Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Jiang [2011] NSWADT 270 Hearing dates: 16 August 2011 and 28 October 2011 Decision date: 28 October 2011 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: G Mullane, Judicial Member N Isenberg, Judicial Member E Hayes, Non-judicial Member Decision: 1 The tribunal notes the undertaking of Martin Alan Churchill: 1.1 to take all steps and reasonable endeavours to lease (or purchase) premises from which my legal practice will operate and which will accommodate both myself and the Respondent. 1.2 If I have not leased (or purchased) such premises within 3 months of today's date, namely 28 January 2012, I will inform the Law society in writing. 1.3 I will employ and supervise the Respondent for a further period of 3 years, such supervision to include perusing the inward mail in the Respondent's matters and auditing the Respondent's files. 2. By consent Ren Hai Jiang is to pay a fine of $9,000.00 within 6 months and if not paid then his practising certificate may be suspended. 3. By consent Ren Hai Jiang is publicly reprimanded. 4. By consent f or a period of three years the following conditions be imposed on any practising certificate held by Ren Hai Jiang:- (a)He to only hold a restricted practising certificate and any application by him to be granted an unrestricted practising certificate to be conditional upon him satisfying all standard requirements and remaining in the employ of Martin Churchill, Solicitor, or such practitioner as may be approved from time to time by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, for a continuous period of three (3) years. (b)He undertaking at least one course each year in the areas of ethics and trust accounts, and any other such course as the Council of the Law Society so directs, for a period of three (3) years. 5. By consent Ren Hai Jiang must pay the costs of the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales in these proceedings as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Solicitor- professional misconduct - supervision Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Ren Hai Jiang (Respondent) Legal Services Commissioner (Intervenor) Representation: Counsel P J D Hamill SC (Respondent) Law Society of NSW (Applicant) Clarke Kann Lawyers (Respondent) A Matalani, (Intervenor) File Number(s): 102017 reasons for decision INTRODUCTION 1These are disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent solicitor Ren Hai Jiang commenced by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales by its application filed in the Tribunal on 12 July 2010. THE EVIDENCE 2The evidence before us comprised: (1)The application for original decision filed on 12 July 2010; (2)The affidavit of Leo Sydney Gore sworn 5 July 2010 (3)The affidavit of Raymond John Collins sworn 7 July 2010; (4)The affidavit of the Respondent solicitor sworn 18 February 2011; (5)The affidavit of Jeng Lek Fong sworn 18 February 2011; (6)The affidavit of Lei Hong Li sworn 18 February 2011; (7)The affidavit of Martin Churchill sworn 17 February 2011; (8)The affidavit of Anita Duffy sworn 22 February 2011; (9)The Instrument of Consent signed by the Respondent, the solicitor for the applicant, and the Legal Services Commissioner filed 10 August 2011; (10)The affidavit of Ren Zhou sworn 15 August 2011; (11)The affidavit of Martin Churchill sworn 28 October 2011; (12)Oral evidence and cross-examination of the Respondent on 16 August 2011; (13)Oral evidence and cross-examination of Mr Churchill on 28 October 2011; (14)Exhibit A: written undertaking by Martin Churchill. INSTRUMENT OF CONSENT AND ADJOURNMENT 3The Instrument of Consent filed on 10 August 2011 provided for consent orders as follows: 1. Ren Hai Jiang is to pay a fine of $9,000.00 within 6 months from the date of approval of this Instrument and if not paid then his practising certificate may be suspended. 2. Ren Hai Jiang is publicly reprimanded. 3. For a period of three years from the date of approval of this i nstrument the following conditions be imposed on any practising certificate held by Ren Hai Jiang:- (a)He to only hold a restricted practising certificate and any application by him to be granted an unrestricted practising certificate to be conditional upon him satisfying all standard requirements and remaining in the employ of Martin Churchill, Solicitor, or such practitioner as may be approved from time to time by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, for a continuous period of three (3) years. (b)He undertaking at least one course each year in the areas of ethics and trust accounts, and any other such course as the Council of the Law Society so directs, for a period of three (3) years. 4. Ren Hai Jiang is to pay the costs of the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales in these proceedings as agreed or assessed. 