The Legal Services Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : Luigi Polito [1994] NSWLST 9 PARTIES : Luigi Polito FILE NUMBER(S) : of 1993 CORAM: Mr C. Robison (Presiding Member) - Mr A. Edgar - Mr N. Reidy CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - make false statement :- Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct - falsely witnessing a document LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 1987 Real Property Act 1900 CASES CITED: Ellen Louise Weingarth 1993 2 LPDR No.2 DATES OF HEARING: 19 April 1994 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/17/1994 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr L.W. Pierotti for the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, Mr T.A. Williams Solicitor for the Solicitor. JUDGMENT: By its Amended Complaint the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Society) alleged that Luigi Polito of Level 5, 22 Central Avenue Manly (the Solicitor) signed as a witness to the signatures of mortgagors on a Variation of Mortgage notwithstanding that the mortgagors did not sign in his presence. The further particulars as amended alleged: "1. The Solicitor purported to witness the purported signatures of Joanne Margaret Doyle and Kevin Raymond Doyle on a Variation of Mortgage between Kevin Raymond Doyle and Joanne Margaret Doyle as mortgagors and James William Eisenhower and Moyra Bridget Eisenhower as mortgagees and which document was registered on 11 March 1991 when it is conceded by the Solicitor that the said Joanne Margaret Doyle and Kevin Raymond Doyle were not present when he purported to witness such signatures and where, furthermore, it was alleged by Joanne Margaret Doyle that such signature is not hers." The Society sought orders that a monetary penalty be imposed on the Solicitor and that the Solicitor pay the costs of the Society on a solicitor/client basis. The evidence of the Society included a statutory declaration of the Manager of its Professional Standards Department which annexed a copy of a letter from Messrs Breens solicitors dated 16 August 1993 and received by the Society on 18 August 1993. In essence, that letter stated that Messrs Breens had been consulted by one Joanne Doyle in regard to a Family Law problem she had with her former husband, Kevin Raymond Doyle. The letter stated that in June 1993, Mrs Doyle decided to arrange for the sale of her home and at that stage arranged for a title search of same. On receipt of the title search, she became aware that in addition to a mortgage to Westpac Savings Bank Limited which she and her former husband had executed, there were other dealings on the title in respect of which she was not aware. These dealings consisted of the following: [] A Caveat registered on 17 February 1989, signed on 25 January 1989 [] A Mortgage registered 11 March 1991 but dated 24 January 1989 (the Mortgage) [] Variation of Mortgage registered 11 March 1991 being undated (the Variation) [] District Court Writ registered 2 April 1991. Messrs Breens attached copies of the Caveat, Mortgage, Variation and Writ. They stated that Mrs Doyle did not sign the Mortgage. It was also alleged that she did not sign the undated Variation although, according to the solicitors, she acknowledged that her signature appearing on the Mortgage was her own. The purpose of writing to the Society was, as the solicitors stated, to inform the Society that the Variation purportedly signed by Mrs Doyle was purportedly signed in the presence of the Solicitor of Brookvale. The letter described some of the background circumstances of the creation of the Mortgage which recited a principal sum of $175,000. According to a statement the solicitors obtained from Kevin Doyle there was apparently some considerable pressure leading up to the execution of the documents which had apparently been guaranteed by the Solicitor. In the statement received by Messrs Breens from Mr Doyle, which was unsigned and undated, there is no confirmation of Mrs Doyle's written assertions of not having signed either the Mortgage or the Variation. Messrs Breens disclosed an understanding that insofar as the Mortgage was concerned, Mr Doyle conceded that he forged his wife's signature to such document but he made no comment regarding the execution of the Variation. Inspection of the copy Mortgage document reveals that Kevin Raymond Doyle and Joanne Margaret Doyle mortgaged the whole of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 45/243117 to James William Eisenhower and Moyra Bridget Eisenhower of 9 Lancaster Crescent, Collaroy at the request and by the direction of Luigi Polito of 710 Pittwater Road, Brookvale (therein called the "Guarantor"). The purported signatures of the mortgagors had been purportedly witnessed by one James D. Leahy whose occupation is unknown but who apparently is a director of a company involved in the land development for which the mortgage advance was obtained. The purported attestation in the Variation in respect of which the Society complains discloses that the descriptions of the mortgagor and mortgagee are identical with the description in the mortgage with apparently two signatures in the provision for execution by the mortgagor which shows the Solicitor's attestation thereof reading as follows:"Signed in my presence by the mortgagor who is personally known to meL.M. PolitoSignature of WitnessLuigi PolitoName