HIS HONOUR: On 23 November 2016, I published my reasons for judgment in a dispute between the parties about how certain funds in court should be treated pending final assessment of Turner Freeman's costs of acting as Ms Beckett's solicitor in the principal litigation between her and the State of New South Wales: see Goldberg v Beckett [2016] NSWSC 1646. I directed that the parties bring in short minutes of order to reflect my conclusions.
Short minutes of order dated 12 December 2016, signed by the legal representatives of the parties, were subsequently agreed to in the following terms:
1. The plaintiffs and the first defendant's solicitor, DGT Costs lawyers (DGT), are to establish a joint controlled money account with Westpac Banking Corporation, such account to be in the names of the plaintiffs and DGT in accordance with the provisions of Division 3 of Part 4.2 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (Controlled Money Account).
2. The balance of the monies held in Court by the Finance Division including any interest on those funds, be paid into the Controlled Money Account, to abide the outcome of the assessment of the plaintiffs' costs of acting for the first defendant in Supreme Court proceeding number 2008/284911 Roseanne Beckett v The State of New South Wales and the assessment of the costs of Peter Breen in acting for the first defendant in the aforementioned Supreme Court proceedings.
3. Interest earned on the fund invested is to be applied and paid to each of the parties in direct proportion to their respective entitlements to the funds when that is ultimately determined by agreement or assessment.
In accordance with those short minutes, an account with Westpac was established. It is convenient to refer to that account simply as the Westpac Controlled Account. The monies in question were credited to that account on 21 February 2017.
On 5 April 2017, Ms Beckett filed a notice of motion seeking the following orders:
1. The monies deposited in [the Westpac Controlled Account] be transferred to an account (or bank product as is appropriate) in which they earn at least the current interest rate (at the date of deposit) offered by Westpac on amounts deposited as a controlled money account for a three month term, with the intent being that the monies are to earn the maximum rate reasonably available on a three-month term deposit.
2. That the parties do all things necessary and in a timely fashion to implement order 1.
3. That the name of such account be "DG Thompson Pty Ltd, Turner Freeman and Roseanne Beckett Controlled Money Account" and that each of Terence Goldberg, Kerrie Ann Rosati and Roseanne Beckett be signatories to the account.
4. In the alternative, that the monies deposited in [the Westpac Controlled Account] be paid into Court.
5. That the plaintiffs pay the first defendant's costs.
6. Such further or other order as the Court sees fit.
In essence, by her latest notice of motion, Ms Beckett seeks to achieve a result or outcome that is different to that which flowed from my 23 November 2016 judgment. It will be recalled that Ms Beckett made the earlier application to remedy what she considered to be the prejudice to which she was exposed by "her money" (to the extent that it would be returned to her) being held in Court earning a mere one percent interest. It is clear that even though I did not grant her the full gamut of the relief that she sought, I made an order that, in accordance with Ms Beckett's clear wishes, was intended "to eliminate or reduce the loss to either party". Obviously, whatever the outcome, neither party was interested in the monies achieving anything less than the most favourable available return.
In support of her latest notice of motion, Ms Beckett relies upon the affidavit of her (now former) solicitor Kerrie-Ann Rosati sworn 30 March 2017 and her own affidavit sworn the following day. Ms Beckett's concerns are articulated in her affidavit in the following terms:
"My concerns about the security of my money
2. I have become concerned about the security of my money as up to this point, four months after the Court handed down Judgment on 23 November 2016 (the 'Judgment') - the orders for the deposit of money have not been effected, nor is there any interest being paid nor is it in a fixed term deposit.
3. Following the Judgment, in late November 2016, my solicitor, Ms Rosati made inquiries of Westpac in Manly and obtained an indicative rate of 2.75% interest per annum for a 3-month term deposit. I note that Turner Freeman could only get 2.5% at the Macquarie Bank for a 3-month term. My understanding is that the parties agreed that the funds should go to Westpac and the Short Minutes of Order were signed on 12 December 2016. On the 3 January 2017 Turner Freeman would not agree with the course of action proposed by Ms Rosati for movement of the funds but said that they would make arrangements to set up the account through their personal banker at Westpac, Lindy Romano. Despite this, and Ms Rosati's frequent correspondence to Turner Freeman, much of which was not answered, either at all or in a timely fashion, the account was not established until at least 31 January 2017. I was at the time, and remain, extremely anxious about this.