4At the end of the hearing on 16 August 2011, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the supervision of the Respondent required to protect the public and the reputation of the profession would be achieved by the orders proposed for supervision by Mr Churchill. That was because we understood from the evidence that Mr Churchill had three offices staffed by employed solicitors, his own office was at a separate location to the office in which the Respondent was employed, and Mr Churchill's supervision visits to the Respondent were limited to about one per week for about one hour. 5On 16 August we informed the parties of our concerns and the proceedings were adjourned so that steps could be taken to provide further evidence so that the Tribunal might be satisfied with the supervision arrangements. 6At the continuation of the hearing on 28 October 2011, there was a further affidavit by Mr Churchill and Mr Churchill was available and was cross-examined. He had not been available on the first occasion. 7A written undertaking was provided by Mr Churchill. After an amendment suggested by the Tribunal was incorporated in the undertaking we were then satisfied with the proposed arrangements for supervision and made the consent orders proposed by the parties. BRIEF BACKGROUND 8The Respondent was born in February 1970 in China. He completed a Diploma in Foreign Trade Business in China in 1991, but the work he obtained after 1995 in China did not relate to the course he had completed. He came to Australia in October 2000. 9The Respondent's English was poor when he first came to Australia. His first language is Mandarin. When he arrived in Australia he first undertook and completed a Masters Degree from Central Queensland University, Sydney Campus in Information and Technology. He completed the degree in 2002. He then commenced employment with Ren Zhou Lawyers in Sydney as a Law Clerk and Conveyancer, and subsequently, while continuing that employment undertook studies for the Solicitors' Admission Board to qualify as a lawyer. He obtained the qualification in about June 2006 and subsequently attended a six months course in practical legal training at the College of Law. 10He experienced some difficulties studying for the Solicitors' Admission Board course because of his poor English, but still managed to obtain some Distinctions in his studies. 11In about June 2006 a friend introduced him to a Mr Gold, who was the principal of a legal practice conducted through the entity "Mayson Legal Pty Ltd" in Sydney. The Respondent had some discussions with Mr Gold and Mr Gold informed him that he would offer him employment once he was admitted as a solicitor. 12Later in 2006, the Respondent commenced working as a Law Clerk/Conveyancing Clerk in the office of Mr Gold in Sydney. The majority of the clientele were members of the Sydney Chinese community. 13The Respondent was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 16 February 2007. By that time he had been working in the office of Mr Gold for eight months. 14He found that Mr Gold was absent from the office for long periods and provided the Respondent and other employed solicitors with little supervision or training. 15Mr Gold had arranged with an employed solicitor, Mr Wu, a friend of the Respondent, for Mr Wu to operate a legal office under the name, "Legal Point Lawyers and Attorneys", and in return for supervision and advice from Mr Gold, Mr Wu was to pay Mr Gold an annual licence fee. 16Once the Respondent had been admitted as a solicitor, he asked Mr Gold if he could have a similar arrangement to set up a "branch office". Mr Gold agreed. The licence fee was to be $17,000 in the first year and then $20,000 in subsequent years. The Respondent would also be liable to pay Law Cover Premiums for the branch office and any other insurances. The Respondent called the "branch office" "Harry Jiang Lawyers", and registered the business name in about February 2007. He then leased office space in another location in Sydney. He was in the same building as his friend Mr Wu. 17Another employed solicitor of Mr Gold, Mr Jeng Lek Fong, operated a "branch office" in Cabramatta under the business name "Just in Case Legal" serving primarily Vietnamese and Chinese clientele in that area. 18The Respondent commenced the operation of the "branch office" on 1 April 2007, although he had already started to use the name "Harry Jiang Lawyers" in February 2007. 19Mr Gold had operated his practices without using a trust account. The Respondent did likewise in relation to 'Harry Jiang Lawyers" 20The Respondent's "branch office" was very successful, particularly with the Chinese community in Sydney. He also had contacts in the Chinese community who were accountants, real estate agents or mortgage brokers, and they referred work to him. By mid-2007 he was advertising "Harry Jiang Lawyers" in a Chinese daily newspaper in Sydney. 