of Witness (BLOCK LETTERS)Solicitor, BrookvaleAddress and Occupation of Witness - The Variation bears the signature of the mortgagee's solicitor which is not witnessed, nor need it be. By letter dated 1 September 1993 the Society wrote to the Solicitor indicating inter alia that the Professional Standards Department was conducting an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the signing and execution of the said Variation. The enquiry particularly related to the witnessing of the signature of the mortgagor, Joanne Margaret Doyle, by the Solicitor. It was alleged in that letter that the Solicitor falsely witnessed her purported signature on the said Variation. The Society sought an explanation from the Solicitor and this was given by the Solicitor in his letter to the Professional Standards Department dated 21 September 1993. The opening paragraph of the Solicitor's letter acknowledged that he did witness the signature of the mortgagors on the Variation notwithstanding that the mortgagors were not present. The Solicitor acknowledged and accepted that his action can only be categorised "as misconduct". The letter went on to describe the background circumstances giving rise to the documentation and ultimate false attestation. He said that the signatures were witnessed at the request of one of the mortgagors in circumstances of great pressure and that he did not stand to gain any financial benefit from the transaction. According to his letter, he stated that in early 1989 he was approached by his brother to see if he would guarantee a loan for a period of 3 months in order that his brother provide some assistance to his company in the carrying out of a number of development projects. Apparently the company was involved in a number of development sites with various constructions in hand. Additional funds needed to be acquired to continue those projects. The Solicitor stated that his brother had negotiated a loan through Messrs Wood Linden Marshall De Mestre solicitors, whose office was at that time immediately next door to the Solicitor's. The Solicitor was informed that his brother was able to obtain a loan for $175,000 with a security over his brother's house which he owned with his wife together with the house of the development group's accountant which he owned with his wife. The Solicitor was informed by his brother that as the mortgages were not to be first mortgages, the mortgagees would require him to provide a guarantee and, as the mortgagees' solicitor knew him, he was asked if he would guarantee the loan "as it was only for 3 months". The Solicitor "unfortunately agreed to guarantee the loan". The letter goes on to say that the mortgage documents were prepared by the mortgagees' solicitors and "hand delivered" to the Solicitor's "office to be sent off to the various parties for signing". The documents were then handed on to the Solicitor's brother "who arranged for signature by the mortgagors". The documents were then returned to the Solicitor for his "signature as guarantor". The Solicitor annexed copies of those documents revealing his signatures as guarantor. In his letter, the Solicitor in "assessing whether to witness the Variation of Mortgage" noted that there had already been an original mortgage and two prior variations in respect of which he was not involved. The impression the Tribunal has received after considering the letter is that the Solicitor relied on the documentary history and felt that he was comfortably satisfied in witnessing the signatures after making this assessment. As to the Variation, the subject of this complaint, the Solicitor said that the documents came back to him from the development group and Mr Kevin Doyle (the accountant) contacted the Solicitor by telephone and said that he and his wife had signed the Variation and asked could the Solicitor "witness it?" The Solicitor stated that at the time there was "quite a lot of negotiation going on between the Jarika Group and Wood Linden Marshal De Mestre in relation to the Variation and repayment of the loan. A number of projects that the Jarika Group were involved in had not been concluded and repayment of the loan was delayed." The Solicitor then described the specific circumstances of his signature as witness on the Variation: "There was pressure on the Jarika Group and the mortgagors to return the Variation of Mortgage to Wood Linden Marshall De Mestre and in the light of that pressure and the assurances of Mr Doyle that he and his wife had signed the documents I regrettably witnessed the signatures of the mortgagors. I did however compare the signature of the mortgagors from the previous variations of mortgage and mortgage and they appeared to be identical." Ultimately, the mortgagors went into default and the Solicitor's brother is now bankrupt. To say that the Solicitor received no financial benefit from the transaction in which he was involved is a gross understatement. He was sued in the Supreme Court by the mortgagees as guarantor under the Mortgage which he signed as guarantor which led to a financial exposure by him of an amount of approximately $220,000. The Solicitor said that the first time he became aware of the allegation that Mrs Doyle's signature had been forged was when he received a letter from Messrs Breens dated 6 July 1993. He attached a copy of this letter to his letter to the Society of 21 September 1993. The