Biggs v Biggs
[2020] NZHC 1046
•19 May 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CIV-2017-425-000007
[2020] NZHC 1046
IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 BETWEEN
SOPHIE ANNABELLE BIGGS
Plaintiff
AND
STEPHEN TIMOTHY BIGGS
First Defendant
AND
STEPHEN TIMOTHY BIGGS as trustee for the TIM BIGGS FAMILY TRUST
Second Defendant
AND
LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL PTY LIMITED
as trustee for the LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL TRADING TRUST
Third Defendant
AND
LB MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED as
trustee for the LAGUNA BAY CAPITAL MT TRUST
Fourth Defendant
Hearing: 18 March 2020 via telephone conference Counsel:
D Chambers QC for the Plaintiff
M J McCartney QC for the First Defendant
J F Anderson QC for the Second, Third and Fourth DefendantsJudgment:
19 May 2020
JUDGMENT OF NATION J
As to requested adjournment of trial
[1] Mr Biggs and Ms Biggs both now live in Australia and are Australian citizens. Their proceedings under the Property (Relationship) Act 1976 are set down for trial in
BIGGS v BIGGS [2020] NZHC 1046 [19 May 2020]
the High Court at Auckland for three weeks beginning 22 June 2020. On 5 May 2020, by memorandum, Ms Biggs’ counsel, Ms Chambers QC, sought an adjournment of that trial because of the parties’ inability to attend the hearing in person. By memoranda, Mr Biggs’ counsel, Ms McCartney QC, and counsel for the trustee defendants, Ms Anderson QC, opposed the adjournment, arguing that it should proceed with the parties participating through an audio-visual link (AVL) to them in Brisbane, Australia. I received submissions from counsel in a telephone conference on 18 May 2020.
Background
[2]Relevant background includes:
· January 2010: parties start living together;
· December 2013: parties start living apart;
· November 2014: parties begin living together again;
· 27 January 2016: parties separate on a final basis;
· 14 April 2016: Ms Biggs starts court proceedings;
· 29 January 2018: proceedings set down for hearing on 8 October 2018;
· 26, 27, 28 March 2018: hearing in High Court as to Ms Biggs’ applications for interim distribution of $400,000 and payment of professional fees; application by Mr Biggs for further particulars and strikeout and pre-trial determination of separate questions; application by Ms Biggs for orders for sale of family home and interim distribution of property;
· 29 June 2018: judgment of Nation J granting interim distribution of
$200,000;
· 25 July 2018: Ms Biggs appeals interim distribution and seeks $400,000;
· 23, 24 August 2018: defendants file all evidence as to main claims in accordance with Court directions;
· 31 August 2018: Ms Biggs seeks adjournment of hearing on the ground that plaintiff’s witnesses are not fully prepared. Hearing adjourned to 4 March 2019;
· 4 September 2018: Court adjourns substantive hearing to 4 March 2019;
· 19 October 2018: date for Ms Biggs’ evidence to be filed and served;
· 29 October 2018: Ms Biggs applies for an extension to file her evidence. Extension to 30 November 2018;
· 30 November 2018: Court of Appeal delivers judgment, interim distribution increased to $400,000. Orders some further discovery;
· 8 February 2019: substantive hearing in the High Court adjourned on Ms Biggs’ application on grounds further discovery ordered by Court of Appeal yet to be reviewed and potentially further evidence for Ms Biggs to be filed;
· 23 August 2019: Ms Biggs applies for a further interim distribution of
$1.1 million;
· 1 October 2019: High Court allocates substantive hearing (the third time) for 22 June 2020 following advice from Ms Biggs that she was not available from February to April 2020;
· 7 February 2020: hearing of Ms Biggs’ application for a further interim distribution;
· 20 April 2020: judgment of Nation J dismissing application;
· 30 April 2020: Ms Biggs appeals judgment of Nation J; and
· 5 May 2020: Ms Biggs seeks adjournment of hearing scheduled for 22 June 2020.
[3] The hearing scheduled for 22 June 2020 is thus the third allocated trial for these proceedings.
