Barden v Bond University Staff Services Pty Ltd [2000] QIRC 22 (2000) 163 QGIG 366

366 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 24 March, 2000 ########################################################################################################################### QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1997– s. 218 – application for reinstatement Susan Joan Barden AND Bond University Staff Services Pty Ltd (No. B434 of 1999) COMMISSIONER BROWN 9 March 2000 DECISION This was an application filed on 30 March 1999 pursuant to s. 218 of the Workplace Relations Act 1999 by Susan Joan Barden (the applicant) for compensation for wrongful dismissal against her former Employer, Bond University Staff Services Pty Ltd (the respondent). The matter was first listed for hearing on 6, 7 and 8 September 1999. These dates were vacated by agreement between the parties due to the unavailability of key witnesses. Solicitors for the respondent Corrs, Chambers Westgarth at the brief hearing on 6 September 1999 foreshadowed an application for costs. In a letter dated 28 January 2000 to solicitors for the applicant Short, Punch and Greatorix, solicitors for the respondent also advised of their intention to argue against an extension of time if, in fact, a constructive dismissal (not conceded) occurred in June 1998. The applicant was first employed by the respondent as Manager – External Programmes in the Centre for Executive Development in the School of Business on 24 August 1994 on a fixed term contract of 12 months duration. The applicant was re-employed for a further 12 months on 14 August 1995 again on a fixed term contract. An increase in salary of $3,000 p.a. was also granted. In October 1996 the applicant was offered and accepted a further fixed term contract of 12 months with a $1,000 p.a. increase and a further $5,000 loading to compensate for higher duties performed largely as a result of the departure of Evan Douglas, Associate Dean, Executive Developments. In August 1997 the applicant accepted further employment for a fixed term of 2 years at a salary of $38,000 per annum an increase of $2,000 per annum in the same position, Manager – External Programmes. All contracts were reduced to writing. The $5,000 per annum loading ceased with the appointment of Peter Burroughs as Director for the Centre, however, a range of responsibilities relating to the management position under the previous administration remained with the applicant. The applicant’s position of Manager – External Programmes was changed by Ray Byron, Dean of the School of Business, to Co-ordinator – New Business Enquires on 9 June 1998 without agreement. In subsequent discussions between the parties agreement was reached on both a new title, Manager – New Business Development, and a new position description. The applicant suffered no salary reduction. The applicant tendered her resignation on 10 February 1999. In both sworn affidavits (Exs I and 2) and orally in evidence in chief the applicant held that – • she was extremely happy in her position, Manager External Programmes, until the structural changes that meant that the position was significantly altered; • she was committed to and proud of Bond University; • she performed her duties in a professional manner; • she was never counselled or warned in relation to shortcomings in her performance; • prior to the Morrison and Erickson Reports (Reports compiled in April and May 1998 regarding operation of the School of Business) and the change in job description she was outgoing in her personality and confident in herself; • following the comments in the Morrison Report and the structural changes, she became stressed and developed self doubt and a general lack of confidence. She visited a doctor; • she was informed of her position change on 9 June 1998; • she felt humiliated by the announcement of the changes at the staff meeting held on 10 June 1998; • prior to the announcement, in an e-mail to her, Byron undertook to make no changes without her full input and to fax a copy of the relevant part of the Erickson Report to her; • Byron faxed a draft of that part of the Erikson report relating to the Centre for Executive Development. Included was a passage stating that the applicant was a competent administrator; -- 1 of 6 -- 24 March, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 367 • that part of the report describing her as a competent administrator was subsequently altered to delete that reference in the final version; • she would have objected had she been shown the latter version; • she stated that the discussions held with Byron, prior to the changes, regarding her position were in relation to her contract and possible improvements with respect to tenure and bonuses; • she did not see the discussions as a forerunner to the changes that were implemented; • on 9 June Byron gave her the new position description and told her to go away, think about it and come back to them; • she believed that the changes made at the School of Business and in particular to her position were a mistake on management’s part; • she saw the change in her responsibilities as a demotion; • she perceived a marked change in the manner in which work colleges interacted with her; • she contended that the interaction with other staff was less cordial, less frequent and in her view born of a desire to remain in favour with Byron; • she objected to the change in her position; • through a series of discussions with Byron involving a Staff Association representative at one stage, her new position