letter from Messrs Breens would no doubt have come as a shock to the Solicitor as it stated, inter alia that should a discharge of the Mortgage insofar as it affected their client's interest in the property not be forthcoming then they would take further action to protect Mrs Doyle's interest. The Solicitor's letter to the Professional Standards Department referred to his proposed debtors petition for bankruptcy and, in his evidence before the Tribunal, the Solicitor indicated that he indeed became bankrupt on 15 October 1993. The Solicitor's letter described his professional and personal background. He was admitted as a solicitor on 14 July 1978 and following a period of employment commenced sole practice in about 1981. In 1983 he acquired a firm at Brookvale and on 1 July 1992 he resumed practice on his own account. He has been an employee of Messrs Marks Griffiths Hazzard and Bova since 29 March 1993. The Solicitor is a member of the community speaker's list for the Society and is involved with Manly Community Services, Manly Hospital and an Italian community service program which offers free legal counselling. His letter stated that he was not aware of any previous disciplinary proceedings against him in the 15 years since his admission. As at September 1993 he was aged 38, married with 5 children aged between 12 to 4 years. It is worthwhile quoting one particular paragraph of his letter which the Tribunal feels adequately summarises his feelings about the entire transaction:"The whole transaction has taught me a number of very important lessons, not least that my conduct should never be compromised by pressures or expediency in a transaction including situations where I am not acting as a solicitor for one of the parties. I can categorically state that it is something that will never ever occur again. I repeat that it is something that I greatly regret, it is a matter of great embarrassment to my family, my employers and myself." The Solicitor added that he fully comprehended the gravity of the matter and repeated that it would never happen again. It is clear from the letter that the Solicitor felt that the Society may refer the matter to the Tribunal. He pointed out that as it was not a complaint to the Society under section 130 of the Legal Profession Act but a complaint by the Society then, it was his understanding that in the absence of such a complaint, it was open for the Society to deal with the matter itself rather than refer it to the Tribunal. This was obviously a course the Society chose not to take. In his opening address, Mr Williams, for the Solicitor, indicated that there would be no contention as to the facts and all of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint were admitted. Whilst the Tribunal did not compel him to do so, the Solicitor elected to give evidence. In his evidence, he expanded upon the circumstances enunciated in his letter to the Society of 21 September 1993 after he confirmed that its contents were true and correct at the time the document was sent. According to his letter, it is clear that the Solicitor did not have a "solicitor client relationship" with any persons involved in the matter. He issued no fees for the work performed by him or his firm. The Solicitor did not believe that he entered into any correspondence with the mortgagees' solicitors. He did not specifically deny the existence of any correspondence and therefore the Tribunal is not in a position to make a judgment either way in this regard. The Solicitor said that the mortgagees' solicitors had their office next to his and re-stated what he said in his letter to the Society about the passing on of the documents to his brother for signature. He said they would have then "in the normal course come back" to the Solicitor. After signing them as guarantor the Solicitor said "they would have gone back to the solicitors for the mortgagee who were next door." He said that he was not required to sign the Variations but had to sign an acknowledgment by virtue of his relationship as guarantor. This was, apparently, a separate document. The Solicitor described his pressure and stress and the degree of urgency placed on him by his brother and his brother's company to have the documents returned to the mortgagee's solicitors. The documents came back to him unwitnessed and it was then that Mr Doyle called him and said "These documents have to go back. There are a lot of negotiations between the Jarika Group and the solicitors for the mortgagee." At that point in his evidence, Mr Pierotti for the Society objected to the form in which the evidence was then coming and, in response, Mr Williams indicated that he was attempting to ascertain the precise detail and state of mind of the Solicitor at the relevant time. The Solicitor then went on to describe various projects that his brother was involved in collapsing around him, that his brother's house was sold up and there was no other security. At that time, the Solicitor was in sole practice and his wife gave birth to their fifth child at about that time. They also moved house and "There were a lot of things happening at that time." The Solicitor also described his financial circumstances revealing a total of joint assets with his wife in the sum of $15,000. Although the history leading up to the facts constituting the complaint is important and necessary to describe in some detail