Submissions
[4] In her memorandum of 5 May 2020, Ms Chambers sought an adjournment arising out of three main issues:
(a) the difficulties of attempting to conduct a complicated, long witness trial, given the restrictions the Court was operating under in regard to COVID- 19;
(b) the inability of Mr and Ms Biggs to travel to New Zealand. Ms Chambers referred to the difficulties Mr and Ms Biggs would face, even if they could enter New Zealand, with them having to spend two weeks in isolation in both New Zealand and Australia before and after travel; and
(c) subpoenas had been issued to four witnesses requiring them to attend at the Brisbane Family Court to give evidence remotely. That Court had advised they would not be able to provide the required facilities, as matters then stood.
[5] Ms Chambers also referred to the fact an appeal had been lodged against my decision refusing a further interim distribution. As to that, the parties were seeking a priority hearing before 22 June 2020 but had not heard from the Court of Appeal whether there was to be such a hearing.
[6] In a second memorandum, Ms Chambers referred to the huge number of documents currently being included in bundles (some 23 bundles, 9,057 pages). She also referred to media reports as to a possible opening of border restrictions as between New Zealand and Australia.
[7] In the telephone conference, Ms Chambers argued, vehemently it might be said, that to force Ms Biggs to proceed with the scheduled trial would be seriously unfair to her. In support of that, she said:
(a) the key issue was that the parties would not be present for the hearing;
(b) it would be highly unusual for a hearing to proceed in such circumstances and for the parties not to be in Court when giving evidence;
(c) there was no case law supporting a decision to go on with a hearing in such circumstances;
(d) to proceed in that way would be in breach of the requirements of natural justice and Ms Biggs’ rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;
(e) Ms Biggs has a right to be present and able to respond to the allegations concerning her which might be made in the proceedings;
(f) while it might be practical to proceed with a case that was relatively simple and occupying only one or two days, this hearing was going to have to deal with highly complex issues and was scheduled to take three weeks;
(g) with Ms Biggs not in court in New Zealand, it would be much more difficult for counsel to discuss relevant issues with Ms Biggs as the trial proceeded. Ms Biggs had planned to be in New Zealand for a week before trial to prepare for the hearing;
(h) earlier protocols issued for the conduct of proceedings in New Zealand at earlier levels of lockdown had recognised it would not be possible to proceed with complicated hearings or trials using remote technology;
(i) experience had shown there was a high probability there would be technical difficulties with communications to those not in court;
(j) these proceedings were of the utmost importance to Ms Biggs and would be determining what sort of future both Ms Biggs and the parties’ daughter would have; and
(k) Ms Biggs would be the person most affected by delay. If she succeeds with her claims, then she is being kept out of the capital she is entitled to. Despite that prejudice, Ms Biggs is the party who has decided it is essential that she be in the courtroom when the Court is dealing with her case. She would prefer to suffer that consequence rather than have the hearing proceed with her not in court.
[8] Ms Chambers also submitted that the filing of the appeal as to my refusal to order a further interim distribution was also reason to adjourn the trial.
[9] In the telephone conference, Ms Chambers accepted that, despite talk in the media and at Government level of the opening up of travel between Australia and New Zealand, it remains uncertain as to whether and when that might happen.
[10] Both Ms McCartney and Ms Anderson strongly opposed any further adjournment of the hearing. Both accepted that the reality is that neither Ms Biggs nor Mr Biggs will be able to travel to New Zealand for the scheduled hearing. They however both submitted that the case could and should proceed with Ms Biggs and Mr Biggs both participating through virtual court hearing technology so that Ms Biggs and Mr Biggs can view the hearing as it proceeds, communicate electronically with counsel during the hearing and during breaks, and with them and other witnesses in Australia giving evidence by AVL.
[11] They both submitted that, if the hearing proceeds on this basis as scheduled, both parties will in effect be present through the electronic link, will be able to view all that is happening and will be able to give instructions in real time. With the parties represented by counsel in court, there would be no breach of the principles of natural justice with the case proceeding with the parties able to participate at a distance.
[12] Ms McCartney argued the trial will not be as complicated as Ms Chambers suggested.