evolved from Co-ordinator – New Business Enquires to Manager – New Business Development; • she provided Byron with a written proposal in respect to the new position of Manager – New Business Development; • Byron responded with a document that encompassed her proposal with 2 exceptions being tenure (reverting to the balance of the existing fixed term contract) and deletion of two performance measures; • she agreed to the new position description (see para 128 of affidavit); • she claimed that problems persisted with the manner in which she was treated by Byron; • Byron arbitrarily set and altered budget targets of initially $400,000 and subsequently $500,000; • the office manager advised her of the latest target that being $200,000 for the year; • she had seen no paper work or evidence as to how the budget figures were arrived at; • she had undergone 2 formal performance reviews, both being complimentary to her; • she saw the positive comments regarding her performance in the reviews and in other internal memorandums as true but not reflective of the true atmosphere in the workplace; • she carried out her new responsibilities in a professional manner; • she saw the lack of resources as hindering her ability to develop new business; • she viewed the respondent’s offer of funded tertiary education with suspicion. She saw it as a “Trojan Horse” which might lead to her dismissal should she refuse to accept it. Her response dated 8 January 1999 to Byron was to accept the offer and described it as a wonderful opportunity and proposed to commence the course in May 1999. However, she said, her response concealed her true thoughts ; and • an accumulation of the circumstances, including work related health problems, from about the time of the release of the Morrison Report in April 1998 up to February 1999 caused the applicant to resign. • she had applied for employment outside the University during the period September to December 1998; • she had e-mailed risque material to Byron later on the same day as her positive August performance review; and • acknowledged that the positive comments contained in the 2 performance reviews and the 2 memos were an accurate reflection of her efforts. An affidavit was presented by Ashley William Goldsworthy (Ex 4) which stated he joined Bond University as a Professor and Dean of the School of Business in 1991 and resigned on 30 September 1997. Goldsworthy’s evidence was in essence that the applicant was efficient, confident, professional, outgoing, strongly self motivated and enthusiastic during the period of his administration. Goldsworthy was critical of both the Morrison Report and the directional changes in the School of Business generally in 1998. In Goldsworthy’s opinion the removal of the applicant from her original position to that of Manager – New Business Development was a demotion and a drop in status. He maintained the position was less responsible than the original. His knowledge of events and opinions contained in his affidavit as to the circumstances and developments at Bond University after his departure was gleaned through his contacts still employed at Bond, what other people had told him or by reading the material associated with this case. He had not seen nor spoken to the applicant subsequent to her departure from Bond University and prior to the hearing. Evan John Douglas provided an affidavit (Ex 5) and gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. He was employed at Bond University in various senior capacities from January 1989 to June 1996. He first met the applicant in August 1994 when he was Associate Dean for the Executive Development Centre and the applicant having been appointed by Goldsworthy as Manager – External Programs. He was familiar with the applicant’s duties in that position during his time at the Centre. He believed that applicant displayed a range of skills and positive attributes in carrying out her duties. He maintained that the applicant was self- sacrificing, good at her job and well respected. He was critical of the Morrison Report. He had examined the Erikson Report and noted that the Report did not recommend the applicant be removed from her original position. He was critical of the respondent’s actions in restructuring the Centre. He perceived the applicant’s position change as a demotion. He believed that the contents of the Morrison Report were widely known and as a result the applicant was heart broken, humiliated and devastated. His knowledge of events subsequent to his departure from Bond University arose from being shown documents related to this hearing and from the comments of current employees. Ray Byron presented 2 affidavits (Exs 15 and 16) and gave oral evidence on behalf of the respondent. His evidence can be summarised as follows:– • has been Dean of the School of Business from 3 December 1997 and had other experience at Bond University as Professor of Economics; • believed that the review process had commenced in the School of Business in late 1997 by Perter Burroughs; -- 2 of 6 -- 368 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 24 March, 2000 • on 20 February he issued a memorandum to all staff (Ex 6) which stated, inter alia, “as you will recall last semester P. Burroughs began a project to explore with you ways in which you might restructure to provide improved customer care, multi-skill beyond present jobs and provide backup for each other”; • believed that this was part of a process which might involve actual restructuring of positions; • had discussed the applicant’s workload