4. I am further concerned that the account in which my money is now being held does not bear my name. I am concerned that this may not be a Controlled money account even though the name of the account is 'Controlled monies account'.
5. The reasons for my concern are that this account is called a 'business account low'. This is in paperwork that I received through my solicitor on 29 March at 11.13am. It now appears that Westpac has given Turner Freeman a cheque book and deposit book and may be able to be accessed online. Since my dispute with Turner Freeman arose I have found their repeated failures to respond to my legal representatives' correspondence to cause me to become suspicious and anxious. I do not know of any reason why they have failed to respond in a timely manner and why, in the face of Ms Rosati's repeated attempts to implement the Court orders, the money is still not earning interest.
6. I now find that the Westpac Bank have also given Turner Freeman a cheque book and a deposit book to operate this account. I am informed by Ms Rosati that she was not given a cheque book or a deposit book by Westpac.
7. On 29 March 2017 Turner Freeman sent Ms Rosati a document entitled 'Product Switching Request' signed by Mr Goldberg and dated 29 March 2017. The switch is from 'Business One Low' to 'Business Neg', keeping 'the existing account details including BSB and account number will remain'. This is not a fixed term. It is on call. This account would only be only accruing 0.88% per annum less than the 1% I was receiving in Court.
8. To address these concerns I ask that an order be made by your Honour that my money be transferred into an fixed term account no less than 3 month that also bears my name (the present account does not) and that it earns the highest rate of interest possible and that I be a signatory to the account as well as Kerrie Rosati and Terence Goldberg.
9. If the Court does not feel this would be achievable I would ask that my money be placed back into the Court for safe keeping until my matter is settled - I am very worried at the present time re my money as the Court stated in the Judgment I am the one being disadvantaged here.
10. In light of recent events I ask that your Honour direct that Ms Rosati handle my money as Ms Rosati is my solicitor and has my interests at heart - Turner Freeman has refused to allow Ms Rosati to have a say - they have taken total control of my money by not cooperating with the Court's Orders and treating my money as if it was their own."
Ms Rosati's affidavit reveals that following the orders made by me, there was some delay in effecting the transfer of the funds out of court and into what became the Westpac Controlled Account. Ms Rosati's affidavit deposes in some considerable detail to the clearly unfortunate state of affairs that existed or developed between her on Ms Beckett's behalf and the plaintiffs with respect to this deceptively simple but apparently somewhat difficult exercise. The position has been further complicated by the fact that when the account was established, and the funds transferred, Westpac paid no interest on the monies, contrary to everyone's expectation and in complete derogation of the intended purpose of my orders. That last issue would appear now to have been resolved.
Turner Freeman's bill of costs for acting for Ms Beckett in the principal proceedings has been with a costs assessor for some time. I am now informed that he will require a further two months to complete that exercise. Meanwhile, Turner Freeman's bill of costs for acting for Ms Beckett in the High Court proceedings has been assessed but has been referred to a review panel on Ms Beckett's application. The dispute that is the principal issue in the present proceedings was recently unsuccessfully mediated before The Hon Michael McHugh QC. It seems that the parties are content (if that word could ever be used to describe any emotions generated by this vitriolic litigation) to await the outcome of the costs assessor's deliberations before dealing further with it. Presumably that anticipation incorporates the possibility, not to say the likelihood, that even that determination may find its way to an appeal panel as well.
Ms Beckett contends that her current prayers for relief are available in accordance with the Court's statutory and inherent powers to make orders in aid of enforcement of the orders made by me on 15 December 2016. Ms Beckett does not accept that she is seeking a variation of those orders. She maintains that s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, s 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and UCPR 36.1 provide ample power for the Court to make the orders that she seeks. Ms Beckett also refers to the inherent jurisdiction to make the orders as part of the Court's power to control its own process: Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1; [1989] HCA 45.
Turner Freeman opposes the making of the orders that are sought. They do so on several grounds.