[13] It had been agreed before COVID-19 instructions were in place that 14 of the 18 witnesses who are to give evidence would be giving evidence by AVL. She argued that the most significant witnesses in the case will be the two main accounting witnesses from New Zealand, both of whom would be present in court to give their evidence.
[14] Ms McCartney accepted the case was of extreme importance to both parties but suggested that did not necessarily have to drive a need for them to be in the actual court as the case proceeded. She accepted it drove a need for them to be able to
observe and participate in the hearing but said they would be able to do this through the steps which could be taken to allow for their participation remotely in the hearing.
[15] Ms McCartney submitted the trial should not be delayed because of the appeal. She said Mr Biggs had supported a request for the appeal to be given priority so it could be heard before 22 June 2020. She said that, although the Court had not advised the parties as to whether there would be such a hearing, there was no prospect of such a hearing taking place before 22 June 2020. The defendants had not been advised of the grounds of appeal. No case on appeal had been prepared.
[16] Ms Anderson expressed dismay at the prospect of a certain scheduled hearing being delayed. She submitted that all involved with this hearing needed to be able to put the angst of the proceedings behind them. She submitted that an adjournment of the trial would leave all concerned in a state of uncertainty as to just when the proceedings might be concluded through a hearing.
[17] Ms Anderson acknowledged there had been some technology difficulties with the hearings that had taken place over the COVID-19 lockdown. She submitted, to the extent this had happened, it was usually in circumstances where all those involved in the hearing, Judge and counsel, were appearing remotely and none of them were in court. Here, the Judge would be in court with all counsel and the two main accounting experts would be giving evidence in court.
Determination
High Court (COVID-19 Preparedness) Amendment Rules 2020
[18] New r 3.4A High Court Rules 2016 clarifies the powers of judges to control the manner of participation in hearings and at trials by counsel, parties, witnesses and other persons (including attendance in person, by telephone or by AVL). These rules do not limit the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The new rules, along with the other provisions of the High Court Rules, can be modified by a judge pursuant to s 24 Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 to any extent they think necessary in the interests of
justice to take into account the effects of the quarantinable disease stated in the notice. This power remains as long as an epidemic notice remains in effect.1
High Court Practice Note 2020: High Court Operations Under COVID-19 Alert Level 2
[19] The Chief High Court Judge has just released a Practice Note regarding High Court operations under Alert Level 2.2 The full schedule of civil fixtures with witnesses will resume in the week of 25 May 2020. At level two, the High Court will carry out all its scheduled work that it can which requires “the co-operation of all parties to ensure the courts function to the fullest extent they safely can in performance of their constitutional role”.3 Judges will review cases they are scheduled to hear (not involving witnesses) to determine how they can be heard in person, remotely by virtual meeting rooms, AVL or telephone hearings.
[20] The Practice Note places expectations on counsel to assist the courts by reducing the need for attendance in the courthouse by counsel, clients and witnesses by seeking remote participation in appropriate cases.4 Further, counsel should consider and endeavour to agree if appropriate for witnesses to participate remotely and advise the Court.5
Use of AVL
[21] The Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 provides the criteria upon which judges can decide whether to allow for remote participation of witnesses, parties and counsel. A participant appearing via AVL is regarded as being present in the place of hearing at the proceeding and documents or exhibits can be shown to the AVL participant electronically, via AVL or in any other suitable manner.6
1 On 23 March 2020, the Prime Minister issued an Epidemic Notice under Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006, s 5 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2 Chief High Court Judge Justice Venning “High Court Practice Note 2020: Operations under COVID-19 Alert Level 2” (13 May 2020).
3 At [1].
4 At [13](b).
5 At [13](c).
6 Sections 14-16.
[22]In deciding whether to use remote participation, the Judge must consider:
(a) the nature of the proceeding;7
(b) the availability and quality of the technology that is to be used;8
(c) the potential impact of the technology on the maintenance of the rights of the parties including the ability to assess the credibility or reliability of evidence;9
(d) the level of contact with other participants;10 and
(e) any other relevant matters.11
[23] Australian states and the Federal Court of Australia have all made it clear that hearings can generally be conducted with the parties or witnesses giving their evidence at a distance.12
[24] The United Kingdom also enacted the Coronavirus Act 2020 on 25 March 2020 which made temporary modification to the Courts Act 2003 and the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.13 These modifications provide the mechanisms to record and broadcast (if the judge deems appropriate) the virtual hearings to ensure transparency and ensure the work of the courts can continue. The Law Chancellor is able to designate a court as a “designated live streaming premises” to enable members of the public to see and hear proceedings.
