Williams and Secretary, Department of Education and Training
[2016] AATA 377
•6 June 2016
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2016/1763
general division )Re: Paul Williams
Applicant
And: Secretary, Department of Education and Training
Respondent
CORRIGENDUM
TRIBUNAL: Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member
DATE: 7 July 2016
PLACE: Melbourne
The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:
1.Replace the words:
The decision under review is set aside.
with the words:
The decision under review is set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the ruling in this matter that it was not possible for the Applicant to make an application within the relevant periods.
2.Replace the words:
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT — HECS-HELP — debt remission — …
with the words:
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT — FEE-HELP — balance re-credit— …
3.Replace the words
… sections 36.20, 36.22
with the words:
… sections 104.25, 104.30
4.In paragraph 1 replace the words:
… for debt remission within the application period due to special circumstances set by the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act).
with the words:
…the re-credit of FEE-HELP balance within the application period due to special circumstances set by the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act). The Tribunal notes that the matter proceeded on the basis of section 36.20 and not otherwise but is satisfied the correct provision, drawn to its attention is section 104.25 of the Act.
5.In paragraph 13 replace the words:
… debt remission.
with the words:
… the re-credit of his FEE-HELP balance.
6.In paragraph 16 replace the words:
…fee remission …
with the words:
… re-credit of his FEE-HELP balance …
7.In paragraph 21 replace the words:
By section 36.20(1) of the Act, a higher education provider must determine if section 36.20 applies to a person in the circumstances set out.
with the words:
By section 104.25(1) of the Act, a higher education provider must re-credit a person’s FEE-HELP balance with an amount equal to the amounts of FEE-HELP assistance that person received for a unit of study.
8.In paragraph 22 replace the words:
… sections 36.20(1)(a)-(d), and under either or both requirements of paragraph (e).
with the words:
… sections 104.25(1)(a)-(d), and under either or both requirements of paragraph (e).
9.In paragraph 23 replace the words:
Paragraph (a) specifies the person must be a Commonwealth supported student with the provider in a unit of study. Paragraph (b) specifies that the unit of study must be part of a course of study undertaken with the provider. Paragraph (c) specifies that the person must have failed to complete the requirements for the unit during the period of study. Paragraph (d) requires the provider to be satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person.
with the words:
Paragraph (a) specifies the person must be enrolled in the unit with the provider. Paragraph (aa) specifies access to the unit must not be provided by Open Universities Australia. Paragraph (b) specifies that the person must have failed to complete the requirements for the unit during the period of study. Paragraph (c) requires the provider to be satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person.
10.In paragraph 25 replace the words:
Paragraph (e) of section 36.20 of the Act specifies that a person must make application in writing either (sub-paragraph (i)) for repayment of the amount(s) paid as the student contribution for the unit or (sub-paragraph (ii)) for remission of the person’s HECS-HELP debt in relation to that unit.
with the words:
Paragraph (d) of section 104.25 of the Act specifies that a person must make application in writing to the provider for re-crediting of their FEE-HELP balance.
11.In paragraph 26 replace the words:
… paragraph (e)(ii).
with the words:
…paragraph (d).
12.In paragraph 27 replace the words:
… paragraph (f)(i) or (f)(ii).
with the words:
… paragraph (e)(i) or (e)(ii).
13.In paragraph 28 replace the words:
By paragraph (f)(i), an application must be made before the end of the application period under section 36.22 of the Act…
with the words:
By paragraph (e)(i), an application must be made before the end of the application period under section 104.35 of the Act…
14.In paragraph 29 replace the words:
… paragraph (f)(ii)…
with the words:
… paragraph (e)(ii) …
15.In paragraph 30 replace the words:
…paragraph (f)(i), hence paragraph (f)(ii) becomes the issue.
with the words:
… (e)(i), hence paragraph (e)(ii) becomes the issue.
16.In paragraph 31 replace the words:
If a person does qualify under section 36.20 of the Act then by section 36.20(2) the provider must pay the person an amount equal to the amount paid as the student contribution for the unit, or must pay the Commonwealth any HECS–HELP assistance the person was entitled to for the unit.
with the words:
As stated above, if a person does qualify under section 104.25 of the Act the provider must re-credit the person’s FEE-HELP balance an amount equal to the amount of FEE-HELP assistance that the person received for the unit.
