JUDGMENT No. ... TPADE FRACTICES - consumer protection - misisading and deceo conduct - second axclication to strikes wit amended state or claim - ailegation in amenaed staremenc sof claim cepresentarcions made with Rnowledage of, or ceck anaifrererce as tc. their falsity - 'nature Ba Cepresenctatlons. TRADE FRACTICES ACT 1974: 3. 32 ACCEPTANCE CGRPGRATTION LIMITED v. GWA LIMITED 166 of 192 IN THE FEDERAL COURT UF AUSTRALIA ' bead oO fo we wm ie] H 1 be re) wu ta NEW SOUTH WALES DISTPICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : BILL ACCEPTANCE CORFORATION , LIMITED AND: GWA LIMITED kesponaent ORDER JUDGE MAKING OPDER: WHERE MADE: SYDNEY DATE: 18 APRIL 1981 THE COURT ORDEPS THAT: G my the respondenc to strike suc the i. That che motion amended statement of ciaim Fe dismissed: 2. That the costs or the motion ne the applicant = coece ir the ococeeding;: and 3. That the aoplicant pay tne costs cf, ana corcazioned rr, the amendment to the amended statement if t]aam "ne subject of the apelication for leave to amend mac? ana to ft! we in f- granted on 2 Apri zNoTHE PEDESTAL T3URT OF AUSTRALTA ) é NEW 290TH WALES DISTRICT PEGESTRY ' Neo. 'Glee cf 1383 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN ; BILL ACCEFTANCE TIPEOPAaTIION wIMITED Apoliecart ANE. rescondeanct LOCKHART 0. 13 April 1924 REASONS FOr JUDGMENT This 1s a motion to strike out th amended statement oF claim on the aground that it faile to aisclose a cause cf accion or 15 Frivolous and vexatious of 41S am abuse or tne process of the Court. An @ariler soplzcation was mace ov cne eeroncenc. SNA Limited ("the respondent") tc strice out tne stalesmer- iz rlsin; and IT ordered on 21 Octzper 28 tnat wt fe teucK tun as disclosing no cause cf action. I subsesuently wars leave tr che applicant, 3111 Acceptance Corpcration Iiniter « 'the aoplicanr vo file an amendea statement of claim which 15 the itacumerc unzey th: ce Ut en a 'S motlron. I oarcsvena to reasons rey cucamenr ine statement of claim: the amendments are underlined. Turing whe aAzavYina at the present application I gave leave, *A1cn was uropeosed, co the applicant te further amend -iaim as follows:- "1. Sy adding the follewing new caragraon 3202: vara."22A. At no time prior to 29 Appell i282 dia the respordent in any way indicates anv intenticn rot to pay moneys to the applicant. of any incapacity to pay such monevs.' i. By adding the foliowing words to eacn of sub-paragraphs 23(A) to 23'L):- or was recklessly indifferent as to whether any such payment would be made, cr any sucn intention adhered to. " wt ie) all "1 Be w HH s dence the amended stat a 0D men appenced to tnese i) reasons must oe read as if those further amendments had reen O mace. I reserved the costs of. ana oczasioned by, the amer ha nw D= The applicant alleges that the responaent, in traie ar nommerce, engaged in conduct that was misleadira or decsutive or was likely to mislead or deceive and therefore tontravenec = 432 or the Trage Practices Act 1974 ('the Act":;. The damages pursuant tc 3. 32 and irders purzuant to s. 47 iD al] a bad ib aw : } far) 'S oa 1D a wa rayoO D ayiua ub Fa iy et iat)aw pay ih a is) be atu fn fe A The applicant $ case r*scts upon the ccorrecsness 32 the propesition tnat a contravention oF 3. Zu may czecur merely if a vepresentation by tne responcen™ as <2 Future conduct does not come to Pass, nNotwithstarcing that, at the time 1t made chat sepresentaction, 'The responaent may have oselileved that 2t vwoula come to part or tnat it was not recklessly inatfrerent as to wnat it said. In short, 1f A, pelng a corporation, says to B, un trade or commerce, that 1 will savy a sum of mcney to him on tne happening of a certain event, and tne event occurs, but the menav is not pald., the respondent has, without more, engaged in conduct that 1s misieaairg ¢ deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive ... Counsel for tné apelicant summarised tne aprlictann 5 case as oleaded in 1ts statement of claim a5 A series ct representations or statements. which were nov misleaaing a) e deceptive to the knowiedge of the resecnaent hi time they were made but which, when taken togeth n viewed ain the light of two sunoseduent events, wer misleading or deceptive. The two svents were first that the applicant facilitated ce vsrocured che disposition of the respondent's shares in Midiana Creait Limited to a purchaser accestable to the resvondent and second, that the responaent did not pay the aqresd procuration fee of $124,000 to the applicant. Counsel for tne applicant arcquea that this chain cf evencs, without mere, could constitutes a beeach cr 5s fol... So far as I am able to characterise tne in che statement or ciaim as rerress statements as to future conduct of the res involve ne element of ansence of bel respondent in the truth of the statements: an of reckless indifference to their accura Simply promises by the respondent that ic certain sum of money ona particular event occurred, out the money was 10UC vald.... The mere fact that cepresentati conduct or events do not come to fass d misleading or deceptive netwitnstar applicant has celiecd on i position om the faith of fact that the agreed or not transmuts che conduct that was not, to conduct cepctive. Ta 3 er representations or statenents yeTtaineda che same character througnouc. The oniv varlaole was ctnat tne agresd fee as net paid. That was the cause %fF the applicant s lcs oF damage, gponcenc had mad= representa flons or stat is 1 of their faisity oc with reckless wnaifference le accuracy the applicant s case may then fail withi at I believe to be the eresent jay on this subietr 35 expressed by Fitcgeraid J. in Stack's Vase 172 have aiready sceferred. However the apolicant pisaded any intent on the part or the rcesp mislead or decieve, nor has it pleaded any indifference as to tne accuracy of en The amendments to the statement of claim surplerented fhe previous alieqations py alleging essentiallyv:- (a) that the representations or statements vsisaced in Paras. 