7 Section 5(a).
8 Section 5(b).
9 Section 5(c)(i).
10 Section 5(c)(ii).
11 Section 5(d).
12 Federal Court of Australia “Special Measures in Response to COVID-19: Information Note: Appeals and Full Court hearings” (7 April 2020) at [2.2]-[2.3]; New South Wales Supreme Court “Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), s 22C via the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (NSW); Victoria Supreme Court “About Virtual Hearings: Practitioner’s Fact Sheet” (April 2020); Queensland Supreme Court, Justice A Lyons “Supreme Court Trial Division-Use of Technology During COVID-19 Response” (1 April 2020).
13 Coronavirus Act 2020 (UK), s 55.
[25] Civil hearings with witnesses are proceeding in the High Court in England with all involved including witnesses participating remotely.14
[26] The High Court at Auckland has confirmed this trial can proceed in a courtroom set up for the hearing to proceed as a virtual court hearing. The Judge, all counsel and any witness giving evidence will be videoed and on screen with a focus on whoever is speaking during the hearing. That screening will be available to Mr and Ms Biggs in Australia provided they have available to them an appropriate computer and good internet connection. It was not suggested by any of the counsel that they would not have such facilities. In addition, Mr Biggs has approached the Supreme Court at Brisbane. The Registrar there has confirmed that a video conference facility will be available if required for the duration of the hearing. If there is any difficulty over this, Mr Biggs has confirmed that such facilities could also be made available through a commercial organisation in Brisbane.
[27] I am thus satisfied technology is available through which Mr and Ms Biggs will be able to observe and hear all that is said during the hearing. It will not be the same for them as being in the actual courtroom but their respective counsel will be in court observing all that is happening in the courtroom. There will thus be no breach of the principles of natural justice through the parties participating remotely. There will also be no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
[28] An important issue in assessing where the interests of justice lie relates to the ability of a party to participate with the counsel appearing for them. Both Mr and Ms Biggs will be represented by senior counsel with the assistance of junior counsel. They will be able to communicate with counsel in real time by email or other messaging or chat facility that the client and counsel wish to use. The parties will be able to speak with their respective counsel during breaks, just as they could if they had been in the courtroom. They will be able to communicate face to face by Skype or something similar before and after each day of hearing and during breaks.
14 For example, National Bank of Kazakhstan v The Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch
[2020] EWHC 916 (Comm).
[29] It may be that, at certain points, it will be of benefit to the parties and their counsel to have a particular time at which they can confer so that morning or afternoon breaks should be a little longer than normal. That is something to which the Court will be sensitive if such circumstances arise.
[30] Significantly also, this will not be a case where the parties are hearing the witnesses’ evidence for the first time. All witnesses have provided evidence in advance of the hearing. There will thus have already been extensive discussion between counsel and the parties they are representing as to each witness’s evidence and also how that evidence might be affected by the evidence to be given by other witnesses.
[31] Ms Chambers accepted that, with the information provided by Ms McCartney, the practical problems she had foreseen might occur as to the production of documents can be minimised. Through his counsel, Mr Biggs accepted it would be appropriate for him and his counsel to prepare relevant bundles of documents. A full set of those documents will be available for the witnesses at the places they are giving evidence. Ms McCartney confirmed that electronic bundles have also been compiled, appropriately hyperlinked. A laptop will be available to witnesses so that a witness can be referred to documents electronically as well as through reference to the documented bundle.
[32] I accept that not all virtual court hearings to date have proceeded without technical hitches along the way. Despite that, such problems have diminished as all concerned have become more adept at using the technology. The potential for disruptions will be less with all counsel, the Judge and the most crucial witnesses giving evidence in person in court. There will be opportunity for the parties and the Court to ensure the appropriate technology is in place and working well before the trial proceeds. In this regard, it is also significant that the parties had agreed to other witnesses giving evidence by AVL before the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.