problems in the performance review of April 1998 and concluded that “Susie can sell and that’s what she should be doing for us”, which had a bearing on the re-organisation process; • he had not solicited the Morrison Report. The report had been given no status within the University because items contained in it were not correct and could possibly unsettle staff. Comments regarding the applicant were fairly scathing. He gave the Report to 3 senior managers to seek advice and in all cases the advice was to “kill it, can it, bury it”(p.120 of t’cript). He was unsuccessful in his attempts to restrict the circulation of the Report, as it was stolen from his room. He acknowledged that the Report was in general circulation by about 30 April 1998. He maintained the Report did not influence the restructure. The restructure had been a consideration since the beginning of the year and academic reasons were the basis of the restructure; • he agreed that the part of the Erikson Report faxed to the applicant was different to that finally released and that he undertook to make no changes to her position without the applicant’s full involvement (e-mail 19/5/98); • the applicant’s position was restructured in order to reduce her workload and for academic reasons. The position and duty changes were to be implemented by 17 June 1998; • he had concerns with process deficiencies in relation to prospective student enquires and follow up at or about that time. He saw it as a major issue. He considered the task allocated to the applicant of reviewing that process as important and valuable and given to the applicant because she was “senior and capable”. Daily verbal and weekly written reports were required of the applicant. During this time Byron became aware that the applicant was very unhappy with the changes; • he had praised the applicant’s efforts in her role as Manager – New Business Development in memorandums dated 10 November and 16 December 1998 (Exs 12 & 13). He was sincere in that praise. He considered that the applicant was “doing really well in that period”; • he stated that he genuinely held the positive sentiments expressed regarding the applicant in the performance appraisal dated 13 August 1998; • he was genuine in his offer of 4 January 1999 that the applicant undertakes an EMBA or an MBA as a faculty candidate. He believed it would improve her skills and ability and lessen the need for academic staff to supervise her. He viewed that as a long term plan and was very pleased with her response dated 8 January 1999 which accepted the offer with some adjustment to the commencement date; • he saw it as a means to address the acknowledged lack of resources in the School of Business area; and • he said that the applicant’s resignation stunned him and that she declined his offer to talk about it. Under cross-examination Byron stated that – • the Morrison Report caused him significant human resource problems. He had discussions with the Vice Chancellor regarding those aspects and implications of the Report. He arranged a meeting with Moores (v Ch), Finch and Duncan (senior University staff) to discuss the Cavanaugh letter (Ex 17), however this meeting was subsequently cancelled as he thought things were “settling down” and it looked as though the problem was solved. He told staff association representatives that the report would not go on anyone’s file. He accepted that the applicant was still unhappy about the Morrison Report; • he understood that the applicant’s concern was regarding damage to her reputation arising from the Report which she saw as unfair and incorrect. During the period when daily verbal reporting was required, he said she was also still unhappy about the rearrangement of her responsibilities and had expressed this; • his field of expertise was economics rather than H R management although he had assistance from 2 professors of H R management and not a directly employed H R manager; • he tried to get the applicant “back into the main stream of things” this took time because of pressures relating to time and resources; • he stated that around September the applicant was “out there doing the job she was supposed to be doing” and that he was trying to build up her reputation that had suffered as a result of the Morrison Report; • he said that she seemed to improve in the last 3 months of her employment; • he admitted that the applicant took sick leave for stress but was not aware of how much as the applicant had not lodged the sick leave forms required. He recognised that the applicant’s stress was work related and tried to rebuild her self esteem. He knew the applicant was stressed in a general sense but not in a medical sense although he had been told unofficially that the applicant had seen a doctor; • he stated that in February 1999 the applicant seemed cheerful, functioning well and he was not aware of the applicant’s medical problems at that time. He had not sighted the applicant’s sick leave certificate dated 2 August 1998; • he acknowledged that the applicant was an excellent employee who loved her job, agreed with Goldsworthy’s assessment of the applicant’s employment qualities and further that she worked with limited academic resources; • the $4000,000 budget figure was raised in a discussion with the applicant and was based on predictions involving Nabalco and was not a refined budget figure based on programs already signed on as is usual. The $200,000 budget figure was based on 20 MBA students for half a year; • he maintained he had a minimal number of conversations with the applicant