21In about April or May 2007, the Respondent raised with Mr Gold the question of what he should do with funds that would normally be deposited into a trust account and asked if they could set up a trust account for his "branch office". Mr Gold told him, "It's okay to put it in your office account as long as it is only there for a short period. It's called transit money, and that won't be a breach of your obligations or of the trust account regulations." 22By about mid-March 2008 the Law Society had begun investigating a complaint that the Respondent was holding himself out to be an unrestricted principal. The Respondent obtained advice from one of the panel of solicitors the Law Society advised him were available to assist in relation to the complaint. He was advised to stop sending letters to clients using the name "Harry Jiang Lawyers", and he did this. He reverted to the use of Mayson Legal Pty Ltd letterhead. 23The Trust Account Inspector from the Law Society, Mr Gore, attended the Respondent's office on 16 June 2008. During that initial visit, the Respondent produced to the inspector the client files in a matter of Baldwin and a matter of Thitrarthok and he identified where in those matters he had deposited trust moneys into the office account. He told Mr Gore he had believed until then that such deposits would be regarded as "transit moneys". He also produced relevant bank statements. 24The Law Society investigations continued. By September 2008 the Respondent had received a letter from the Law Society advising that it had resolved to make a complaint against him to the Tribunal. He subsequently decided that he should change employers. He advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald seeking a principal lawyer with an unrestricted Practising Certificate who would employ him. 25Mr Martin Churchill responded and he met with the Respondent in about October or November 2008. He agreed to employ the Respondent and supervise him. 26When the Respondent informed Mr Gold of his intentions, Mr Gold told him that if he left Mr Gold's employment, Mr Gold would refuse to give him a reference and would retain all the clients of the "branch office". 27The Respondent then had difficulty contacting Mr Gold until January 2009, when Mr Gold contacted him by text, as a result of which they met. At the meeting Mr Gold offered to provide the Respondent with a reference subject to the Respondent paying him a further $5,000 by way of licence fee in addition to the $20,000 licence fee he had already paid for that year. The Respondent paid the $5,000 in late January and was given a reference. He was not happy with the terms of the reference, but attempts to contact Mr Gold after that were unsuccessful. It appears that Mr Gold may have voluntarily left the country and gone to Asia or alternatively may have met with foul play, but he has not since been located. 28The Respondent commenced full time employment with Mr Churchill on 1 April 2009. 29There was a meeting on 2 April 2009 convened by Mr Collins, the solicitor for the Law Society. In attendance were Mr Collins, another officer of the Law Society, Mr Churchill, Mr Fong and the Respondent. As a result of that meeting the practices of Mayson Legal Pty Ltd ceased business and Mr Churchill was appointed by the Council of the Law Society as Receiver/Manager of the law practice of Mayson Legal Pty Ltd. 30The Respondent has since April 2009 continued in full time employment with Mr Churchill as a solicitor with a restricted Practising Certificate. 31On 3 June 2010 the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society resolved to commence these proceedings and the application was filed on 12 July 2010. THE GROUNDS 32The grounds relied upon by the Law Society are set out in the Application for original Decision filed 12 July 2010in the disciplinary application and details are set out as particulars in the Instrument of Consent. They are: Ren Hai Jiang, while practising as a solicitor, was guilty of professional misconduct as set out in the following allegation: Professional Misconduct i Breach of undertaking in the matter of Baldwin ii The solicitor mislead the Vendor's solicitor in the matter of Baldwin iii The solicitor failed to render to his employer trust monies received from clients of the law practice and deposited these monies to his own account iv The solicitor practised in contravention of the conditions of his practising certificate v Unethical conduct - the solicitor held out and conducted a practice as an unrestricted principal when not entitled to do so. 33The particulars of the grounds, which are agreed, are: PARTICULARS OF AGREED FAGTS Re REN HAI JIANG In these Particulars: - "The solicitor" means Ren Hai Jiang known as Harry Jiang "The i nvestigator" means Leo Gore "The Society" means The Law Society of New South Wales Purchase of Rockdale property by Peter Baldwin. i. Breach of Undertaking ii. Misleading the Vendor's solicitor iii. Failure to render to his employer trust monies received from the client of the law practice and depositing those monies to his own account iv. Practising in contravention of the conditions of his practising certificate v. Unethical conduct - holding out and conducting a practice as an unrestricted principal when not entitled to do so 1. The solicitor acted for Peter Hudson Baldwin ("Mr Baldwin') on the purchase of property known as Lot 18 in Strata Plan 78095 and contracts were exchanged on I June 2007. 