 ALR 85 pointed out that such an explanation is usually to be expected but the lack thereof need not necessarily result in the refusal of an extension of time.

Whether the applicant has agitated his issue in a different forum.

Whether the grant of an extension would prejudice the respondent.

Whether the applicant's case appears to have merit.

There are several other suggested criteria, but they tend to apply in relatively few cases.
Explanation for delay
In Ex TD2, his application for an extension of time, the Applicant said that the reviewable decision had been provided to Howes Powrie and Rowe but not to him. The Applicant's file, as maintained by that firm, had not been given to the Applicant or his representative, Mr Redpath, because of a dispute as to costs. It was only in May 2000, when the Applicant's solicitor saw the Applicant's personnel file, that the Applicant realised that liability had ceased in 1997.
In Ex TD3 Comcare told the Tribunal that it had received a letter on 29 October 1997 (Ex R2) from Howes Powrie Rowe in which that firm said it had advised the Applicant of the reviewable decision of 17 October 1997 and had forwarded to him copies of Comcare's reasons, decision and notice of rights. That letter said that the solicitors expected to receive instructions to lodge an appeal. Further, Comcare said that it had released the compensation file to Mr Redpath in December 1999 and no application had been lodged with the Tribunal until August 2000. Comcare said that the reasons for the delay in Ex TD2 do not adequately explain the delay. It sought detailed reasons.
In sworn oral evidence the Applicant went through his chronology. Much of this was based on Ex A5, materials from the Applicant's Comcare file. For present purposes the only salient feature of this evidence was that his former solicitor, Mr Howes, did not mention to him that there had been a decision that his compensation cover would cease or that he could or should appeal. He saw Mr Redpath after someone at Centrelink suggested he might change is lawyer.
A substantial element of the Applicant's explanation involves his non-receipt of mail. First, the letter from Mr Howes to him dated 28 October 1997 (Ex R1), containing the reviewable decision and information about appealing, went astray. Second, a letter to him from Comcare requiring him to see Dr Hopkins was not received (Ex A5). Mr Pilkinton asked the Applicant about this in cross-examination. The Applicant agreed that he had received a number of letters over time from Mr Howes, however he did say that he picked up some from Mr Howes's office. The Applicant agreed also that he had received a number of Comcare's letters. The Applicant lives at Currong Flats in Canberra, near Civic. He said that there had been problems with missing mail from 1996. The problem persisted for quite a while, over a month, before the letterboxes were secured.
The Applicant told Mr Pilkinton that he had been unaware of the letter sent on his behalf on 10 July 1997 (Ex A5) to Comcare requesting reconsideration of the cease effects decision dated 3 July 1997. Mr Pilkinton put to the Applicant that Mr Howes's itemised account for services indicates that he wrote to the Applicant on 10 July 1997 to inform him that he had requested a reconsideration. The Applicant could recall only that Mr Howes had told him that he would have to go back to court. The Applicant suggested that he had not received this letter from Mr Howes. He insisted that Mr Howes had sought reconsideration without instructions to do so.
The Applicant denied receiving Ex R1, the letter dated 29 October 1997 from Mr Howes referring to the reviewable decision. He could not recall if there were still problems with mail at Currong Flats at that time. Mr Pilkinton suggested that Mr Howes's reference to having to return to court was a reference to having to appeal to the Tribunal. The Applicant reiterated that he did not know that Comcare had ceased all benefits.
The Applicant agreed that Comcare had paid no medical expenses for him since June 1997 (Ex R11). The Applicant had never received incapacity payments so there was no interrupted flow of those payments.
Mr Pilkinton suggested that the Applicant had seen Mr Howes after the end of October 1997. If this were so it could be expected that the reviewable decision would come up for discussion. The Applicant could not recall. He did recall discussion about him seeing Dr Roberts. Counsel referred to Ex R3, a file note by Mr Howes dated 3 November 1997 regarding a telephone conversation with the Applicant. Counsel insisted that this file note was about the Applicant's inquiry as to what could be done about the Respondent's decision. The Applicant held to his assertion that he was not lying and that he had not received the letter relating to the reviewable decision.
The Tribunal pauses to note that it is difficult to be confident as to what to make of Ex R3. It certainly relates to the Applicant and concerns a telephone call on 3 November 1997. It could well be a record of a discussion as to the Applicant's options, although Mr Crowe has an alternative suggestion (see paragraph 53 below). It reads:
"Dr Roberts – he agrees with Dr Cairns that it should have taken longer [there is a 'no' inserted above the text there, its meaning unclear] than three months but this is not applicable to you.

