Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Tsalidis (No 3) [2012] NSWADT 229 Hearing dates: 7 June 2012 Decision date: 07 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President M Riordan, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non-judicial Member Decision: 1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct as detailed in these reasons. 2. For the purpose of scheduling a further hearing on the question of consequential orders, the matter is set down for directions at 9.30 a.m. on Monday 12 November 2012. Catchwords: Solicitor - disciplinary proceedings - failure to comply with statutory notices requiring information and documents - failure to assist investigations Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 1987 Legal Profession Act 2004 Cases Cited: Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Autore [2012] NSWADT 139 Johns v Law Society of New South Wales [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 Law Society of New South Wales v Knudsen [2006] NSWADT 49 Legal Services Commissioner v Tsalidis [2012] NSWADT 160 Veghelyi v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 September 1989, Smart J Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) Charles Kiriakos Tsalidis (Respondent) Representation: C Webster (Applicant) P Kintomanis (Respondent) Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant) File Number(s): 112028 decision Introduction 1On 23 September 2011, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales ('the Law Society') filed an Application in the Tribunal alleging that the Respondent, Charles Kiriakos Tsalidis ('the Solicitor'), had engaged in professional misconduct. 2In the Application, the Law Society claimed that, without reasonable excuse, the Solicitor had failed to respond to three separate Notices issued in writing pursuant to section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (hereafter 'the Act'). The dates of the three Notices were respectively 3 February 2010, 25 March 2010 and 2 November 2010. The Society claimed also that the Solicitor's conduct relating to each of these Notices amounted to professional misconduct on the separate ground of failure to assist the investigation of a complaint. 3At the hearing of these proceedings, the Law Society handed up an Amended Application, in which minor amendments had been made to the Application. 4The orders sought by the Law Society were formulated in the Amended Application as follows:- 1. The Respondent be fined. 2. The Respondent be reprimanded. 3. The Respondent's practising certificate be suspended until such time as he complies with the Notices dated 3 February and 25 March 2010 pursuant to section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. 4. The Respondent pay the Applicant's costs. 5. Such other Orders as the Tribunal deems appropriate. 5On 23 September 2011, the Law Society also filed an affidavit sworn on 12 September 2011 by its solicitor, Ms Anne-Marie Foord. 6The Solicitor did not file a Reply. He did, however, file three affidavits, including an affidavit of his own. 7At the hearing of this matter before us on 7 June 2012, Ms Webster of counsel appeared for the Law Society and Mr Kintomanis of counsel for the Solicitor. At this hearing, we also dealt with proceedings of a similar nature that the Legal Services Commissioner had commenced against the Solicitor. 8We indicated that at this stage we would go no further than to receive evidence and submissions on the question whether the Solicitor had engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Amended Application. The question of what consequential orders, if any, would be required would be deferred to a later hearing. 9Ms Foord's affidavit was tendered and admitted, along with affidavits dated 13 February and 26 November 2010 by a licensed process server (Mr Andrew Jones) deposing to the service of the first and third Notices on the Solicitor. Ms Webster also handed up a Chronology prepared by the Law Society. 10Ms Foord's affidavit contained statements to the effect that (a) according to the Law Society's records the Solicitor had been admitted to practise on 22 December 1982 and (b) on 15 December 2011, the Law Society suspended his practising certificate and appointed a manager to his practice. 11Ms Webster confirmed a statement in the Chronology that during 2012 the Solicitor had sent statutory declarations to the Law Society complying with each of the three Notices. The dates on which he did so were 2 April (first and second Notices) and 2 May (third Notice). 12Mr Kintomanis did not tender any of the affidavits that the Solicitor had filed, or any other evidence relating to the questions being dealt with at the hearing. Equally, he made no submissions. He advised us that the Solicitor admitted the matters alleged in the Amended Application and did not oppose a finding of professional misconduct on the ground of his failure to comply with each of the three Notices. The Grounds and Particulars 13In the Amended Application, as further amended in minor respects during the hearing, the Law Society alleged as follows:- CHARLES KlRlAKOS TSALIDIS was guilty of professional misconduct as set out in the following allegations: Professional Misconduct Notice dated 3 February 2010 i. The Australian Lawyer, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement under Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. ii. The Australian Lawyer has failed to assist the lnvestigator in the investigation of a complaint. ["the first complaints"] Notice dated 25 March 2010 iii. Failure to comply with a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. iv. Failure to assist the Law Society in the investigation of a complaint. ["the second complaints"] Notice dated 2 November 2010 v. The Australian Lawyer, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement under Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004. vi. The Australian Lawyer has failed to assist the Investigator in the investigation of a complaint. ["the third complaints"] Particulars of Grounds of Complaint In these Particulars: "the Solicitor" means CHARLES KlRlAKOS TSALIDIS. "the Society" means the Law Society of New South Wales Notice dated 3 February 2010 1. On 16 July 2009 the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales ["the Committee"] resolved to make a number of complaints against the Solicitor. Those complaints were communicated to the Solicitor under cover of the Society's letter dated 23 July 2009 and in which letter he was requested to respond to the complaints. The Solicitor did not respond to the letter of 23 July 2009. 