3-19 were both express and implied and. to the extent that thev were implied, tne responaent represented to che applicant tnat cne resrondent intended ta way the applicant for tne applicant 5 services to be rendered to the respondent, anca'or that the cespondent naa tn CaPacliv to cay the arpiicant the agreed cemunsration for cne bertormance of tnose services; (bh) that wher eacn of those ceorssentatiins oF statements was made the respondent did not intend co Dav the aaqreeq remuneration for tne asplicant 3 SEV ces; 16 aid not have tne® capacity to fay it: adnered to .oara. 23°. fit a it om iD poyi)AD m a EP fen go eT Dp a Kt ib Lal"5 'D te "Aa ct a rv a) a my oO nnd Bhit 1] the statement of claim allegations that the representations or statements. were made by the respondent kncwing that chev were false or with reckless indifference to their accuracy. Although tne relevant amenaments are nat frees From rime ambiguity, I interpret tnem as meaning that che alleged representations or statements of the respondent': aintenticn to pay for the applicant's services were represertations of the intention of the respondent existing at the time tney vere nade; that the alleged representations or statements of che respondent's capacity to pay any agreea remuneration for tne Us applicant's services were representations or statements that if had the capacity at the time they were made and that there was no ra treason to doubt that such capacity would chance Lefore the time arrived for payment. It may oe. as the respondent contanded. chat an allegation that the respondent had the caracity to vay at the time the representations were made ws net relevant: of that an allegation that the respondent weuld have the cavacity to say when the time for wayment arrived is orcrerly characrerista as a prediction rather than a statement 3f ainternt; but iF 1s unnecessary T9 resolve these miestions ac chis Stage af che tase cause of action, as presentiv oleaded, 1= sc clearly untenasle that 1t cannot possioly succeed" or is 'manifestly agrcuniless': see Dev v. Victorian Parlwav Commissioners (19439) 76 C.L.R. 62, especially per Dixon 5 (act ©. 91): Beneral Stesi Incustries Inc. vy, Commissioner for Railwavs (N.S.W.: (1964) 112 0.0.8. 125 per Barwick C.J. cat po. 129 & 130); Hanzmnex Pty. Lid v. kKadek (Australasia) Pty. Limited (1982) A.T.P.R 40,287; Jaiversal Telecasters (Sueensiand) Ltd. 7. Ainsworth Donsolidated industries itd. (1983) A.T.P.R. 40,394 (at ep. 44,525-5;. I propose cto dismiss the motion to strike our the stacement of claim. The oroper order for costs of the motion is that thev be the applicant's costs in the oroceeding. The costs ef and occasioned by tne further amendment to che statement of claim, which I allowed during the course of the hearing or oc April 1984, shouia be paid by tne applirzanct in any avent. The "Th matter will pe relisted for further arractions. 'O nu bay a les to nave then agreed or, farlingd agreement, ta be ain positicn t argue any outstanding interiocutory matters sc tial bne case mav proceed to trial as scon as possin The orners of the Court ace: a) KyFey Tv a aa i)Oo oc be cho Hy ct wy Db a mm uw 'S a i] rey (bev a a th uf fd U u pam ct + He) 1p T amended statement of claim ne dismissed: That the costs af the motion be the applicant sg costs in That the applicant pay the casts of. and occasionea br, the amendment to the amendea statement of ctlaim cre supject of the application fer leave to amena made ard granted on Z April 1984.: LPDETTI TY TCO A250 %S TOR JVDGVEMT IN THE FEDERAL CCURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 166 of 1983 GENERAL DIVISICN ) BILL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION ° LIMITED Applicant GWA LIMITED Respoment AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Pursuant to leave granted by Lockhart J. on 28 October, 1983) 1. The apolicant is duly incorporated am has capacity to sue. 2. The respordent is duly incorporated amd nas capacity to be sued. 3. On or about 25 November 1982 the respondent expressly represented to the applicant that the resrpoment would welcome any assistance that the applicant might be able to provide "in further exploration of the potential" of the sale of shares in Midland Credit Limited and thereby impliedly represented to the applicant that it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay any agreed remuneration for tnat assistance (hereinafter called "the Applicant's Assistance") . PARTICULARS 'Letter dated 25 Novenber 1982 fron Barry Thornton on behalz of the respomdent to Ricnard Hield on benal£ of the applicant. 