"He can't treat the problem!
"After 2nd operation.
"Dr MacIver – never had a problem before this.
"Social Security – Sickness Benefits"

The delay in this case is two years and nine months.
Mr Pilkinton sought to impugn Mr Williams's credit. He said that, if the Applicant was to be believed, Mr Howes had sought reconsideration without instructions. This is inherently unlikely. The decision of 3 July 1997 (Ex A5) was notified to the Applicant by Mr Howes in a letter dated 10 July 1997 (Ex A5) but Mr Williams denies receiving that letter. Mr Williams was vague about the mail problems at Currong Flats. He admitted to receiving certain letters but some other letters went "conveniently" astray. Mr Williams then said that Mr Howes did not advise him of the reviewable decision because another letter went astray. Mr Pilkinton referred to Ex R3. He said that the Applicant clearly spoke with Mr Howes on 3 November 1997. A second opinion by Dr Roberts was foreshadowed but was considered to be of no use because Dr Roberts agreed with Dr Cairns. Mr Pilkinton commented on the extraordinary coincidence of the letter from Mr Howes with the reviewable decision (Ex R1) going astray.

Mr Pilkinton commented on the Applicant's recollection of Mr Howes saying that he would have to go back to court. This, he said, had to apply to the Tribunal. Nevertheless, no application for review emerged. The Applicant cannot have favoured such an appeal.
Mr Pilkinton opposed the grant of any costs to the Applicant in respect of the aborted Tribunal hearing on 20 September 2000. That adjournment was solely to obtain a report from Dr Schellenberger.
Mr Crowe, for the Applicant, put to the Tribunal that the Applicant is not a "cunning dissembler" or a deliberate liar, as suggested by Mr Pilkinton. He is unsophisticated and has little understanding of legal and administrative processes. He had communication problems with his solicitor. There was an apparent gap between what Mr Howes said and what Mr Williams understood.
Mr Crowe defended the Applicant's arguments about missing mail. The problem had emerged as affecting Comcare letters as early as April 1996. It did not "come out of the blue".
Mr Crowe addressed Ex R3. He queried why there was no note of an instruction not to appeal to the Tribunal if that was what the Applicant had instructed. Mr Crowe suggested that Ex R3 can be read to reflect that Mr Howes thought the Applicant had received notice of the reviewable decision (Ex R1). Meanwhile the Applicant had seen Dr Roberts for a second opinion. Mr Howes asked the Applicant to tell him what Dr Roberts had said and noted it down. There was no notation about any appeal or time limit. As per the Applicant's evidence, subsequent attempts to talk with Mr Howes failed. The matter went nowhere until Centrelink suggested that Mr Williams might do better with a different solicitor.
Mr Crowe said that the delays were explicable until Mr Redpath obtained the personnel file in May 2000. The delay from May to August 2000 was unfortunate.
The Tribunal notes that the reviewable decision was received by the Applicant's solicitor no later than 28 October 1997 (Ex R1). The Applicant had 60 days in which to apply to the Tribunal for review. That period expired on 27 December 1997. The application for review was lodged on 2 August 2000, just over two years and seven months late.
The Applicant's explanation for the delay from 27 December 1997 until May 2000 (two years, five months) was his ignorance of the terms of the reviewable decision and his ignorance of his review rights. The Tribunal prefers the arguments of Mr Crowe as regards the Applicant's credibility in relation to his problems receiving mail, and the content of his discussion with Mr Howes on 3 November 1997. It is understandable that Mr Howes may not have pressed the Applicant for a decision on appealing at that time because it was early in the 60 day appeal period.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a reasonable excuse for such delay as occurred to May 2000.
However, the delay from May to August 2000 appears attributable to the action (or non-action) of Mr Redpath. In his affidavit (Ex A7) Mr Redpath explains that delay as an oversight and he explains that he was dealing with the former solicitors trying to have the costs issues resolved in June and July 2000. This may not be a particularly strong explanation on Mr Redpath's part. However, that period of delay was not extraordinary long – it was only a little longer than the 60 days permitted under the legislation for the lodging of an application for review. Additionally, the Federal Court held in Comcare v A'Hearn (supra) that a delay on the solicitor's part in commencing proceedings need not be visited on the client. The Tribunal considers this an appropriate case for the application of that principle.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant has a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay.