2. By letter dated 12 August 2009 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was reminded of the need to respond to the complaints. The Solicitor did not respond to this letter. 3. By letter dated 7 January 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was reminded that he had not responded to the complaints. He was informed by Mrs Young ["the Investigator"] that she proposed to issue a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act, 2004 unless his response to the complaints made on 16 July 2009 was received within ten (10) days. The Solicitor did not respond to this letter. 4. Under cover of a letter dated 3 February 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act, and dated that day, was issued to the Solicitor ["the first Notice"]. 5. On I0 February 2010 the first Notice was served on the Solicitor. 6. The first Notice required the Solicitor to respond "on or before the twenty-first day after service" of the Notice on him, by 3 March 2010. The Solicitor did not comply with the requirements of the first Notice. 7. On 1 April 2010 the Committee made the first complaints. 8. Under cover of a letter dated 9 April 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the first complaints were referred to the Solicitor for response. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. 9. By letter dated 7 July 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was, in part, reminded of the need to respond to the first complaints. 10. On 29 July 2010 the Solicitor spoke to the Investigator and sought until the following day by which to respond to the first complaints. The Investigator gave the Solicitor until Monday, 1 August 2010 by which to respond to the first complaints. The Solicitor did not respond to the first complaints. 11. By letter dated 16 June 2011 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was informed, in part, of the Committee's resolution of 16 June 2011 that, subject to the Solicitor's submissions, if any, the Committee was then minded to refer the Solicitor's conduct in respect of the first complaints to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for hearing and inviting him to make such submissions as he might wish. The Solicitor did not respond to the invitation in this letter. Notice dated 25 March 2010 1. On 18 February 2010 the Committee resolved to make a complaint against the Solicitor. The complaint was communicated to the Solicitor under cover of the Society's letter dated 22 February 2010 and in which letter he was requested to respond to the complaint within a specified time. The Solicitor did not respond to the letter of 22 February 2010. 2. By letter dated 17 March 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was reminded of the need to respond to the complaint made on 18 February 2010. The Solicitor did not respond to this letter. 3. Under cover of a letter dated 25 March 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act, and dated that day, was issued and forwarded to the Solicitor ["the second Notice"]. 4. The second Notice required the Solicitor to respond "on or before the twenty-first day after service" of the Notice on him. The Solicitor did not comply with the requirements of the second Notice. 5. On 29 April 2010 the Committee made the second complaints. 6. Under cover of a letter dated 30 April 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the second complaints were referred to the Solicitor for response. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. 7. By letters dated 25 June 2010 and 7 July 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was reminded of the need to respond to the second complaints. In part, a further copy of the second Notice was forwarded to the Solicitor with the letter dated 7 July 2010. 8. On 29 July 2010 the Solicitor spoke to Mrs Young and sought until the following day by which to respond. Mrs Young gave the Solicitor until Monday, 1 August 2010 by which to respond to the second Notice. The Solicitor did not respond to the second Notice within the time allowed. 9. By letter dated 3 March 2011 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was reminded that his response to the second complaints was outstanding and sought his response within ten (10) days of the date of that letter. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. 10. By letter dated 16 June 2011 from the Society to the Solicitor, the Solicitor was informed, in part, of the Committee's resolution of 16 June 2011 that, subject to the Solicitor's submissions, if any, the Committee was then minded to refer the Solicitor's conduct in respect of the second complaints to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for hearing and inviting him to make such submissions as he might wish. The Solicitor did not respond to the invitation in this letter. Notice dated 2 November 2010 1. By letter dated 6 July 2010 Messrs J S Muller & Co., Solicitors ["Muller"], wrote to the Society raising certain matters in respect of the Solicitor. 2. By letter dated 7 July 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, Muller's correspondence was referred to the Solicitor and he was requested to give his attention to it. 3. By letter dated 3 August 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, Muller made a formal complaint against the Solicitor to the Legal Services Commissioner ["the Muller complaint"] and which complaint the Legal Services Commissioner, under cover of his letter dated 11 August 2010, referred to the Society for investigation. 4. Under cover of the Society's letter dated 9 September 2010 the Muller complaint was referred to the Solicitor and he was asked to respond to it. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. 