4. Qn or apout 25 November 1982 the respondent expressly recresented to the applicant that in the event that the applicant was able to facilitat- disposal of certain assets of 'he respondent the respondent undertock "to negotzate a commercially acceptable remuneration for your efforts therein" and thereby impliedly represented to the applicant that 1t had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay any agreed remuneration for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS - Letter dated 25 November 1982 from Barry Thornton cn behal£ of the respondent to Richard Hield on behalf of the applicant. Cn or about 8 December 19982 the applicant notified the respondent that the applicant had identified two parties who had expressed interest in acquiring Midland Credit Limited. PARTICULARS Letter dated 8 December 1982 from Michael Smith on behalf of the apolicant to Graham Gartside cn behalf of the respondent. On or about 5 January 1983 the respondent advised the applicant that the respondent would draw up Heads of Agreement with a buyer for Midland Credit Limited and that the respondent expected "no problems" with the Foreign Investment Review Board. It thereby impliedly represented that it had the intention of paving and/or the capacity to pay any aqreed a remuneration for the applicant's assistance. PARTICULARS Telephone conversation of 5 January 1983 between Graham Gartside on benalf of the respondent and Michael Smith on dehalé of the applicant. Cn or abcut 12 January 1993 the applicant 2dvised the respondent that the applicant had identified a Dotential purchaser for Midland Credit Limited, namely the apoll <'s parent company, Australian Guarantee Corporaticn Limited ("AGC"). 10. ll. -3- PARTICULARS Letter dated 12 January 1983 from Michael Smith on behalf of the applicant to Barry Thornton on benalf of the respondent. Cn or about 21 January 1983 the applicant informed the respondent that the applicant was authorised by AGC to make an offer ™m AGC's behalf to purchase the entire snare capital of Midland Credit Limited. PARTICULARS Letter dated 21 Janvary 1983 from Michael Smith cn behalt of the applicant to Barry Thorntcn on behalf of the respondent. On or about 21 January 1983 the applicant sought confirmation from the respondent that the applicant's fee for procuring a purchaser of Midland Credit Limzted would be 1.5% of the consideration for the eventual sale. PARTICULARS On or about 26 Janvary 1983 the respondent communicated with the applicant in, inter alia, the following terms:- "Consider fee 1.5% too high for this transacticn. Suggest lump sum $60,000 more apprcpriate". The respondent thereby impliedly represented that 12 nad the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the applicant whatever fee was in due at course agreed on for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS On or about 28 January 1983 the respondent expressly represented that it would pay to the applicant a fee calculated on the pasis of 1% of the eventual consideration for the sale of Midland Credit Limited to AGc. Tne respondent thereby impliedly represented that 1t had the intenticn of paying and/or the capacity to pay the applicant the said fee ("the Fee") Ee EEE for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telepnone conversaticn on 28 January 1983 between Michael Smith on benalt of the applicant and Barry Thornton on behalf of the respondent. 12. 13. Qi or about 14 February 1983 <ne respondent advised the applicant of the general terms on which it wished the sale of Midland Credit Limited to be negotiated. 'The vespondent thereby impliedly represented that it had tne intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the applicant tne Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telex dated 14 February 1983 from Alan Grant on behalf of the respondent to Micnael Smith on behalf of the apolicant. Q or abcut 18 February 1983 the apolicant advised the respondent that tne Board of Directors of AG nad approved the making of a revised offer to purchase the whole of the snare capital of Midland Credit Limited and advised the respondent tnat sucn offer was to renain open for acceptance not later than 5.00 p.m. on 25 Feoruary 1983. PARTICULARS Telex dated 18 February 1983 fron Michael Gnith on behalf of the applicant to Barry Thornton on behalf of the respondent. Qn or about 25 February 1983 the respomdent sought an extension of tire within whicn to reply to the said revised offer fran AGC, mtil 5.00 p.m. on 2 March 1983. 'The respondent thereby impliedly represented that it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to cay the Mme for the rt a a a ey Apolicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telex from Alan Grant on benalf of the respondent to Michael Snitn on benalf of the applicant. 15. 16. 17. Qn or about 25 February 1983 the respondent accepted AGC's offer for Midland Crediz Limited. 