in order to establish what was in the mind of the Solicitor at the time when the act occurred, the sole question to be determined is whether the Solicitor committed an act constituting professional misconduct or such other conduct warranting an adjudication by this Tribunal. In his evidence, the Solicitor agreed that the conduct was certainly unacceptable. He also agreed that the Variation "witnessed" by him would inevitably be returned to the solicitor for the mortgagee who was going to rely on it. The Solicitor acknowledged that the act of witnessing the document in the form undertaken constituted a fraud on people who rely upon it. The Solicitor did not think that it was something which he directed his mind to at the time but it seems that he subsequently acknowledged that he accepted that that was the case. The Solicitor was asked if he could recall any other instance where he had ever purported to witness documents which he had not seen signed. His answer was:"No I don't recall any incidents and it is not my general practise to witness documents unless the parties are present." The Tribunal has a certain degree of uneasiness about this answer. His statement that he did not recall any incidents does not necessarily rule out that such incidents in fact occurred. In any event, the Solicitor was not cross examined about this statement and therefore the Tribunal does not make any particular finding upon it. The Solicitor concluded his evidence in chief by saying that he would not "do it" again and the Tribunal accepts the truthfulness of this answer having regard to all of the matters taken into account during the course of the hearing. In cross examination, the Solicitor was asked if he accepted that the word "misconduct" appearing in his letter of 21 September 1993 to the Society was professional misconduct. This question was objected to by Mr Williams on the basis that it called for a legal conclusion. The Tribunal allowed the question on the basis that it was a question which ought to be answered by any Solicitor unequivocally having regard to what ought to be a solicitor's understanding of his responsibilities by law. Accordingly, the Solicitor's response to the question that his action may have amounted to professional misconduct was "To the extent that the professional, other solicitors, would rely on it, yes". The Solicitor was also asked:"Does it follow that if you accept that they (the solicitors for the mortgagee) relied upon it, that it would be professional misconduct to have given to them the original of that document with your signature as a witness to the mortgagors when you did not see them sign the document?" The Solicitor's answer was "yes". There was no further evidence called on behalf of the Solicitor although six statutory declarations relating to his character were tendered without objection. Having considered the contents of each declaration, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the Solicitor is generally a person of good repute and held in high esteem among those with whom he comes in contact in the profession. Two of the declarations were unsolicited. These came from Mary Bova, a partner in the firm of Marks Griffiths Hazzard and Bova, being the firm employing the Solicitor. The other was from Bradley Ronald Hazzard, another partner in the same firm and (although not so stated in the declaration) a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of New South Wales. Miss Bova considered that the Solicitor's action was a "one off" error arising out of the pressures he was under at the time. She believed that the Solicitor "would if given consideration by the Tribunal be at no risk of repeating this offence or being involved in any other transgression." Mr Hazzard's statutory declaration described the Solicitor's action as "a momentary professional indiscretion undertaken in a pressured situation". He stated that he would be pleased to continue Mr Polito's employment and expected that his indiscretion "will not be repeated". He concluded by saying that the Solicitor "is genuinely remorseful about this incident". The Tribunal considers that as these declarations come from the Solicitor's employers, considerable weight must be given to them as they would be in a good position to judge the behaviour of the Solicitor at this time during the course of professional practice. In his submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Pierotti said that the Solicitor's conduct amounted to professional misconduct under the terms of the Legal Profession Act and that the Tribunal ought to make such a finding and impose the penalties sought. A number of decisions of this Tribunal and the Court of Appeal over the years add considerable force to this submission. Mr Pierotti submitted that the conduct was clear cut and admitted. The determination of the ultimate status of that conduct is, Mr Pierotti quite correctly submitted, one for the Tribunal to determine. The oft quoted decision in Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1894) 1 QB 750 is the starting point in defining what is actually meant by "professional misconduct". To quote what is said by Mr Riley in the New South Wales Solicitors Manual at paragraph 4011, is useful - "Such conduct, said Lopes LJ would be something done by a person in the pursuit of his profession `which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency'". It