5. During September 2010 and October 2010 the Solicitor spoke to the lnvestigator and gave her certain assurances in respect of his response to the Muller complaint being forthcoming. 6. By letter dated 12 October 2010 the Investigator wrote to the Solicitor, referred to their conversation that day, requested that he provide certain confirmatory advices by the following day and requested that he provide to her a copy of certain documents by return fax. 7. By letter dated 13 October 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the lnvestigator noted that the Solicitor had not complied with her request of the previous day and requested that he comply "immediately". 8. By letter dated 14 October 2010 from the Solicitor to the Society, the Solicitor provided certain documents and explained his inability to do so the previous day because of a medical emergency. 9. By letter dated 19 October 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, it was noted that the Solicitor had not provided a certain document earlier requested. 10. By letter dated 21 October 2010 the Investigator wrote to the Solicitor advising, in part, that if she had not received a "comprehensive response'' to the Muller complaint within seven (7) days she proposed to issue a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act. 11. Under cover of a letter dated 2 November 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, a Notice pursuant to Section 660 of the Act, and dated that day, was issued and forwarded to the Solicitor ["the third Notice"]. The third Notice was personally served on the Solicitor on 22 November 2010. 12. The third Notice required the Solicitor to respond "on or before the twenty-first day after service" of the Notice on him. 13. Under cover of his letter of 8 December 2010 the Solicitor forwarded to the lnvestigator a copy of a document. 14. By letter dated 9 December 2010 from the Society to the Solicitor, the lnvestigator observed, in part, that the Solicitor's response to the third Notice was due by 13 December 2010. The Solicitor did not comply with the requirements of the third Notice. 15. By letter dated 14 February 2011 from the Society to the Solicitor, the lnvestigator noted that he had not complied with the requirements of the third Notice and requested his explanation for such failure. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. 15A. On 16 June 2011 the Committee made the third complaints. 16. By letter dated 16 June 2011 from the Society to the Solicitor, the third complaints were referred to the Solicitor for response. There was no reply by the Solicitor to this letter. Relevant provisions 14The relevant provisions of the Act are section 660(1), (3) and (4), section 676(3) and (4), and section 727. They state:- 660 Requirements in relation to complaint investigations (1) For the purpose of carrying out a complaint investigation in relation to an Australian lawyer, an investigator may, by notice served on the lawyer, require the lawyer to do any one or more of the following: (a) to produce, at a specified time and place, any specified document (or a copy of the document), (b) to provide written information on or before a specified date (verified by statutory declaration if the requirement so states), (c) to otherwise assist in, or co-operate with, the investigation of the complaint in a specified manner. (3) A person who is subject to a requirement under subsection (1) or (2) must comply with the requirement. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units. (4) A requirement imposed on a person under this section is to be notified in writing to the person and is to specify a reasonable time for compliance. 676 Obligation of Australian lawyers (3) An Australian lawyer who is subject to: (a) a requirement under section 660 (Requirements in relation to complaint investigations), or (b) a requirement under provisions of a corresponding law that correspond to that section, must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with the requirement. (4) An Australian lawyer who contravenes subsection (2) or (3) is guilty of professional misconduct. 727 Service of notices on practitioners A notice required to be served on or given to an Australian legal practitioner under this Act is served on or given to the practitioner if: (a) it is served personally on or given personally to the practitioner, or (b) it is sent by post or delivered to the practitioner's place of practice, business or residence last notified by the practitioner to a Council. Findings 15Having regard to the evidence tendered by the Law Society, and to the absence of any evidence from the Practitioner regarding these matters, we make the following findings. 16All of the three Notices were duly served on the Solicitor for the purpose of carrying out a 'complaint investigation'. In the case of each Notice, the nature of the information and documents required by the Law Society had previously been communicated to him. Having regard to this prior communication, the time specified for compliance - a period of 21 days - was reasonable. The Solicitor failed to comply with each Notice. There is no evidence of matters that might constitute a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance. 17It follows that in relation to each Notice the Solicitor contravened subsection (3)(a) of section 676 of the Act and was guilty of professional misconduct under subsection (4) of this section. 18Ms Webster submitted that the Particulars set out in relation to each Notice also furnished the basis for findings of professional misconduct at common law, on the ground that the Solicitor failed to 'assist' the Investigator (in the case of what we will call the first and the third investigations) or the Law Society (in the case of the second investigation) 'in the investigation of a complaint'. She pointed out that more than once the Society, in its correspondence with the Solicitor preceding the service of each Notice, had required information and documents to be furnished, but the Solicitor failed to satisfy this requirement both before and after the Notice was served. She relied also on the fact that although the first letters from the Law Society requiring information for the purposes of each investigation were sent in 2009 or 2010, it was not until April or May 2012 that he provided any of the information required. 