Agitation in other forums
Mr Pilkinton correctly argued that the Applicant had done nothing to put Comcare on notice that its reviewable decision was not accepted. Ex R2 had been sent by Mr Howes to Comcare on 29 October 1997. In that letter he said that he would contact Comcare about an appeal when he had instructions. Comcare could legitimately interpret the lack of contact as an intimation of no appeal.
Mr Crowe indicated that the matter was potentially alive again in October 1999 when Mr Redpath contacted Comcare seeking a copy of medical reports on Mr Williams's file (Ex A7). This means that the matter was quiescent for less than two years. The Tribunal considers this fair comment.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not act to challenge the reviewable decision in any way until in October 1999.
Prejudice to the Respondent
The parties' representatives agreed that, apart from resuscitating a matter thought to have been finalised, there was no prejudice to the Respondent from the grant of an extension. The medical evidence to hand, or in prospect, is not untimely. However, Mr Pilkinton did point out that Wilcox J in the Hunter Valley case (supra) did state that absence of prejudice does not guarantee the grant of an extension.
The Tribunal finds that there is no relevant prejudice to the Respondent in this case if an extension of time is granted.
Merits of the Applicant's case
Mr Pilkinton pointed out that the Applicant's own treating surgeon, Dr Cairns, saw degenerative changes in the knee that were unconnected with the 1992 injury as the cause of the Applicant's problems. These predated the blow to his knee. The blow had caused a temporary exacerbation only. Dr Schellenberger had a contrary view (Ex A9) but she had not been provided with Dr Cairns's reports. She had seen no x-rays, CT scans or other investigations. Her opinion was also provided after a considerable time lapse.
Mr Crowe rebutted these arguments by saying that the Tribunal should not decide that Mr Williams's case is hopeless merely because of Dr Cairns's opinion. The Respondent puts it too high to say that no other view is open. The case involves more than merely a temporary aggravation. Dr Schellenberger's opinion "accords more with commonsense" than that of Dr Cairns. He suggested that Dr Cairns may have had an interest in adopting a rigorous approach because of the lack of success of his treatment. In Mr Crowe's submission the case has "real merit". It is potentially very important as regards medical expenses coverage and incapacity payments.
The Tribunal considers that the position as regards the merits of the Applicant's case is sufficiently open to mean that there is an arguable issue that could be resolved in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal so finds.
Conclusion

In view of the above findings the Tribunal considers that the application for an extension of time should be granted. The Applicant's excuse for delay is acceptable. His case potentially has some merit. There is no significant prejudice to the Respondent. The Applicant did not agitate the matter in other forums until quite late in the piece, but the overall period of delay was not greatly long.
However, should the Applicant succeed ultimately in his application for review, the Tribunal as currently constituted takes the view that his costs in relation to the hearing held on 20 September 2000 should not be recoverable from the Respondent. The need for an adjournment on that day was attributable to the Applicant's lack of dubiously justified preparedness to proceed on that day.
Decision

The Tribunal, having received a written application from the Applicant, decides that the time for him to make an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the Respondent dated 17 October 1997 is to be extended to 2 August 2000.

I certify that the 70 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of M J Sassella, Senior Member
Signed: Anna Stephens (sgd)           .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date of Hearing  18 December 2000
Date of Decision  3 December 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr Crowe
Solicitor for the Applicant         Gary Robb & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent    Mr Pilkinton
Solicitor for the Respondent    Phillips Fox