2. On 14 June 2007 a certificate issued to the solicitor advising that the contract was exempt from stamp duty pursuant to the First Home plan. 3. On 9 July 2007 the Solicitors for the Vendor sent an email to the solicitor which said in part.- I refer to previous correspondence and have received notification from our client's mortgagee that they are satisfied to accept an undertaking and confirmation from you that you have forwarded the settlement statement direct to your client's incoming mortgagee at least 24 hours prior to the date of settlement. Our client's discharging mortgagee requires a letter from you addressed to our Firm in th e followi n g context: ....... - Harry, this is the format of the letter that has to be sent to us prior to settlement. Would you please confirm that this is acceptable to you in order that we can immediately proceed to booking settlement of this matter. 4. On 10 July 2007 the solicitor sent an email to the Solicitors for the Vendor which said in part:- I am instructed to write to you on behalf of our client to undertake to provide the settlement figures received from your office to our client's incoming (sic) 24 hours before settlement. The solicitor did not comply with the undertaking as he at no time provided settlement figures to the incoming mortgagee. Subsequent to sending the email to the solicitors for the vendor on 10 July 2007, the solicitor received a telephone call from the solicitors for the vendor stating that the undertaking contained within the email of 10 July was not in the proper format and could not be relied upon by the vendor to enable settlement to take place. Subsequently the solicitor received an email from the solicitor for the vendor on 12 July 2007 requesting a letter from the solicitor in the format requested in the email from the vendor's solicitor of 9 July 2007. 5. On 12 July 2007 the solicitor forwarded a letter [on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers] to the Office of State Revenue which said in part:- We refer to the above matter, we are instructed to request cancellation of stamping for both Transfer and mortgage. We will pay the stamp duty for the purchase over the counter, the mortgage stamp duty will be deducted from our client's loan amount. 6 On 12 July 2007 the sum of $14,750.00 was paid to the O ffice of S tate Revenue by way of a bank cheque drawn on St George Bank Limited. 7 On 12 July 2007 Mr Baldwin signed a letter to the office of state Revenue which said in part:- - I refer to the above matter and kindly request the Office of State Revenue to refund the sum of $14,750 being the stamp duty paid by Harry Jiang Lawyers and that the Refund are to be paid directly to Harry Jiang Lawyers. Beneath the letter in handwriting appeared the following also signed by Mr Baldwin:- I understand that Harry Jiang Lawyers do not have a Trust A/c. I authorise Harry Jiang Lawyers to deposit this refunded money into its office A/c pending for my final instructions as to who this money paid to. 8 On 13 July 2007 the solicitor sent a further email to the Solicitors for the Vendor which said in Part: - Regarding this matter of Balwin (sic) from Shellbridge P/L, we are instructed to confirm that the settlement figures from your office were sent to our client's incoming mortgagee 24 hours prior to booked settlement. That statement was inaccurate, in that the instructions received by the solicitor were incorrect as the settlement figures had not been sent to the incoming mortgagee 24 hours prior to the booked time for settlement. The solicitor relied upon his instructions. 9 On 16 July 2007 settlement of the purchase by Mr Baldwin took place. 10 On 14 August 2007 the O ffice of S tate Revenue forwarded a Refund Notice to the solicitor together with a cheque in the sum of $14,754.00. 11 On 8 Octob er 2007 the sum of $14,754.00 was deposited into the solicitor's account with the Commonwealth Bank. 12 On 9 October 2007 the solicitor sent a letter to Mr Baldwin [on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers] requesting that he contact his office and advising him "that we just received the refunded stamp duty cheque from the Office of State Revenue and we banked in our office account yesterday as we do not have a trust account as we advised you before." 