regarding her position – maybe 3 or 4 from June to December 1998. Conversations during the daily reporting era in July were focused on the student sales follow up. The 2 monthly appraisals were used for feed back. The first two were fine and he had no recollection of whether or not a third was conducted; • after the applicant resigned Margaret Burnell was appointed to the position and her duties were exactly the same as the applicant’s had been. Burnell commenced an MBA in 1999 in line with the plans for the position when the applicant performed it; and • the Centre for Executive Development has closed down because of lack of performance with Burnell being transferred rather than made redundant. Mr Horneman-Wren for the respondent stated that the terms “dismissal’ or “dismiss” should be read as meaning dismissal “at the initiative of the Employer” and if this cannot be established the application must fail (See Covan and Trinder). He conceded that a dismissal at the initiative of the Employer could occur despite the employee having resigned. He maintained the Statement of Material Facts presented by the applicant on 23 March 1999 differed from the facts deposed in her affidavits particularly that of 30 November 1999. The applicant alleged the dismissal arose through her perceived demotion. He said the new position of Manager – New Business Development was of great importance and consistent with the re-organisation process ongoing since November 1997. He stated that the applicant now seeks to have determined a case said to concern a dismissal, which only commenced in June 1998 rather than, as her initial Statement of Material Facts suggests, concluded in June 1998. He maintained that Goldsworthy and Douglas’ evidence was unhelpful to the applicant except that they confirmed that the true issue was the applicant’s demotion in June 1998. -- 3 of 6 -- 24 March, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 369 He submitted that the facts pertaining to the period July 1998 to February 1999 do not support the applicant’s assertion that she worked in a hostile and harassing environment. He said the applicant saw the re-organisation of her position as a mistake and she had claimed that positive comments made in various reviews and reports about her were accurate but not genuine on the part of the respondent. He said there was no correspondence from the applicant to the respondent complaining of her poor treatment. He submitted that her letter of acceptance of the offer of tuition was in discord with the treatment alleged to have occurred. He said the applicant’s evidence supported the view that she performed an important function in the role of Manager – New Business Development, such position description drafted almost entirely by her. Soon after the applicant sought alternative employment and ultimately left at a time of her own choosing. He submitted if the Commission did find that a dismissal occurred in or about July 1998 and if the Commission was of a mind to grant an extension of time, the Commission would decline to award any remedy in that the applicant waited 8 months before resigning and lodging the application; accepted and worked in the new position; and failed to notify her Employer that she was challenging the dismissal. He maintained that she should not be given both the benefit of the period of employment plus compensation. He stated that the positive comments in the applicant’s performance reviews in April and August and in other correspondence were genuine. The offer of tertiary education as a faculty candidate was genuine. He maintained that the applicant’s response to that offer was what the applicant was really thinking. The new position description was, with some changes, the proposal of the applicant and the applicant agreed to the new position description (See para 128 of affidavit). He submitted that for all the above reasons the application should be refused. Mr Cronin for the applicant contended that the applicant was constructively dismissed. (See Iskander v Brisbane Display and Shop Fitting Pty Ltd dated 25 February 1997 and Cowan v Trinolea Pry Ltd 148 QGIG 639) He submitted that the offending conduct of the respondent was in the handling of the Morrison Report. The respondent failing to properly disassociate itself from the report or to support the applicant. The commissioning and subsequent handling of the Erickson Report. The release of a version of that Report that was less favourable than the draft of the Report faxed to the applicant. Implementing the changes from 9 June 1998 without the applicant being given the opportunity for input as she had been promised and announcing the changes on 10 June 1998 to staff. He contended that those circumstances were so degrading to a loyal, hardworking and conciencious employee (the applicant) as to go to the heart of her terms of employment and amounted to a harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal. He submitted that the acceptance of the new position would have been conditional upon the respondent’s discontinuance of the poor treatment of the applicant and assisting her to settle into the new position. He said in this the respondent failed. He contended Byron harassed and intimidated the applicant and developed budget figures without reference to the applicant. He maintained that this conduct breached the implicit conditions relating to the acceptance of the new position reactivating the dismissal put into effect when the applicant’s health and general unhappiness with the position resulted in her