First, Turner Freeman contends that there is no head of power nominated in the notice of motion and submits that none is readily apparent. Save for her right to receive any surplus funds after payment of Turner Freeman's costs and disbursements, Turner Freeman argues that there is no right at law or in equity that Ms Beckett can promote to support her claim to the relief that she seeks. Order 4 is said to be in the nature of an appeal from my 23 November 2016 judgment, which in the present context of an application before me is afflicted with obvious difficulties.
Secondly, an account in the names of Turner Freeman, Ms Beckett and her solicitors, with each being a signatory, is not only inappropriate in the circumstances of this case, but would have the result that the account could not be a controlled monies account. According to Turner Freeman, it would be inappropriate having regard to Ms Beckett's earlier attempt to direct the judgment monies to a bank account other than one maintained by her then solicitors (Turner Freeman) in breach of the terms of the conditional costs agreement that then governed the disposition of those funds. Turner Freeman opposes the payment of the disputed funds into any account upon which Ms Beckett is a signatory. Additionally, Ms Beckett's proposal would fall foul of s 128 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) concerning controlled money.
Thirdly, Turner Freeman maintains that the whole exercise contemplated by the notice of motion is simply not cost effective. I take that to be another way of saying that Ms Beckett's proposal is a complete waste of time and money. The increased interest rate available on, say, a three month term deposit would generate about $1,615 per month on a capital sum of $1,656,089.93. That is calculated upon a comparison between interest at call at the rate of 0.88 percent compared to interest on a three month term deposit at the rate of 2.05 percent. The difference would be a function of the capital sum at 1.17 percent divided by twelve.
Turner Freeman contend that by comparison to that relatively insignificant amount, they have generated or incurred costs amounting to more than $50,000 in dealing with Ms Beckett's representatives and Westpac in an attempt to secure an optimum destination for the funds. That was the estimate in mid-April this year. Presumably, Ms Beckett has herself incurred significant costs, certainly in excess of $1,615 per month, in the prosecution of this present issue. I am led to understand that the execution of documents that are even now necessary to satisfy the bank's currently outstanding requirements has not yet occurred.
Fourthly, it is probable that not all of the monies in question will be paid to Ms Beckett. A sum of $2.5M has already been released to Turner Freeman from the original judgment sum that was the subject of the solicitor's lien. Turner Freeman's bill of costs in the High Court litigation was assessed at 98.7 percent of the bill as originally itemised. Even though no definite conclusions can be drawn from that fact, the indications are that Turner Freeman will become entitled at least to some as yet unspecified portion of the remaining monies. Concerns expressed by Ms Beckett about the interest rate have therefore to be considered having regard to these prospects.
In my opinion, Ms Beckett's notice of motion was premature at best and entirely unnecessary at worst. It is the manifestation of a tendency all too readily to resort to the litigated outcome when other, less expensive and more reasonable strategies could have been employed. It is not difficult to find an example.
For instance, Ms Beckett anticipated that there would be some delay before Turner Freeman's entitlement to costs had been finally determined following the assessment process. She was not unreasonably concerned that her judgment monies should earn interest at the most favourable rate available while the assessment process took its course. When her attempts to have that money diverted to an account controlled by her, or by her associate, were foiled, Ms Beckett instituted action that resulted in my judgment of 23 November 2016. If she thereafter retained concerns about the treatment of the monies following my orders, it would have been a simple matter for her to have put Turner Freeman on notice of those concerns in correspondence, accompanied by an assurance of ongoing co-operation with them to achieve the best result. To the extent that Turner Freeman thereafter resisted Ms Beckett's attempts to ensure that the money was advantageously invested, it would have become difficult for Turner Freeman to argue that they would not be liable for any "losses" that resulted.
In the events that occurred, Ms Beckett's solicitor did adopt this course, but for some reason did not maintain it. Ms Beckett and Turner Freeman certainly engaged in relatively lengthy correspondence commencing on 28 November 2016, ultimately culminating in the notice of motion that I am now required to determine. In my opinion, the tone and content of that correspondence provided Ms Beckett with all of the protection that she required. Apparently either Ms Beckett or her solicitors were not similarly convinced. This is revealed in the correspondence, to which it becomes necessary to refer in order to assess whether or not Ms Beckett's resort to the Court is reasonable or warranted.