19We are satisfied in relation to each Notice that the Solicitor did indeed fail to render assistance as required by the Law Society, and indeed that his failures in this regard subsisted over long periods of time. 20A more difficult question is whether findings of professional misconduct at common law are therefore warranted. The Amended Application makes a claim for three such findings, based on the circumstances relating to each of the three Notices, considered separately. 21More than once it has been emphasised that if an official investigation into the professional conduct of a legal practitioner has commenced, the practitioner is obliged to comply with any direction or request to render assistance. In Johns v Law Society of New South Wales [1982] 2 NSWLR 1 at 6, for instance, Moffitt P said: 'The obligation to inform and assist has always been regarded as resting upon a solicitor or barrister whose conduct is the subject of an inquiry whether by the court or the [Statutory Committee]...' In Veghelyi v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 September 1989, Smart J said:- It is important that solicitors respond promptly to the [Law] Society when it asks for a response to complaints which have been made. It will be an unusual and complex case when a delay of more than 14 days is acceptable and often the reply should be delivered within a shorter period such as 7-10 days. Replies to the Law Society in respect of complaints warrant a high priority. Such replies should be full and complete and deal directly with the complaints made. 22If the findings sought by the Law Society are to be made, the common law criterion of professional misconduct derived from Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 must be satisfied. We must decide that the relevant conduct of the practitioner would be 'reasonably regarded' as 'disgraceful and dishonourable' (or possibly as 'disgraceful or dishonourable' - this alternative formulation is used in some of the cases) by 'professional brethren of good repute and competency'. 23In a number of recent decisions (see for example Law Society of New South Wales v Knudsen [2006] NSWADT 49 at [56 - 67] and Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Autore [2012] NSWADT 139 at [29 - 43]), the Tribunal has been asked to make such a finding in circumstances, such as the present, where a disciplinary application against a solicitor or barrister has alleged both statutory professional misconduct for not complying with a notice served under section 660 of the Act or its predecessor (section 152 of the Legal Profession Act 1987) and misconduct at common law for 'failing to assist' the relevant investigation. These decisions indicate that the latter form of misconduct is not established merely by proof of the former, but also that it is possible for the two to coexist. 24In our opinion, having regard to the reasoning adopted in these decisions, the matters to be taken into account in determining whether common law misconduct has in fact been committed in such situations include the following: (a) the length of time during which the respondent practitioner failed to comply with directions or requests to assist the investigation, including, but not limited to, the statutory Notice(s) issued by the investigator; (b) whether for any significant period or periods of time the investigator appeared not to be pursuing the investigation; (c) the number of occasions on which such directions or requests were addressed to the practitioner without generating any response; (d) the number of occasions, if any, on which the practitioner, having promised that assistance would be forthcoming, failed to abide by this promise; (e) whether the practitioner ever complied in part with a direction or request to assist the investigation and, if so, the extent to which he or she actually provided assistance; (f) the importance of the response(s) sought from the practitioner for the progress of the investigation; and (g) whether any mitigating factor falling short of a 'reasonable excuse' under section 676(4) of the Act - an example might be a depressive illness - was present. 25We will now examine the Solicitor's conduct with respect to each of the three investigations from which the Notices in this case originated. 26In the first investigation, the period during which the Solicitor failed to render assistance ran for a period of 32 months, between August 2009 and April 2012. During two periods of some length (August 2009 to January 2010 and August 2010 to June 2011: see Particulars 2-3 and 10-11) the investigator did not press him for any response. He failed to comply with five directions (including that contained in the first Notice) to render assistance to the investigation (Particulars 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9). On one occasion, he promised to render assistance, but then did not do so (Particular 10). Although the letter to him from the Law Society mentioned in Particular 3 acknowledged that he had taken some steps to satisfy one of the three complainants in the matter, the letter mentioned in Particular 9 included the following statement: 'The investigation of the underlying complaint has been entirely frustrated by your failure to respond.' Although in disciplinary proceedings against the Solicitor associated with the present proceedings there has been evidence suggesting that he has at times suffered from depression, there is no evidence of this nature bearing on the period from August 2009 to April 2012, and no evidence of any other mitigating factor. 