17.In paragraph 33 replace the words:
He argues that special circumstances apply in his case under section 36.20(1)(d) of the Act..
with the words:
He argues that special circumstances apply in his case under section 104.25(1)(c) of the Act.
18.In paragraph 34 replace the words:
… section 36.20(e) of the Act in accordance with section 36.20(1)(f)(i)…
with the words:
… section 104.25(1)(d) of the Act in accordance with section 104.25(1)(e)(i)…
19.In paragraph 53 replace the words:
…fee remission…
with the words:
…re-credit of FEE-HELP balance…
20.In paragraph 89 replace the words:
…fee remission…
with the words:
…re-credit of FEE-HELP balance…
21.In paragraph 110 replace the words:
I am satisfied the decision under review must be set aside.
with the words:
I am satisfied the decision under review must be set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the finding in this matter that it was not possible for the Applicant to make an application within the relevant periods.
........[sgd]......................................
Senior Member
Williams and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2016] AATA 377 (6 June 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2016/1763
Re
Paul Williams
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Education and Training
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member
Date 6 June 2016 Place Melbourne The decision under review is set aside.
...........[sgd]............. .........................
Dr Damien Cremean
· HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT — HECS-HELP — debt remission — special circumstances — application period requirement — waiver — decision set aside
· Legislation
· Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) sections 36.20, 36.22
· Cases
· Brown and Secretary Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 518
· Olsen and Secretary Department of Industry Innovation Science Research and Tertiary Education [2012] AATA 824
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Damien Cremean
6 June 2016
Application is made to review a decision made on 11 February 2016 (reviewable decision) not to waive the requirement for lodgement of an application for debt remission within the application period due to special circumstances set by the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act).
I consider this to be the correct formulation of the reviewable decision.
At the hearing the Applicant, Mr Williams, represented himself but was accompanied by a support person.
The Applicant gave sworn evidence.
No evidence was called or given by or on behalf of the Respondent.
The Applicant
The Applicant is studying for the Juris Doctor (“JD”) degree at RMIT University.
He is a mature age student, and commenced his JD studies in 2011. Previously he worked as a journalist.
He is receiving Austudy as his only source of income.
The Applicant has a number of medical conditions. He suffered a heart attack in 2009 which saw him hospitalised and placed in intensive care.
Shortly after discharge from hospital the Applicant and his wife were evicted from their rented premises because their landlord wanted to sell.
Shortly after the eviction, the Applicant and his wife separated, and divorced in 2011.
Background
At the time of hearing, the Applicant has nearly completed his JD studies.
An issue has arisen with respect to 5 subjects for which he has applied for debt remission.
Those subjects are:
·LAW1029 - International Law (Semester 1, 2012);
·LAW1024 - Australian Property Law (Semester 2, 2012);
·LAW1028 - Australian Taxation Law (Semester 2, 2012);
·LAW1024 - Australian Property Law (Semester 1, 2013); and
·LAW1031 - Negotiation & Dispute Resolution (Semester 1, 2013).
The Applicant applied to withdraw from each of these subjects on medical grounds but he did so after the census date.
In the case of each subject he made application for fee remission on the ground of special circumstances but beyond the 12 month application period
Under the Act, that period is able to be waived for persons for whom it was not possible to make application during the application period.
The Applicant contends it was not possible for him to apply during the application period in the case of each subject on the ground of mental health; therefore the application period in relation to each should be waived.
The Applicant argues that due to his condition he was forced to reduce his enrolments in each of the subjects concerned.
One of the symptoms of the Applicant’s condition is an inability to complete detailed forms.
Legislative provisions
By section 36.20(1) of the Act, a higher education provider must determine if section 36.20 applies to a person in the circumstances set out.
A person must qualify under sections 36.20(1)(a)-(d), and under either or both requirements of paragraph (e).