On 28 November 2016, Turner Freeman wrote to DGT Costs Lawyers in these relevant terms:
"We refer to the judgment of Harrison J delivered on 23 November 2016 and his Honour's direction to bring in short minutes of order within 7 days to reflect his conclusions.
…
Ordinarily our controlled accounts are held with Macquarie Bank Ltd. The at call rate for Macquarie Bank Ltd at present is 1.35%. Higher rates are available for term deposits. It is our understanding that a deposit of less than $1,000,000, held for three months, will earn interest of 2.35%, while a deposit held for one month will earn interest of 1.7%.
As we expect the assessment process to take at least another three months we would consent to the money being held in a three month term deposit in the first instance."
Ms Rosati at DGT Costs Lawyers replied the next day in terms that included the following:
"We bank with Westpac who have today advised that they offer an interest rate of 2.6% per annum on a controlled monies deposit of this size at call or 2.7% per annum for a three month term deposit. We agree with you that the best course of action is to invest these funds in a three-month term deposit and propose that this be done with Westpac."
A letter from Ms Rosati dated 21 December 2016 suggested to Turner Freeman that they should "arrange payment of all funds held in Court including any interest to be paid into our firm's trust account in order that we can arrange for the funds to be placed in a controlled money account". Turner Freeman disagreed with that proposal by their letter dated 3 January 2017.
On 9 January 2017, Ms Rosati wrote asking Turner Freeman to "advise what course of action you will agree to in order that the funds held in Court might be moved to a controlled monies account". She wrote to Turner Freeman again on 1 February 2017 confirming that she had met with Westpac that day and signed the account opening forms as required. She continued saying "will you now agree that we write jointly to the finance department at the Court to arrange the release of the funds held in Court into the controlled monies account". That was followed by another letter from Ms Rosati the following day in these relevant terms:
"I confirm that the account has been opened at Westpac…
Please see attached proposed letter to the Court authorising the release of the funds to the controlled money account.
Would you please advise if you are happy to sign this letter to get this moving along?"
Further correspondence occurred before Turner Freeman wrote on 16 February 2017 as follows:
"We refer to the order of the Court in which a controlled monies account was to be set up.
We note that there has been considerable correspondence and the account has now been set up.
We also note that your client has now apparently said she does not consent to the monies being sent from the Supreme Court into the controlled monies account.
We advise that we do not believe that it is a matter of consent, because the Court has made an order and the order is that the money be placed into that account.
Accordingly, unless your client seeks to have the matter relisted by midday tomorrow so that she can explain to the Court why you have now decided that you should not comply with the order, an order which we note in the final form she consented to, then we propose to write to [the Court] with a copy of the letter signed by your firm and ask [it] to remit the monies to the controlled account."
DGT Costs Lawyers gave that consent the next day.
On 21 February 2017, Westpac advised that the funds had been credited to the Westpac Controlled Account as a three-month Term Deposit at an indicative rate of 2.45 percent per annum.
On 7 March 2017, Turner Freeman wrote to Ms Rosati confirming that the monies had been paid into the Westpac Controlled Account. The letter concluded somewhat hopefully by observing "that would appear to be the finality of that aspect of the matter". It was not.
Ms Rosati wrote to Turner Freeman on 8 March 2017, as follows:
"We refer to your letter dated 7 March 2017 in response to our request for your consent to arrange to have the controlled monies transferred to an interest bearing term deposit account. Whilst we note your comments as to the proposed mediation, we do not agree with your suggestion that the controlled monies account has been set up and that this would 'appear to be the finality of that aspect of the matter.' The orders made by consent (and as per the orders of Harrison J) were clearly intended to ensure that the funds in question would be invested to attract reasonable interest…
At present the controlled monies account is not receiving credit interest. We have made inquiries of Ms Romano at Westpac and have been provided with the following rates:
1 month fixed term 1.5% pa
At call account 0.6% pa
We urgently require you to consent to the funds being transferred to an interest bearing account as it is obviously in the interest of both parties for the funds to be the highest rate possible. Our client is most concerned at this continued delay and notes that our inquiries indicated that a three month term deposit commencing in November last year could have earned up to 2.75%"
Turner Freeman relevantly responded the next day:
"In respect of the history of the controlled monies account it was not set up until recently because of delays solely on the part of your firm, noting that your client at one stage was instructing you to refuse to allow the money to be paid into the account at all, despite the Court order. That is made quite clear in the correspondence. This is in circumstances where the issue of instructions was irrelevant, noting the orders of the Court.