'The respondent thereby impliedly represented that it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Apolicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telex fron Alan Grant on behalf of the respondent to Michael Gnith on behalf of the Applicant. Mm or about 28 Feoruary 1983 the respordent asked the applicant to arrange for draft documentation to be sutmitted to the respondent's solicitors as soon as possible for discussion and approval. whe respondent thereby mmpliedly represented that it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's a Assistance, PARTICULARS Telex dated 28 February 1983 fron Alan Grant on benalf of the resrondéent to Micnael Smith on behalf of the applicant. Qn or about 4 Marcn 1983 the respondent informed the applicant that the respordent was "Discussing draft of fom of Agreement today and expect finality fran our em on Monday". The respondent thereby impliedly represented tnat it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. « PARTICULARS Telex dated 4 March 1983 from Alan Grant on behalf of the respondent to Michael Snitn on benalf of the applicant. 18 (a) (b) 19. On or about 23 March 1983 the respondent stated to the applicant that the rr respondenc had witnérawn its offer to sell the shares in Midland Credit Limited to AG? and tnat the respondent's brief to tne applicant to act on hn SAARI SRS ersten orn, the rescoment's behalf in connection with the d:sposal of the said = — ee =: -— shares had also been witmdraw. Telex fron Alan Grant on behalf of the respondent to Michael Smith on behalf of the applicant. On or about 23 March, 1983 tne respondent stated to the applicant tnat the telex referred to in paragraph 18(a) had been sent as a tactical move in an endeavour to persuade AGC to pay an increased consideration for the shares in Midland Credit Limited. It thereby represented tnat_it hai the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telephone conversation between John Willmott on behalf' of the applicant and Barry Thornton on behalf.of the respondent. On or about 31 March 1983 the respondent advised the applicant that settlenent of the sale of the shares in Midland Credit Limited to Ac would take place on 6 April 1983 and indicated, inter alia, that the applicant had "well and truly earned its money". It thereby represented that it had the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. PARTICULARS Telephone conversation on or about 31 March 1983 between Barry Thornton on behalf of tne respondent and John Willmott on behalf of the applicant. 20, 21. 22. 23 (a) (b) (c) (d) Qi or about 6 April 1983 the sale of shares in Midland Credit Limited to AGC was completed for a consideration of $12,400,000. Qn or about 11 April 1983 the applicant demanded payment fran tne SS —— respondent of $124,000 by forwarding to the respondent a memorandum of respoment St ise ey eee SOE EE reese oer' fees calculated at 1% of the said consideration of $12,400,000. PARTICULARS Invoice No. 1552 dated 11 April 1983 fram the applicant to the respondent in the anount of $124,000. Qn or about 29 April 1983 and subsequent to that date the respondent refused and has continually thereafter refused to nay any moneys to the applicant. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 3 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying for and/or the capacity to pay for any agreed remuneration for the applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to so pay. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 4 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying for and/or the capacity to pay for any agreed remuneration for the Applicant's Assistance or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to so pay. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 6 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying for and/or the capacity to pay for any agreed remumeration for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to 1ts capacity to pay. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 10 above TE was made the respondent did not have the intention of Paylin and/or the (e) (f) (g) (h) (3) capacity to pay whatever fee was in due course agreed on for the =e SS OS ee ee Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to 1ts capacity to pay. At the tame the implied representation referred to 1n paragrapn 11 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of payinmj and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly ot lin SOAR =O" Satan OCRed ne RS NTE indifferent as to its capacity to pay. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragrapn 12 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of payirg and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Apvlicant's Assistance, or was recklassly indifferent as to its capacity to pay. At the time the mplied representation referred to in paragraph 14 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to pay. At the time the mplied representation referred to in paragraph 15 anove was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to pay. At the time the mmplied representation referred to in paragraph 16 above was made the respondent did not have the intention of paying and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to pay. At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 17 aboe was made the respondent did not have the intention of paving and/or the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to pay. (k) (1) 24, (a) (b) (c) At the time the implied representation referred to in paragraph 