Paragraph (a) specifies the person must be a Commonwealth supported student with the provider in a unit of study. Paragraph (b) specifies that the unit of study must be part of a course of study undertaken with the provider. Paragraph (c) specifies that the person must have failed to complete the requirements for the unit during the period of study. Paragraph (d) requires the provider to be satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person.
The Applicant satisfies each of these.
Paragraph (e) of section 36.20 of the Act specifies that a person must make application in writing either (sub-paragraph (i)) for repayment of the amount(s) paid as the student contribution for the unit or (sub-paragraph (ii)) for remission of the person’s HECS-HELP debt in relation to that unit.
The Applicant satisfies paragraph (e)(ii).
A person must also satisfy either paragraph (f)(i) or (f)(ii).
By paragraph (f)(i), an application must be made before the end of the application period under section 36.22 of the Act. This is set at 12 months after the notice of withdrawal date.
Or, by paragraph (f)(ii) the provider must waive that requirement on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period.
The Applicant does not satisfy paragraph (f)(i), hence paragraph (f)(ii) becomes the issue.
If a person does qualify under section 36.20 of the Act then by section 36.20(2) the provider must pay the person an amount equal to the amount paid as the student contribution for the unit, or must pay the Commonwealth any HECS–HELP assistance the person was entitled to for the unit.
Applicant’s position
The Applicant failed to complete the requirements for the 5 units in question and withdrew from each.
He argues that special circumstances apply in his case under section 36.20(1)(d) of the Act..
He failed to make application required by section 36.20(e) of the Act in accordance with section 36.20(1)(f)(i) before the end of the application period in relation to each unit.
Notwithstanding this, he argues that discretion to waive that requirement should be exercised in his favour because it was not possible in each case for the application to be made before the end of the application period
The reviewable decision therefore should be set aside.
Respondent’s position
The Respondent argues to the contrary noting the Applicant failed to make application within the application period in relation to each unit.
The Respondent argues it was possible in each case for the Applicant to have made application before the end of that period.
Reliance is placed on various communications between the Applicant and the University during the application periods.
By these communications the Respondent argues the Applicant was engaging and capable of engaging with the University.
Therefore it could not be the case that it was not possible for the Applicant to apply within the Application periods.
The reviewable decision thus should be affirmed.
It does not seem to be argued by the Respondent that the Applicant does not satisfy the requirement of special circumstances as such.
The Respondent’s position is a little vague, but it seems to be that the Applicant is not able to argue special circumstances because he does not qualify for waiver of the application period requirement in the first place.
I was told that the Respondent had previously found special circumstances in relation to two other units of study by the Applicant.
Consideration
It was held by Friedman SM in Olsen and Secretary, Department of Industry Innovation Science Research and Tertiary Education [2012] AATA 824 at [25] that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘possible’ is whether something is capable of being done.
In that case he accepted that the Applicant’s personal circumstances were very severe and that she suffered trauma and ongoing anxiety in relation to her own welfare and that of her children. But he said (at [25]) the reality was that she was able to attend to day-to-day activities. Accordingly, she did not satisfy the notion of it not being possible under statute.
There is also the decision in Brown and Secretary Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 518 where the Tribunal constituted by Fice SM and myself said that:
The word possible is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in the following way: 1. That may be (i.e. is capable of being); that may or can exist, be done, or happen; that is in one’s power, that one can do, exert, use, etc. It should be immediately apparent that use of the word possible gives rise to a broad range of circumstances under which some action may be taken. For something not to be possible would require a very serious constraint to be placed on a person’s ability to act…
The general position regarding the meaning possible in both these cases is correct. Whether something is possible or not gives rise to a broad range of circumstances under which some action may be taken. A very serious constraint upon a person may mean some action is not possible at all. The action will be not capable of being done. Medical opinion regarding the severity of a person’s depression may make a world of difference (as it may have done in Ms Brown’s case) to answering the question of whether something was possible for someone to do.
Whether something is possible also depends on the circumstances of each particular case, and the individual concerned.
It is to no avail to say that what is possible is an objective test without some adjustment for individual circumstances. Something may be possible for one person but not for another. It may not be possible for someone to do because of a physical or mental condition.