…
We further confirm that in any event the issue about how the monies are invested, if further or at all is a matter between your firm and this firm. We do not have to consent to the monies being further moved and there are other substantial reasons at this stage why they should not be."
On 14 March 2017, Ms Rosati wrote to Turner Freeman at some length, summarising the state of the debate in correspondence to that time. Her letter concluded:
"Our client requires these funds to be invested on the most advantageous terms possible and considers that your apparent refusal to agree to the investment of these funds to be in direct contravention of the intention of Harrison J's judgment of 23 November 2016.
Our client requires that the entirety of these funds be invested in a 3-month term deposit with Westpac as soon as possible…
…
If you do not agree to the investment of these funds by 5pm tomorrow…we are instructed to re-list the matter before his Honour."
Ms Rosati wrote again a week later in the following relevant terms:
"We again confirm that our client has directed us that she requires that the funds be invested in a 3-month term deposit with Westpac pending the determination of the costs issues in this matter. We note that the funds have now been earning no interest at all since they were paid into the controlled money account at Westpac by the Court on or about 21 February 2017.
One of the primary purposes of the First Defendant approaching the Court for relief on 31 October 2016 was to achieve a more favourable interest rate on her judgment monies, over which you claim a lien. His Honour's judgment clearly concluded that the regime of orders would achieve this for Ms Beckett, to address the disadvantage she is under. This is reflected in paragraph 16 of the judgment of 23 November 2016…
We request that you provide your immediate agreement to this course of action in order to avoid the expense of having this matter re-listed before his Honour for directions."
On 28 March 2017, Ms Rosati wrote to Turner Freeman again, including the following paragraphs:
"Investment of Controlled Moneys
The issue of interest on the controlled monies account must be dealt with without further delay. We note that we wrote to you on 14 and 21 March 2017 in relation to this issue and that you have not responded to either letter in this regard.
As you are aware, the intention of his Honour's judgment given on 23 November 2016 was to ensure that the funds at that time held in Court be applied in such a way as to best eliminate or reduce the prospect of loss to either party. The funds were invested by the Court and were earning an interest rate of around 1% until those funds were transferred to the Westpac controlled money account on 20 or 21 February 2017. From that date, the funds have remained in the controlled money account earning no interest at all.
We have today been informed by Westpac Royal Exchange branch that the rates offered by the bank today for investment of the amount held in the controlled money account of $1,656,089.93 are as follows:
• At call - 0.60% per annum;
• 1 month term deposit - 1.75% per annum - interest earned $2,461.45
• 2 month term deposit - 1.75% per annum - interest earned $4,843.50;
• 3 month term deposit - 2.05% per annum - interest earned $8,557.22; and
• 4 month term deposit - 2.30% per annum - interest earned $12,731.47.
The current rate offered by Westpac for a 3-month term deposit is now significantly lower than the rate offered by Westpac in late February 2017 when the funds were received from the Court and as late as last Wednesday 22 March 2017 which we note was at such time 2.45% per annum. Your failure to respond to any of our requests to invest these funds has led to a considerable financial disadvantage to both parties.
We again request that you provide us with your immediate consent to invest these funds in a 3-month term deposit with Westpac.
We note that the daily rate for interest at 2.45% per annum on the amount held in the controlled money account of $1,656.089.93 is $111.16 per day.
We reserve our rights to make an application to the Court for an order to have the incidence of interest adjusted on account of your failure to agree to invest these funds at earlier more advantageous interest rates." [Emphasis added]
Turner Freeman replied on 29 March 2017, in these relevant terms:
"We refer to this matter and to the controlled moneys account open pursuant to the order of the Court.
We discovered after an inquiry on 27 March 2017 that the account opened pursuant to the Order was not an interest bearing account. We were previously unaware of this.
Accordingly, we made contact with Westpac Professional Services in respect of that issue and the account is to be switched to an interest bearing account."