27In our opinion, a reputable and competent legal practitioner, being aware of the matters just outlined and mindful also of the statements of principle quoted above from Johns and Veghelyi, would regard as 'disgraceful and dishonourable' the Solicitor's continuing failure to comply with the Law Society's directions and requests to assist the first investigation. A finding of professional misconduct at common law must therefore be made. 28In the second investigation, the period during which the Solicitor failed to render assistance ran for a period of 26 months, between March 2010 and April 2012. During one period of some length (August 2010 to March 2011: see Particulars 8-9) the investigator did not press him for any response. He failed to comply with four directions (including that contained in the second Notice) to render assistance to the investigation (Particulars 1, 2, 4 and 9). On one occasion, he promised to render assistance, but then did not do so (Particular 8). There is no evidence of partial compliance or of any mitigating factor. 29In one of the proceedings associated with this matter (file 122016), however, there is evidence bearing on the complaint by the Law Society from which the second Notice originated. Ms Webster indicated that it was appropriate for us to take account of that evidence when considering the present matter. 30The Law Society's complaint, made on 18 February 2010, was to the effect that during 2009 the Solicitor had failed to comply with a requirement, imposed by section 274(1) of the Act, that the trust records of his law practice be externally examined at least once in each financial year. As explained in our decision relating to file 122016, which is being delivered concurrently with the present decision, the Solicitor did not in fact fulfil his obligation, stemming from section 274(1), to lodge with the Law Society by a specific date - 31 May 2009 - the following documents relating to the year ending 31 March 2009: (i) a Law Practice Declaration; (ii) a Trust Money Statement; and (iii) an External Examiner's Report. He was reminded about this obligation in letters dated 17 June and 8 July 2009 from Mr John Mitchell, a Chief Trust Account Investigator and Supervisor. On 3 August 2009, he sent the three required documents to the Law Society, together with a covering letter. 31Neither in the second Notice nor in any other correspondence from the Law Society relating to this complaint was it mentioned that the Solicitor had in fact attended, albeit belatedly, to the matters required by section 274(1). The Notice included questions as to whether and, if so why, he had failed to provide the three documents required under this provision. When in April 2012 he ultimately complied with the Notice, his statutory declaration briefly described his belated compliance. Annexed to it were copies of the three documents that he had sent on 3 August 2009 and of his covering letter. 32Undoubtedly, the Law Society acted properly in making and investigating this complaint and resolving, as it did on 19 July 2012, that it should form the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal. The Solicitor did not in fact lodge the relevant documents on or before the requisite date. But since the questions asked in the second Notice failed to take account of the fact that these documents had actually been lodged after the requisite date and were in the Society's hands, we are not prepared to rule that the Solicitor's failure to answer these questions until about a year later was 'disgraceful and/or dishonourable'. 33For these reasons, a finding of professional misconduct at common law on the ground of failure to assist the second investigation is not warranted. 34In the third investigation, the period during which the Solicitor failed to render assistance ran for a period of 20 months, between July 2010 and May 2012. There was no period of significant length in which the investigator refrained from pressing him for his response. He failed to comply with requests or directions (including that contained in the third Notice) to render assistance to the investigation (Particulars 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 15). On at least one occasion, he indicated that he would render assistance, but he did not do so (Particular 5). On two occasions, however, he did comply in part with the investigator's direction to produce documents (Particulars 8 and 13). There is no evidence as to the extent to which this assisted the investigation or as to the overall importance of his full compliance for the progress of the investigation. As with the first and second investigations, there is no evidence of any mitigating factor. 35If it were not for one countervailing consideration, we would repeat our findings made in relation to the first investigation. This consideration is that in the third investigation the Solicitor did on two separate occasions comply in part with the investigator's requirements to produce documents. We do not know how important these documents were for the investigation or how important it was that he should take the further steps required for full compliance. In these circumstances, we do not believe that a finding of professional misconduct at common law is warranted. 36We would add that even though this separate ground of misconduct has not been made out in relation to the second and third investigations, the factors that we have taken into consideration may still, in our opinion, be taken into account in assessing the implications of the findings of professional misconduct that we have made under section 676(4). 37The question of what order or orders by way of 'penalty', if any, should be made under section 562 of the Act remains to be determined at a further hearing. In accordance with an approach foreshadowed at the hearing on 7 June 2012, this hearing is to be joined with the hearing relating to 'penalty' in three other matters. Two of these derive from disciplinary applications (in files 122013 and 122016) instituted by the Law Society against the Solicitor. The third derives from a disciplinary application (in file 112024) instituted by the Legal Services Commissioner. It is already the subject of a decision (Legal Services Commissioner v Tsalidis [2012] NSWADT 160) in which the Solicitor was found to have engaged in professional misconduct. 38We accordingly direct as follows. For the purpose of scheduling a further hearing on the question of consequential orders, the matter is set down for directions at 9.30 a.m. on Monday 12 November 2012. ********** 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: 07 November 2012