No firm rules can be laid down in advance on these various matters. It should not be assumed that it is possible for someone to do something simply because there is nothing physically preventing them from doing it or because it is possible for others to do it.
Bearing these matters in mind, I must decide whether it was or was not possible for the Applicant to make an application for fee remission within the application periods in question.
It is often difficult dealing with issues arising concerning mental health conditions. Someone can present as unaffected by their condition but the reality may be different.
The Applicant presents on the outside as unaffected by any mental condition, but his evidence and that of his medical practitioner in his medical reports satisfies me that appearances do not match reality in these circumstances.
The Applicant’s mental condition is difficult to specify but I am satisfied it clearly impacts on him in various often unusual ways.
One of those ways appears to manifest itself is difficulty in complying with deadlines such as for paying for car registrations on time or observing parking time limits, or, as in this case, complying with University deadlines for submitting documentation.
It seems the Applicant simply has inordinate difficulty in coping with such things. It is as if he lives in a state of disorganisation in relation to some aspects of his life, or in a state of forgetfulness in relation to some things calling for timeliness.
Others would not have these problems and there is nothing specifically physical limiting him in what he can do. But he is limited by a mental condition in a not readily observable way.
In that latter regard the Applicant asked rhetorically: how can you know what it is like to be in my head? I regard this as a fair question to raise for the concern of RMIT university. They must deal with all kinds of students, and they along with other university authorities simply must get used to dealing with students and persons who have mental conditions or illnesses who perhaps a decade or two ago would not have attracted attention and would have been met with (as in this case) the standard response.
I was very concerned to ensure at the hearing I could be satisfied the Applicant was telling me the truth.
I am satisfied he is telling me the truth. He impressed me as someone who was truthful, and puzzled about his own condition and how to report on it. Again, the very nature of a mental condition is such as to make it difficult to report on it. The sufferer is too close to the issue.
Cross-examination, which was not extensive, did nothing to undermine the Applicant’s testimony.
I accept the Applicant’s evidence, therefore, and find that he was not capable of making the applications during the relevant period in each case owing to his mental condition. In each case, it was not possible for him to do so even though he was not physically prevented from doing so. And even though he made application for special circumstances quite some time after the application periods were over.
In my view he has been acting under a very serious constraint brought on by his mental condition and/or by the medications being taken for it.
The Applicant’s evidence was that he could not continue in each of the units because of his mental condition. On each occasion he enrolled in a unit but found later he could not do it.
He gave me another example of how his mental condition impedes his studies. He commenced studying a semester-long unit in September last year and only completed it in March this year. This is unusual.
The Applicant said in evidence that he forgets things. He does not remember, however, ever having had a memory problem - if that did not sound absurd, he said. This presents a difficult epistemological conundrum.
For example he said he thought he was due to be at the Tribunal for his hearing at 2.00 pm whereas he was due at 10.00 am. He has been known to go to an ATM to withdraw money but leave the money there.
He produced documents showing numerous records for offences including: failing to vote; overstaying parking; failing to pay tolls; speeding; and driving an unregistered vehicle.
Importantly many, if not all of these have been revoked on the basis of Special Circumstances upon representations made. This is quite rare.
Regarding his withdrawn units, he says he knew there was a census date but did not know when it was. He did not know a 12 month application period applied. He says this was not mentioned to him in an avalanche of emails from the University.
But this was not a requirement he was capable of complying with in any event. In his world he said there were no consequences attached to him withdrawing from a unit.
In effect he could not exercise control to bring himself to comply with time limit requirements.
The Applicant said that a date to do something floats around in his world and does not mean much to him.
This is in contrast to how he used to be before his heart attack, where he would be anxious about dates and about getting things done on time. Before he had his heart attack he was driven and much more determined. He believes the difference is due to the medications he takes.
Given his circumstances the Applicant says he was not capable of complying with the time limits and thus it was not possible for him to do so
The Applicant is supported by the only medical evidence in the case. The Respondent has called no answering medical material.