18(b) and/or above was made the respordent did not have the intention of payir the capacity to pay che fee for the Applicant's Assistance, Or was recklessly ind:fferent as to its capacity to may. At the time the imolied represencation referred to in paragraph 19 anove was Tade tne respondent did not nave the intention of paying and/or the SL capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance, or was recklessly indifferent as to its capacity to cay. By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-19 and 23, the respondent has contravened Section 52 of the Traje Pract:ces Act, 1974 ("the Act") by, in trade or cammerce, engaging in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to nislead or deceive. PARTICULARS By reason of the matters pleaded in _paragrapn 3, 4, 6, 10 and 23(a)-(@) the respomdent's conduct misled or deceived or was likely to mislead or deceive the applicant into believing that the respoment had the intention of paying any agreed renumeration for the applicant's Assistance. By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 10 and 23(a)~(d) the respondent's conduct misled or deceived or was likely to mislead or eee ee SES OF Sc we OF Wes 2 kely to mises deceive the applicant into believing that the respondent had the capacity ¢ L 2 is tO pay any ajreed rammmeration for the Applicant's Assistance. By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraphs 11, 12, 14-19 and 23(e)-~ 1) the respondent's conduct misled or deceived or was likely to mislead or deceive the applicant into believing that the respondent had the — EEE eee ee eee eee ee intention of paying tne Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. cl eee -10- (a) By reason of the matters pleaded in varacrapns 11, 12, 14-19 and 23(e)- (1) the respondent's conduct risled or deceived or was lixely to mislead or_deceive the applicant into believing that the resvondent had the capacity to pay the Fee for the Applicant's Assistance. Se Oe Oe eee (e) The respondent's conduct misled or decezved or was likely te mislead or deceive the apolicant into believing that there was a contract between the respondent and the applicant the only relevant terms of which were that upon the applicant facilitating or procuring the dissositicn of the shares of Midland Credit Limited to a purchaser acceptaole to the respondent the applicant would be entitled to a fee of 1% of the eventual consideration for such transaction. (f) The respondent's conduct misled or deceived or was likely to mislead or ne PO : deceive the applicant into belzeving that it had, on or about 25 February 1983, become entitled to a fee of 1% of the eventual consideration for a transaction whereov the shares of Midland Credic Limited would be solid bv the respondent to a purchaser, that transaction having been facrlitared or procured by the applicant. 25. The respondent owed to the applicant a duty to take reasonable care in the making of the representations referred to :n paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 14-19. 26. In breach of the duty referred to in paragraph 25, the respondent was guilty of negligence in maxing the representations referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 14-19 in that (a) 1t was careless as to its capacity to pay the remuneration referred to in paradraons 3, +, 6 ard 10. (b) 1t was careless as to 1ts capacity to pay the Fee referred to in paragraphs 11, 12 and 14-19. 27. 28. 30. 31. Dated: The applicant reasonably relied urmon the representaticns referred to in paracrapns 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14-19 and expended moneys and provided services to the respondent in reasonable reliance thereon. By reason of the matters pleaded in paragrachs 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11 the applicant says that it had a contract with the respendent in or to the effect that upen the applicant facilitating or procuring the dissosition of the shares of Midland Credit Linited to a purchaser acceptable to the respondent the applicant would be entitled to a fee of 13 of the eventual consideration for such transaction. In breach of the said contract the resoondent has failed and refused to pay the applicant the said sum of $124,000 which sum represents 1% of the eventual consideration for the said transaction, namely $12,400,000. By reason of the corduct of the respondent referred to in the foregoiig paragraphs the applicant has suffered damage and continues to suffer damage. The applicant claims the relief set out in the Arpiication and, in particular, claims damages against the respondent (a) By reason of the matters pleaded in paragraohs 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-19, 23, 24 and 30 pursuant to Section 32 of the Act; (d) By reason of the natters pleaded in paracrapns 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 2, 14-19, 23, 24 and 30 pursuant to Section 87 of the Act; (c) By reason of the matters pleaded in paracrachs 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-19, 25-27 anc 30 for negligence. (d) By reason of the tatters pleaded in carcagrapns 3-22 and 29 and 29 for breach of contract. 18 November 1983 ROLLE Seay AVE Demme mae ed etme rere eters acncne Gerald Incram raftesath Applicant's Solicitor