13. On 19 October 2007 the solicitor again sent a letter to Mr Baldwin [on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers] requesting that he contact the solicitor's office. 14. On 1 November 2007 Mr Baldwin signed a handwritten authority to the solicitor who then drew two cheques totalling the sum of $14,750.00 which were honoured when presented that day. 15. On 15 July 2008 the solicitor forwarded a letter to the I nvestigator which said in part:- " 1. Upon instructions from Mr Peter Hudson Baldwin, I requested refund of stamp duty paid to the Office of State Revenue. Once I had received it, I immediately notified him of receipt of the refunded money. On 01 November 2007, Mr Peter Hudson Baldwin accompanied by his friend came to my office and upon his instructions, I drew two cheques.... 16. On 25 July 2008 the Investigator sent an email to the solicitor which said in part:- Please provide a written response; 1. As to whether you forwarded the Settlement Sheet showing the Rebate of $33,750 to Mr Baldwin's incoming mortgagee (NAB) and provide 17. On 25 July 2008 the solicitor sent an email to the Investigator which said in part:- As per our telephone conversation this afternoon, I reply to your questions as the followings: 1. I did not forward the settlement figures to Mr Peter Baldwin's incoming mortgage before settlement as I recall now; 18. On 26 July 2008 the solicitor sent a further email to the Investigator which said in part:- 5. Be honest to the public.... - as for Mr Peter Hudson Baldwin' case, the client and his friend oppose me to disclose the rebate to his incoming mortgagee, I should have advised him at that time that it was my duty to do so, otherwise, I would not be entitled to act for him and I should not have provided such a letter on bahalf (sic) of Mr Baldwin to the Vendor's solicitor that we will or we have done so. I feel ashamed of myself. I have no way to accept myself why I did so. 19. Apart from the letters referred to above the solicitor sent letters on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers to the Solicitors for the Vendor on the following dates:- i. 6 June 2007 - page 76 of Investigator's report ii. 8 June 2007 - page 81 of Investigator's report iii. 5 July 2007 - page 104 of Investigator's report 20. On 13 July 2007 on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers the solicitor forwarded a letter to Perpetual the lender to Mr Baldwin - page 69 of Investigator's report. 21. On 16 July 2007 on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers the solicitor forwarded a letter to the Agent involved in the sale - page 149 of Investigator's report. Purchase of Rockdale property by Wanraya Thitrarthok i. Failure to render to his employer trust monies received from the client of the law practice and depositing those monies to his own account ii. Practising in contravention of the conditions of his practising certificate iii.. Unethical conduct - holding out and conducting a practice as an unrestricted principal when not entitled to do so 1 The solicitor acted for Wanraya Thitrarthok ("Ms Thitrarthok") on the purchase of property known as Lot 35 in Strata Plan 72366. 2 On 7 June 2007 Henry Davis York the Solicitors for the Vendors sent a letter to Harry Jiang Lawyers which said in part:- The 10% deposit in the amount of $33,000 must be forward (sic) to us in favour of Henry Davis York Trust Account prior to exchange of contracts being effected. 3 On 12 June 2007 the solicitor received the sum of $33,000.00 which he deposited to his office account. 4 On 27 June 2007 the solicitor sent a letter [on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers] to Henry Davis York together with a Bank cheque in the sum of $33,000.00. 5 On 20 July 2007 the solicitor forwarded a letter [on the letterhead of Harry Jiang Lawyers] to Henry Davis York requesting advice with respect to exchange. 6 On 22 August 2007 Henry Davis York sent a letter to the solicitor returning the client's cheque in the sum of $33,000.00. 7 On 27 August 2007 the solicitor deposited the cheque for $33,000.00 to his office account. 8 On 27 August 2007 the solicitor paid the sum of $33,000.00 as directed by Ms Thitrarthok. Holding out and conducting a practice as an unrestricted principal when not entitled to do so 1. On 16 February 2007 the solicitor's name was admitted to the Roll. 2. At no time since his admission has the solicitor been entitled to practice on his own account. 3. Since 16 February 2007 the solicitor has held a Non Principal Practising Certificate. 4. On 12 March 2007 the Business Name "Harry Jiang Lawyers" was registered. A Business Names extract search shows the solicitor as the person carrying on business as a Legal Firm at Suite 222, 223/368 Sussex Street, Sydney. 5. The Business Name "Harry Jiang Lawyers" was advertised in Australian Chinese Weekly. 