is the Tribunal's view that the Allinson Test as it has become known has stood the test of time and is still relevant to the standard of assessment of behaviour of legal practitioners. The Allinson Test refers to conduct in "the pursuit of his profession". Mr Pierotti referred to section 123 of the Legal Profession Act, the relevant portion thereof being as follows:"`Professional misconduct' includes:1. (b) conduct (whether consisting of an act or omission) occurring otherwise than in connection with the practise of law which, if established, would justify a finding that a legal practitioner is not of good fame and character or is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of barristers or the roll of solicitors" The Society did not submit that the Solicitor was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. No protective orders have been sought. Mr Pierotti submitted that upon the evidence, there was a flaw in the Solicitor's character which ought to be categorised as professional misconduct. Reliance was placed on the Solicitor's admission that he would accept that a solicitor for a mortgagee would rely upon his signature of attestation in documents such as a variation of mortgage. In other words, a solicitor for a mortgagee should not have any need to go behind the transaction and in effect obtain verification from the signatories to such documentation that their signatures in fact appeared thereon. It was further submitted that the Solicitor, regardless of whether or not he conducted himself as solicitor for any of the parties, had an informed conscience of a practitioner. That is, a person who could be held out by the Court as somebody who could be relied upon to be truthful. The gravamen of Mr Pierotti's submission was that if the course of conduct undertaken by the Solicitor occurred in his practice, it was incorrect to suggest that because he did not act for any of the parties in the transaction, he should not be dealt with under the general definition of professional misconduct. It was pointed out to the Tribunal that it had the backup of section 123 of the Act which gives authority to make a finding in the event of the Tribunal taking the view that the Solicitor's conduct did not occur during the course of his practice. The basis of Mr Williams' submission was that the Solicitor's action in witnessing the document did not occur "in the pursuit of his practice as a solicitor". He further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence that in witnessing the document he did so in such pursuit. Mr Williams conceded that the Solicitor's conduct was personal misconduct and although the Solicitor himself accepted that it was professional misconduct, the Solicitor was not drawing any particular technical distinctions on that point whilst at the same time believing himself that it was personally "professional misconduct". Both Messrs Pierotti and Williams drew the Tribunal's attention to a number of cases regarding the execution of documents by solicitors all of which related to facts occurring during the course of each solicitor's practice. Therefore, in those cases it was not necessary to consider the extent of definition of professional misconduct as contained in Section 123 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. Mr Williams submitted that the Solicitor was simply a conduit for the document and did nothing wrong whilst he was the conduit for it. In this, he was referring to the delivering of the Variation from his office to the office of the solicitor for the mortgagee. Mr Williams submitted that the Solicitor had no solicitor/client relationship with anybody in the transaction and his involvement was purely personal. Having carefully considered the facts and the submissions from both Mr Pierotti and Mr Williams, the Tribunal has come to the view that the conduct of the Solicitor did in fact occur during the course of his practice and the Tribunal is empowered to make any order as may be necessary pursuant to section 163 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. The facts giving rise to the Tribunal's conclusion that the Solicitor acted in the course of his practice can be conveniently summarised as follows: 1. In his evidence, the Solicitor stated the documents came to his office and were then passed on to his brother for signature. How they came to the Solicitor's office we do not know but they came to the office in which, presumably, he conducted his practice. They were dealt with in his office by the Solicitor subsequently passing them on to his brother. No other venue for the consideration of the documents was propounded by the Solicitor in his evidence. 