[33] Ms Chambers had foreseen a problem in that Ms Biggs has, with an appropriate order from the High Court allowing her to do so, served subpoenas on four witnesses to attend and give evidence at the hearing. Those witnesses are all closely associated
with Mr Biggs: his elderly mother, his former partner Mr McGavin, his stockbroker and a close business associate. They had been summonsed to give evidence at the Family Court at Brisbane. Ms Chambers accepted it may now be possible for Mr Biggs or his counsel to arrange for them to attend at whatever venue is to be used for a witness to give audio-visual evidence. Ms Chambers had however anticipated that an application would be made to set aside those subpoenas which would have to be dealt with pre-trial.
[34] Ms McCartney was clear that no application would be made to set aside the subpoenas. She said she had not spoken to these witnesses about their evidence. She did however say that, if Ms Biggs or her counsel were wanting these witnesses to produce documents and that was the purpose of their being subpoenaed, they could provide details as to what documents they were wanting and that could be addressed through inclusion of the documents in a supplementary bundle. Ms McCartney said she was awaiting advice as to when Ms Biggs would require these witnesses to attend so that arrangements for the venue for the taking of their evidence could be made, taking those requirements into account.
[35] Ms Chambers accepted the difficulties she had foreseen with these witnesses would not eventuate if Mr Biggs and his counsel advise the witnesses of the venue they will have to be at for the taking of their evidence by AVL.
[36] From what counsel said, I am satisfied there is going to be no impediment to these witnesses who have received subpoenas giving their evidence by attending at the appropriate time at the venue for the taking of audio-visual evidence.
[37] I do not accept these proceedings are of a particular nature or of such complexity that there is a special need for the parties to be present in court during the hearing. Ms Biggs is attempting to obtain a share of Mr Biggs’ wealth owned either separately in his name or in which he has an interest through trusts. The validity of those claims will ultimately be resolved through a close analysis of how investments were made before and during the relationship. The Court will have the assistance of expert evidence on that issue. The Court’s conclusion is likely to require close scrutiny
of all relevant documents with the benefit of expert opinion and counsel’s submissions as to the issues.
[38] In an earlier affidavit filed in these proceedings, Ms Biggs said she had essentially handed over responsibility for the conduct of these proceedings to her counsel. That is understandable but, as a result, it is likely to be counsel who are taking the lead in dealing with any issues that arise during the course of the hearing, not Ms Biggs.
[39] There is an issue on which the evidence of the parties personally will be important. A major aspect of Ms Biggs’ claim is that she is entitled to the share of the increase in wealth that was achieved by Mr Biggs during the relationship. It seems likely there will be conflicting evidence as to their respective roles during the relationship. It may be necessary for the Court to make determinations as to credibility. With the extensive discovery that has been provided, it is likely that such assessment will involve close scrutiny of contemporaneous documents. To the extent the Court has to decide issues of credibility with regard to the evidence of the parties as given at trial, neither the Court nor the parties will be significantly disadvantaged through the witnesses giving their evidence remotely. It is now recognised that the demeanour with which a witness gives evidence is not necessarily the most reliable guide to either the honesty or reliability of that witness. However, with a witness appearing on AVL, the way in which they give evidence will be clear to the Judge as will, more importantly, the context in which they give evidence.15
[40] The evidence the parties are giving about their roles in their relationship will not be complicated. They will be questioned about those roles in a relationship that lasted over two periods of a little over four years in total.
[41] There will be significant prejudice to all parties and the witnesses if the hearing does not proceed as scheduled to allow for Ms Biggs to be present in court at a hearing whenever it might be scheduled. Ms Chambers acknowledged that, in one sense, it will be Ms Biggs who is prejudiced through any delay because, during the period of
15 A matter noted in the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v GetSwift Ltd [2020] FCA 504 at [33].
delay, she will not have the capital she says she is entitled to. If this hearing were vacated at her request, she could not expect the Court to allocate a further hearing as a matter of priority ahead of other parties who are trying to resolve their proceedings or the interests of justice as far as the scheduling of criminal jury trials is concerned. As to the latter, there will be a substantial backlog. The holding of such trials is not scheduled to begin until August 2020.