resignation by letter on 10 February 1999. Mr Cronin submitted that if the dismissal arose on 9 June 1998, then an extension of time was sought. Again, if it arose on 10 February 1999 an extension of time is sought. If it arose on 9 March 1999 the application was within time. He submitted that the applicant loved and lived her position of Manager – External Programs. He said that the applicant was primarily concerned with justification or vindication of her position, compensation being very much a secondary aspect of the claim. He submitted that the conduct endured by the applicant amounted to constructive dismissal and the application should be granted. CONCLUSIONS Having considered at length the evidence and submissions of the parties, I believe the events in this matter should be examined from two perspectives. Firstly – Did a unilateral repudiation of the Employee’s contract occur on or about 9 June 1998 of the type that would constitute a constructive dismissal that was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Also involved in this examination is whether the agreement reached between the applicant and the respondent on or about 13 July 1998 with respect to the new position remedied any problems arising from the events of 9 June 1998. If the problem was not remedied then the issues of jurisdiction, whether or not the application was out of time, and remedy arise. Secondly in the alternative – the questions to be determined are did a constructive dismissal commence with the unilateral repudiation of the Employee’s contract on or about 9 June 1998 and conclude on 10 February 1999 when the Employer’s actions or inaction, subsequent to the conclusion of the first contract and despite the attempt at re-establishing the relationship with the second contract, caused the applicant such distress as to leave her no alternative but to resign on 10 February 1999? Again if the answer is in the affirmative issues of jurisdiction and remedy could arise. In dealing with the first scenario whether there was a constructive dismissal on 9 June 1998, I am satisfied the following occurred. The applicant performed her duties competently, enthusiastically and with a great degree of pride in her role as Manager – External Programs. I am further satisfied that the Morrison Report caused a number of staff a great deal of concern including the applicant. The contents of this document can be described as ill conceived, opinionated and the source of distress for both the respondent and University staff, including the applicant. The matter to be determined with respect to the Morrison Report is whether or not the respondent acted properly when dealing with the Report, I am satisfied that Byron took steps to ensure that the Report was not distributed generally. That the Report was subsequently stolen and a copy given to the applicant was beyond the control of the respondent. I find that Byron refused, in meetings of staff, to divulge the content of the Report despite repeated requests to do so by the applicant and others. I find that Byron took steps to ensure that the comments in respect to individuals contained in the Report were not placed on the Employee’s records. I am satisfied that the Morrison Report had little, if any, influence on the final restructure. I am further satisfied that the respondent’s actions in attempting to deal with the Morrison Report were reasonable in the circumstances. -- 4 of 6 -- 370 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 24 March, 2000 Regarding the issue of consultation surrounding the restructure of the applicant’s position, the Erikson Report was commissioned and the applicant had input. However, the applicant was not granted the full input she was promised in the e-mail dated 19 May 1998 prior to the commencement of her new role. She requested that part of the Report referring to her be e-mailed to her so that “You (Byron) can get the ball rolling and not wait till I am back on 9 June”. That the comments “Whilst Susie may be a competent administrator” did not appear in the Report ultimately circulated was of no moment as the Report was still quite positive about the applicant and definitely not critical of her abilities as an administrator. In any event the recommendations in the Report were not followed with respect to the applicant. Other indicators as to the applicant’s prior knowledge of the restructuring issue can be identified as follows – • aware that the Moores/Byron administration appointed in December 1997 had a “change in focus” (Ex 1 para 40); • a memo from Byron to all staff (including the applicant) confirming that in late 1997 Burroughs had begun a project to inter alia “restructure to provide improved customer care”; • her performance was appraised by Byron on 6 April 1998. She was described as a competent to very experienced superior performer; • during that appraisal the applicant and Byron talked of “changes to the present structure to utilise my (the applicant) talents to their full potential” (Ex 1 para 42); • the appraisal contained comments from Byron such as “Susie can sell and that what she should be doing for us” and “the impression is she is overloaded”; and • she read the comments of Byron on the appraisal form and responded inter alia “I look forward to any changes implemented that will benefit the school”. On the evidence it can be concluded that at the time the applicant proceeded on leave, 19 May 1998, the applicant was well and truly aware that the review process was under way and that that could lead to a re-structuring of