In a report dated 4 November 2015 Dr Graeme Baro says that the Applicant suffers from a number of conditions going back many years (involving around 130 consultations) including:
·Depression - Major (1997);
·Weight excess (2004);
·Hyperlipidaemia (2006);
·Panic attacks (2007);
·ADHD ( Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder) (2009);
·AMI (Acute Myocardial Infarction) (2009);
·Hypertension (2009);
·Mood Disorder (2009); and
·Stent - Coronary artery (2009).
At the date of that report the Applicant was prescribed various medicines on a daily basis including:
- Aspirin - 100 mg - AMI;
- Clopidogrel 75mg - AMI;
- Efexor-XR SR 150 mg - Depression;
- Epilim EC 150 mg - Mood Disorder;
- Glyceryl Trinitrate - Stent – Coronary Artery;
- Lipitor 80 mg;
- Metoprolol Tartrate 50 mg - AMI; and
- Strattera 80 mg - ADHD.
Dr Baro notes the Applicant was first diagnosed with ADHD in February 2009 and that associated with this was also:
·severe anxiety and depression;
·bipolar;
·post-traumatic stress disorder; and
·unresolved grief/loss.
He says the Applicant was referred to a psychiatrist (Dr Orchard) for confirmation in 2009 and he also says the Applicant was most severely affected by these disorders from the period from 8 March 2010 to 28 March 2012.
Dr Baro says in his report that the psychiatrist confirmed the diagnosis and prescribed a dosage of dexamphetamine for both the ADHD and the bipolar. It was reported that the Applicant tended to exceed the prescribed dosage in the belief that taking more would make him better.
As to symptoms, Dr Baro says dexamphetamine causes drowsiness and an inability to concentrate but when abused becomes a sedative. This affected the Applicant’s perception of the consequences of actions. Dr Baro records the Applicant: didn’t really care but also didn’t really even think about it what he was doing; reported experiencing delusions and hallucinations. Of particular note Dr Baro reports a symptom being difficulty organising to do anything.
Dr Baro reports the Applicant’s ability to deal with a lot of issues and also his lack of understanding of the consequences, was quite pronounced for the period (2010 - 2012).
He says these features are typical of ADHD, in impulsive and poorly thought out actions particularly all the ramifications and consequences.The doctor says these features in combination with the Applicant’s other conditions have had adverse effects including:
poor concentration and application
mood swings and often inability to act of even basic things (shopping/self-care/paying bills etc)
withdrawal - social, relationships and even self-care
This report of Dr Baro is I consider quite decisive and justifies the account given in support by the Applicant in his form dated 24 November 2015 which is as follows:
I receive ongoing medical treatment for ADHD, bi-polar spectrum disorder, PTSD and depression after experiencing a number of negative side-effects from my previous medication. My prescription was altered in 2011. Despite the change, I continued to suffer from poor mental health. In particular, I had enormous inconsistencies in my attention span over time along with an impaired ability to judge the value of any study I had actually completed....On the grounds of the mental impairment I have described, I am applying for remission of debt in special circumstances…I further request RMIT University to exercise its power under s 36-20(1)(f)(ii) and waive the 12 month limit on applications stipulated by s 36-22 of the …Act.
Because it is possible for waiver to apply, I find it wrong for Mr M Alessandrini (principal adviser to the Academic Registrar at RMIT University) to email the Applicant on 13 April 2016 advising it is not possible to overturn the decisions that have been made as correct process has been followed and the outcome is consistent with standard RMIT practice.
The impression gained is the Applicant’s case is one which dealt with in only the standard way. Yet the standard way may be quite inadequate. It makes no allowances for differences.
The Applicant’s application to the University for fee remission should have been treated more carefully and more inquiringly.
The reviewable decision itself is also unsatisfactory. The letter dated 11 February 2016 focuses only on the threshold requirement of applying within the application period rather than the other requirement (also a threshold issue) - whether waiver is appropriate. The reviewable decision simply advises, as an afterthought, that application periods will not be waived.
A further letter of 30 March 2016, in response to the Applicant’s request for review, improves slightly on this. It does at least deal with the question of waiver, but denies that waiver applies.