[42] I accept that these proceedings have caused the parties considerable anguish. They have both now re-partnered. The continuation of the proceedings cannot be helpful to them in their new relationships. There has already been damage as far as the relationship of Mr Biggs with his daughter is concerned. It is consistent with the principles of the Property (Relationships) Act that any further delay in the hearing of these proceedings should be avoided if that can be achieved without significant prejudice to the parties.
[43] Mr Biggs and the defendants’ counsel appear to be doing what they can to facilitate the hearing taking place with the parties appearing remotely. The parties had already agreed that most of the witnesses giving evidence at trial would do so by AVL.
[44] If the parties, counsel and expert witnesses cannot take advantage of the already allocated hearing, inevitably the benefit of much of the intense preparatory work that must have already taken place would be lost. There would be a substantial cost to the parties, including Ms Biggs, if counsel and witnesses then had to return to the case for a future hearing at some uncertain time in the future.
[45] I do not consider there will be any prejudice to Ms Biggs personally if the hearing proceeds before the Court of Appeal has either heard or given judgment on the appeal against a refusal of the interim distribution. When I asked Ms Chambers to explain how such prejudice could arise, ultimately all she could say was that it would be unheard of for counsel to go into a major hearing without being paid. I do not accept that is always so, especially when counsel are to be very well remunerated for the work they do and are confident that ultimately the clients they represent will be able to pay the costs from the fruits of the proceedings. It is not unusual for counsel
or instructing solicitors to carry the burden of unpaid costs through to trial, as undesirable as that might be, given the costs of professional practice in the interim.
[46] Importantly, and as I expected, there was no suggestion from Ms Chambers that counsel or expert witnesses would be expending less effort on the work required of them if they were not paid $1.1 million for outstanding costs before trial. As could be expected of counsel, they have continued with the work required of them. Ms Chambers has filed her detailed opening submissions, as was earlier directed, for a trial beginning on 22 June 2020. Ms Biggs’ expert witnesses must also have done significant work in preparation for the hearing.
[47] The holding of the trial will also not render the intended appeal futile. The purpose of it is to obtain a payment to Ms Biggs that will enable her to pay outstanding legal and expert witness costs. If the hearing proceeds as scheduled in June 2020, it is likely there will be a delay of some months before delivery of a reserved judgment. If Ms Biggs wishes to pursue the notified appeal, and it is heard after 22 June 2020 but before the High Court gives its judgment in the substantive court proceedings, the Court of Appeal could still order Mr Biggs to make a further immediate distribution if Ms Biggs’ appeal is successful.
Conclusion
[48] For all the above reasons, Ms Biggs’ application for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 22 June 2020 is denied.
[49] The hearing is to proceed with Ms Biggs and Mr Biggs participating remotely from Brisbane through the hearing proceeding for their benefit as a virtual court hearing. The technology is to be in place so they can hear and observe all that is happening during the trial. They are both to give their evidence by AVL as are any other witnesses in Australia who are to give evidence at the trial.
[50] The Court anticipates that, consistent with the Chief High Court Judge’s recent Practice Note, counsel will co-operate to ensure the appropriate arrangements are in place. In the circumstances and because it would seem the best way of ensuring the necessary steps in this regard are taken, I direct that Mr Biggs and his counsel are to
have primary responsibility for this. However, I anticipate they will be supported in what they are doing by Ms Biggs and her counsel. The costs of arranging the necessary facilities are, in the first instance, to be paid by Mr Biggs. They will be costs in the proceedings.
[51]Costs as to the issues I have had to deal with here are reserved.
[52] If any issues emerge on which the assistance of the Court is required, any party may ask for a telephone conference with me. There is to be a further pre-trial conference at 9.15 am on 8 June 2020 for the Court to monitor progress and to address any further issues that have arisen.
Solicitors:
DAT Chambers QC, Barrister, Auckland MJ McCartney QC, Barrister, Auckland JF Anderson QC, Barrister, Auckland EM Eggleston, Barrister, Tauranga
City Law, Auckland.
This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May 2020 at 5.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar 19 May 2020.
0
1
1