6. The Applicant repeats paragraphs 5, 12, 13 and 19-21 above concerning Baldwin. 7 The Respondent accepted trust monies and dealt with them as though he held an Unrestricted Principal Practising Certificate in the matters of Baldwin and Thitrathok particularised above. 8. In email correspondence in the matter of Baldwin the solicitor signed off using the style "Harry Jiang Lawyers". UNDERTAKING OF MR CHURCHILL 34The undertaking of Mr Churchill was in the following form: I, Martin Alan Churchill of Level 4, 507 Kent Street, Sydney, Solicitor, hereby undertake: 1 to take all steps and reasonable endeavours to lease (or purchase) premises from which my legal practice will operate and which will accommodate both myself and the Respondent. 2 If I have not leased (or purchased) such premises within 3 months of today's date, namely 28 January 2012, I will inform the Law society in writing. 3 I will employ and supervise the Respondent for a further period of 3 years, such supervision to include perusing the inward mail in the Respondent's matters; and auditing the Respondent's files. OTHER FACTS 35All of the grounds arise from conduct of the Respondent within eight months of his admission as a solicitor. 36When visited by the Trust Account Inspector, he immediately disclosed two matters where trust funds had been deposited into an office account in breach of the legislation. 37The Respondent has co-operated and assisted in the investigations by the Law Society. He has not concealed or withheld any information. 38The Respondent was seriously disadvantaged by the fact that he was employed by Mr Gold, who failed to provide proper supervision, advice and training for him. This directly contributed to the matters on which the Law Society relies. 39None of the professional misconduct established was motivated by any intention of the Respondent to defraud anyone or obtain any personal financial advantage for him. 40We accept that the Respondent's misconduct was to some extent the result of ignorance, inexperience and naivety on his part. We are particularly concerned that the public be protected from any further professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct that might result from any ignorance or naivety of the Respondent. The supervision requires more than the Respondent being able to seek help or advice from the supervisor. It also needs an experienced principal to scrutinise his inward mail and audit his files, to ensure that ignorance, inexperience or naivety do not lead him to other incidents of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. It appears that a further three years of supervision as proposed will provide such protection, given that he has already worked now as an employee of Mr Churchill for 2 years and 7 months. 41We accept that the Respondent is genuinely deeply remorseful of the conduct which gave rise to the application. Since he was made aware of his failures, he has since March 2008 read each edition of the Law Society Journal and has also read the back issues from May 1996 to February 2008. Commencing from 2009 he has also undertaken an Ethics course each year and a Trust Account refresher course each year. 42Mr Churchill in his two affidavits has given extensive evidence of the Respondent's behaviour in his employment since April 2009 demonstrating * his commitment to his vocation as a solicitor; * his hard work as a solicitor; * his dedication to his work and his clients; and * his priority of ensuring that his professional conduct does not fall short of the standards expected of a solicitor. 43Since October 2007 the Respondent has been in continuous full time employment as a solicitor and there is no evidence of any other complaint or any allegation of unsatisfactory conduct. 44We appreciate that in giving a commitment to establish within three months an office which will accommodate himself and the Respondent, Mr Churchill has demonstrated a significant commitment to the Respondent and also considerable confidence in him and his professional conduct. 45At our request Mr Churchill agreed that the undertaking he gave the Tribunal would include the requirement for him to peruse the inward mail for the Respondent's matters and audit the Respondent's files over the period of three years of the supervision. CONCLUSIONS 46The grounds are established by the agreed facts and the grounds constitute professional misconduct. 47From the evidence we have concluded that subject to noting the undertakings of Mr Churchill, the orders proposed are appropriate. They adequately address the need for protection of the public and protection of the reputation of the profession. They also together provide an appropriate level of sanction in relation to the Respondent's professional misconduct. ********** 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. Decision last updated: 17 November 2011