First, this is because the author says I have not been able to identify any independent supporting documentation to evidence that it was not possible for you to lodge an application within the required application period. Information in Dr Baro’s letter of 3 March 2016 seems to be ignored or rejected.
Secondly, the Applicant’s actions dealing with the University at various times (by completing courses; enrolling online; email communications; lodging special consideration applications; and registering with the Disability Liaison Unit) are relied on to demonstrate his capacity to engage in university administrative processes in a timely manner.
Obviously, being able to engage administratively in some matters does not mean being able to engage in that way in all matters. There may be reasons why some things can be done but not others.
I note that two areas of suggested engagement include applying for special consideration and seeking out disability assistance. This seems unfair also. Both are designed for people who have issues. Students should not be treated adversely by accessing the very facilities or services intended to be of help.
In any event, I consider the University has not approached the advice from Dr Baro discerningly at all.
I accept Dr Baro is an independent person. The University should have accepted this too. In his letter of 3 March Dr Baro says:
……I am concerned the resulting determination [of the University] appears to be based on a flawed understanding on Paul’s [the Applicant’s] medical condition.
From a medical perspective, the fact that Paul was able to demonstrate a pattern of engagement with university processes—while apparently failing to appreciate the financial implications of that pattern of engagement—is entirely consistent with his diagnosis. Paul receives ongoing medical treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Bipolar Spectrum Disorder (BSD), having been diagnosed by a qualified psychiatrist with expertise in the area.
When his combination of conditions is well-controlled with medication, Paull [sic] is able to function in a fairly typical and outwardly usual manner in terms of activities involving memory and processing information such as learning, completing projects and other tasks. However, when the conditions are not as effectively controlled (usually due to inadequate medication or forgetting to take the required doses),the effect on his mental state may lead him to make errors ,overlook things and not understand or perceive outcomes normally appreciated by others in similar circumstances.
I consider the University has simply ignored the critical content in this letter. Had officials considered its content more sympathetically, the review result should have been different.
I am satisfied this is indeed an appropriate case for waiver in respect of each of the units of study. I accept the Applicant’s evidence which is supported by Dr Baro’s medical opinion. There is no evidence to the contrary and I do not regard the Applicant’s evidence as undermined by cross-examination.
In my view, the Applicant, due to a mental condition and/or due to the medications he takes, has not been capable of complying with time limits in making applications within application periods. In some fashion, these have not presented to him either as things he knows about or as items he should care or concern himself about.
To reach this conclusion I do not need to identify the exact mechanism involved. I am satisfied the Applicant is telling the truth; medical evidence supports him; his explanation for having failed to act in a timely way is plausible on the balance of probabilities considering all the evidence (including other instances of forgetfulness or lack of compliance; and there is nothing by way of evidence to the contrary.
My view therefore is that by reason of the factors I have mentioned it was not possible for the Applicant to comply with the 12 month time limit in each case. Compliance was beyond his capacity due to a mental condition or the effects of the medication taken for it.
Waiving the requirement of lodging within the application periods, it then becomes an issue whether special circumstances apply in the Applicant’s case.
This was not something which the Respondent directly addressed. The evidence was more concerned with the issue of waiver.
I am of the view that the Respondent would not be saying that if waiver applies, no special circumstances apply in the Applicant’s case.
Strictly however, the reviewable decision could on one analysis relate only to the decision not to waive the application periods. That in reality is only a step along the way to a final decision of whether debt remission applies because of special circumstances.
But I note the University has previously allowed special circumstances in the Applicant’s case in relation to 2 other units.
Special circumstances it would seem to me, do apply in the case of each of the 5 units of study in question in this matter and they arise out of the very same considerations which apply to the issue of waiver.
Those special circumstances in my view arise out of the Applicant’s mental condition and/or the medications he takes.
Conclusion
I am satisfied the decision under review must be set aside.
I certify that the preceding 110 (one hundred and ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Damien Cremean ......[sgd].................................................
Associate
Dated 6 June 2016
Date(s) of hearing 5 May 2016 Applicant In person Advocate for the Respondent Greg Brackenreg Solicitors for the Respondent Meyer Vandenberg Lawyers
2
0