That letter went on to indicate that Westpac had advised that arrears of interest would be credited to the account from the date of the deposit of the funds from the Court.
Ms Rosati replied by letter dated 30 March 2017 as follows:
"We refer to your letter of 29 March 2017.
…our firm sent an email to you on … 8 March 2017…advising that the account was not receiving credit interest…You responded to this email in your letter of the same date.
You have clearly been aware that the account was not earning interest since at least 8 March 2017 but have not responded to any of our requests to invest the funds or indeed at all in relation to this issue until this letter which now contemplates an interest rate of 0.88% per annum which is less than the 1% per annum which the funds were earning when invested with the Court.
You have caused our client loss and damage in failing to address this issue in a timely manner. We also remind you that in your letter of 28 November 2016, you consented to the funds being invested on in a three-month term deposit…
These matters will be the subject of the appearance before his Honour Justice Harrison tomorrow."
The italicised portion of Ms Rosati's 28 March 2017 letter quoted above should have been the end of the matter, at least until the costs assessment process had concluded. Ms Beckett's dissatisfaction with the then state of affairs was apparent from the correspondence and her reservation of rights had properly put Turner Freeman on notice that she remained concerned that the best interest rate was not being achieved.
Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 is as follows:
"56 Overriding purpose
(1) The overriding purpose of this Act and of rules of court, in their application to civil proceedings, is to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.
(2) The court must seek to give effect to the overriding purpose when it exercises any power given to it by this Act or by rules of court and when it interprets any provision of this Act or of any such rule.
(3) A party to civil proceedings is under a duty to assist the court to further the overriding purpose and, to that effect, to participate in the processes of the court and to comply with directions and orders of the court.
(4) Each of the following persons must not, by their conduct, cause a party to civil proceedings to be put in breach of a duty identified in subsection (3):
(a) any solicitor or barrister representing the party in the proceedings,
(b) any person with a relevant interest in the proceedings commenced by the party.
(5) The court may take into account any failure to comply with subsection (3) or (4) in exercising a discretion with respect to costs.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person has a 'relevant interest' in civil proceedings if the person:
(a) provides financial assistance or other assistance to any party to the proceedings, and
(b) exercises any direct or indirect control, or any influence, over the conduct of the proceedings or the conduct of a party in respect of the proceedings." [Emphasis added]
Section 60 of that Act provides as follows:
"60 Proportionality of costs
In any proceedings, the practice and procedure of the court should be implemented with the object of resolving the issues between the parties in such a way that the cost to the parties is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subject-matter in dispute."
I am unable to accept in the particular circumstances of this case that there was following Ms Rosati's letter of 28 March 2017 any need for Ms Beckett to do anything further to advance or to protect her stated position. Turner Freeman had been put on notice. Despite a faltering start, the orders made by me on 23 November 2016 were being obeyed. The difference between the interest rates at the high and low ends of achievability is small, and not something that should have provoked a contested dispute before me, or certainly not yet. In this respect I consider that it will be instructive to discover in due course what Ms Beckett says is the loss to her in money terms, when the costs are finally assessed, that will have resulted from a less than optimum investment of the balance of the judgment monies since, say, 1 January 2017.
The costs generated by this dispute seem likely to be disproportionate to that loss. The accuracy of that observation remains to be seen. I am not prepared to determine the issues raised by Ms Beckett's latest notice of motion until that loss (if any) is known. The most obvious reason for that is that if it transpires that Turner Freeman's lien extends to the whole of the remaining balance of the disputed funds in the Westpac Controlled Account, Ms Beckett will have suffered no loss as any interest deficiency will fall to Turner Freeman's account. Ms Beckett's position can be considered further following the completion of the costs assessment process, whether by the costs assessor or a review panel, whenever that finally occurs.
In these circumstances I propose to make the following orders:
1. I make no order with respect to Ms Beckett's notice of motion filed on 5 April 2017.
2. I stand over the notice of motion for directions on 3 November 2017.
3. I reserve the costs of that motion, including the costs of appearances before me between 31 March 2017 and 14 August 2017.
4. I grant liberty to the parties to apply on 7 days' notice.
[2]
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 April 2018