positions. What caused the applicant grief was the outcome of the re-structure – the end result of the re-structuring that she saw as a mistake. On her return from leave on 9 June 1998 the applicant was advised of her new position, Co-Ordinator – New Business Enquiries. In a meeting with Byron regarding that position (Ex 1 para 77) she stated that she did not know what to say or how to comment, she said nothing. In all the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the applicant, whilst not being enthusiastic about the changes, had none the less accepted them and agreed to the new arrangements. I accept that the restructuring was for academic reasons. In light of the foregoing, whilst hindsight might have caused the respondent to handle the announcement of the changes differently, I find there was agreement between the parties on a new position description and title on or about 13 July 1998. I find the applicant did not actively contest the change. There was no loss of pay or conditions and I can find no constructive dismissal at this stage. The actions of the respondent to this point were not harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances. I now deal with the second perspective of whether the dismissal commenced around June 1998 and concluded on 9 March 1999 after the applicant’s resignation of 10 February 1999 giving one month’s notice. I find that, despite the applicant’s absence through illness during the notice period, the employment relationship concluded on 9 March 1999. In that light the Commission does not lack jurisdiction, the application having been lodged within time. Having considered at length the evidence of the applicant relating to how she felt physically and emotionally as a result of how the respondent treated and spoke to her and also the evidence of the respondent denying such actions, I have to rely heavily on material tendered either as exhibits or in documents attached to sworn statements. Regarding the staff appraisal of 13 August 1998, the applicant contended that the positive comments in the appraisal did not accord with the harassing and often hostile manner in which she felt she was being treated. The applicant had the opportunity to explain her feelings during this appraisal. She did not avail herself of that opportunity. Later that day she e-mailed a risque joke to Byron (Ex 3). This also did nothing to convey to Byron her feelings. Byron did not use the appraisal to be critical of the applicant. As at 13 August 1998 the respondent had a right to conclude that the employment arrangements with the applicant were normal and that the contract with the applicant was not somehow being frustrated. The changing budget predictions may have caused stress to the applicant however, it seems to me, that this scenario is repeated across industry generally. This action by the respondent was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and not, in my view, designed to create or contribute to an intolerable situation for the applicant. Exhibits 12 and 13, memos to all staff from Byron, contained positive comments regarding the applicant and indicated generally that the applicant was performing well in her role as Manager –New Business Development. On 4 January 1999 the respondent sent a memo to the applicant offering to sponsor her as a faculty candidate to undertake either the MBA or the EMBA. The e-mail was couched in supportive and encouraging terms. The value to the applicant being approximately $18,000. On 8 January 1999, the applicant responded in positive terms and in particular concluded with the words “this is a wonderful opportunity of which I shall make the most of.” (sic). Whilst the applicant claimed that these words were not in line with her true feelings she did nothing to alert the respondent to this fact. Indeed, on her own evidence, she deliberately concealed her sentiments. On 8 January 1999, the respondent had every right to conclude that the contract of employment between the parties was intact and further the respondent had the right to predict that the contract would endure well into the future given the applicant’s request to commence the course of study in 992, meaning that she would start the course in the second semester of 1999. -- 5 of 6 -- 24 March, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 371 I can find no incident or event which occurred between 8 January and 10 February 1999 which would cause me to conclude that the respondent acted in a way which would have placed the applicant in such an untenable position that her only option was to resign on 10 February 1999. I find that the applicant’s resignation was not caused by the actions of the respondent. In light of the foregoing the application is dismissed. The respondent submitted that the parties should be at liberty to apply for costs. Prima facie it is my view that the applicant’s feelings and beliefs, whilst not being properly conveyed to the respondent, were in all probability genuinely held. Whilst I am prepared to hear arguments relating to costs, I remain far from satisfied that the applicant in deciding to pursue this matter acted vexatiously or without reasonable cause. Order accordingly. D.K. BROWN, Commissioner. Appearances:– Mr B. Cronin (instructed by Short Punch & Greatorix) for the applicant. Mr. A. Horneman-Wren (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth) for the respondent. Released: 9 March 2000 ########################################################################################################################## -- 6 of 6 --