2. On the standard variation of mortgage document, there is provision for signature by a witness stating that the person signing the document is signing in the presence of that witness who was personally known to that witness. Further, the document contains a certification pursuant to the Real Property Act 1900 in that the parties certify the dealing to be correct for those purposes. The Solicitor executed the attestation clause, stated his name and included the words "Solicitor Brookvale". The signature of the Solicitor in the Tribunal's view amounts to a declaration to the world at large that he, as a solicitor, having a practice at Brookvale, witnessed the signatures appearing alongside. It is not essential that a solicitor as such witness documents of this nature in order to achieve registration at the Land Titles Office. If the Solicitor was acting personally and not during the course of his practice, why did he state he was a solicitor and add his address at Brookvale? For all intents and purposes, anyone considering that attestation would reasonably conclude that the act of witnessing has some authority and purpose. It is tantamount to an unequivocal declaration that the documents were correctly signed. It follows that reliance needs to be and is placed on such documents particularly by solicitors acting for mortgagees and of course mortgagees themselves. In this case, the Solicitor subsequently acknowledged that the solicitor for the mortgagee would rely on the purported execution of those documents. 3. After execution, the documents were forwarded by the Solicitor from his office to the mortgagee's solicitor's office. All of the above constitute hallmarks of acting during the course of practice. The Tribunal takes the view that, notwithstanding the forceful submissions made by Mr Williams to the contrary, it is not necessary that there be a solicitor/client relationship in order to establish behaviour during the course of his or her practice. It is not uncommon for solicitors to take affidavits and statutory declarations from persons who are not clients of the solicitor involved. Solicitors come into contact with a variety of persons during the course of their practice without such a relationship existing. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds that it is not necessary to consider the Solicitor's conduct as being such as would fall within section 123(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1987. Even if the facts did constitute conduct as contemplated by that section, it is important to record that if such conduct occurs otherwise than in connection with the practice of law, which "if established, would justify a finding that a legal practitioner is not of good fame and character" this, by use of the word "justify", simply provides a threshold for the Tribunal to form a view that a practitioner is not of good fame and character and/or is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. The Tribunal does not necessarily have to come to a specific finding as such. The circumstances need to be sufficient enough to justify such a finding. The Tribunal therefore considers that it can make orders which may not remove the practitioner from the roll of Solicitors if it considers that the conduct justifies a finding without proceeding to make that finding. However, as the Tribunal has considered that the conduct complained of occurred during the course of the Solicitor's practice, the Tribunal feels that it is not necessary to make further reference to section 123(b). The facts giving rise to the complaint are indeed serious. Without attempting to diminish the seriousness of the Solicitor's action, the facts can be distinguished from a number of previous cases involving similar facts brought to the Tribunal's attention during the hearing. All of those cases involved something more than the mere witnessing of documents. The Solicitor was not a person who had limited experience in practice prior to the purported witnessing of the Variation and he knew or ought to have known the consequences of his acts. One of the consequences was that the mortgagees were misled through the false attestation and the Mortgage was varied on a false premise of attestation. The background shows that the mortgagees were possibly prejudiced by the actions of the Solicitor and had the Solicitor not succumbed to the pressures he was under at the time, the outcome may well have proceeded along a different course. At least, the mortgagees may have had an earlier opportunity to protect their positions than they did, so too, Mrs Doyle. It is clear that the Solicitor disregarded his professional responsibilities to the detriment of others the result being that the Solicitor's conduct fell well short of the standard required by his professional colleagues "of good repute and competency". The Solicitor is therefore guilty of professional misconduct and the Tribunal proposes to make the orders sought by the Society. In making these orders the Society has had regard to the extreme financial difficulties of the Solicitor (brought about by his own actions) and feels that it should adopt a similar approach to that adopted in the matter of Ellen Louise Weingarth 1993 2 LPDR No.2 p.8 and impose a fine commensurate with his financial predicament. The imposition of a fine is also commensurate with the view that the Tribunal should go no further than is necessary to uphold the proper standards and to protect the public's interests. (per Kirby P in Fraser (1992) 5 LPDR at page 16). Orders The Tribunal therefore orders that: 1. The Solicitor be fined $1,000. 2. The said sum to be paid within 3 months from the date of this order and that thereafter the Solicitor be suspended from practice until the said fine be paid. 3. The Solicitor pay the costs of the Society, such costs to be assessed on a solicitor and client basis as if taxed in the Supreme Court. 4. If agreement cannot be reached between the Solicitor and the Society as to the amount of such costs, either party to have liberty to apply. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.