HOSKINS AND TRADER NICK'S and LAURIE AND BILL SHEAD t/as TRADER NICK'S [2000] NSWIRComm 144

HOSKINS AND TRADER NICK'S and LAURIE AND BILL SHEAD t/as TRADER NICK'S [2000] NSWIRComm 144 - NSWIRComm 2000 case summary — Zoe

[10]

Nature of Proceedings 3 Lord Howe Island is the location of the employer's business. It is the domicile of both applicants and the respondent. This created difficulties, as to convenience for the parties and witnesses, but more significantly, as to the costs that would be burdened on the parties if the applications were dealt with, either by way of conciliation, and/or arbitration in Sydney. 4 Attempts were made to examine the practicality of the Commission sitting on Lord Howe Island. However, the conciliation conferences were able to be conducted - albeit, far from satisfactorily - by telephone conference. In Mr Hoskins' case, a telephone conference was held on 25 February 1999 which involved both parties (unrepresented); Mr Hoskins being located on the Island and Mr Shead at another location. Offers of settlement were put and withdrawn shortly thereafter. A further telephone conference was held on 25 June, in which the applicant was on the island and the respondent was represented by Mr Rochfort (Agent), in my chambers. The applicant advised that he and his wife were to be legally represented by Mr Barnett , of Counsel. 5 These practical factors created lengthy delays in processing and concluding the matters. A further delay arose due to Ms Laurie's pregnancy and subsequent birth of her child. I note however, that neither applicant sought reinstatement, or was unemployed for a significant period; thus the delays in processing the applications were able to be accommodated with a view to the relief sought - namely; compensation 6 Arrangements were made for both Sydney based legal representatives to confer as to the prospects for settlement and I listed both applications for report back on 26 July 1999. 7 On this occasion, I formed a view, pursuant to s87 of the Act, that the applications should proceed to hearing and issued the following statement and directions: (1) That the applicants file and serve any affidavits on which the applicants rely by 4pm on 3 September 1999; (2) That the respondent file and serve any affidavit material upon which the respondent relies by 4pm on 17 September; (3) That the applicants file and serve any material in reply by 4pm on 24 September; (4) Parties are directed to confer, through their legal representatives, on the basis of the material which is to be filed in accordance with the timetable just issued; (5) I will set the matter for a directions hearing as to the location of the hearing proper, should it be necessary, at 10am on Wednesday 29 September. I note that Mr Rochfort, appearing on behalf of the respondent and mentioning the matter on behalf of Mr Barnett representing the applicants, has indicated a willingness to advise Mr Barnett of these directions and the Commission appreciates that. The parties are also reminded of the requirements of the Commission's directions to be complied with, and that failure to do so may well effect the Commission's exercise of discretion in the matter as to further proceedings. Because this matter has been continuing for some considerable time, it is appropriate that the legal representatives confer, according to my directions, so as to narrow the issues between them and hopefully narrow the case in its extent, and if possible, for the matters to be ultimately resolved.

[24]

The principle was further discussed in Outboard World v Muir ( Cahill VP, Peterson J and Tabbaa C , 51 IR 167 at 182) where a Full Commission said: First we deal with the argument for the appellant that the Commission erred by applying the wrong test in connection with the dismissal: 'unfair' rather than 'harsh, unreasonable or unjust' dismissal. We agree with Mr Reitano's submission in this respect that the reference by the Commissioner to "unfairness" did not represent any misunderstanding of the correct test but was merely the use of a shortened form of expression intended to embrace the three relevant words. Whilst we recognise that there may be a natural tendency (recognised in the use even by the advocate for the Company before the Commissioner of the term 'unfair') to use the shortened form, we consider that it is preferable that a member of the Commission utilise the precise words provided by s246, rather than the catch-all heading, particularly when expressing the basis for a finding that a dismissal is within one or more of the heads provided by the section. We take this view because, even though there may be some circularity in the full phrase 'harsh, unreasonable or unjust', we detect scope for variation of meaning which may be critical to the determination of a particular matter and may be obscured by the use of the substitute term "unfair". Different but not wholly dissimilar words, "unfair", "harsh", and "unconscionable", are used in s275, power of the Industrial Court to Declare Certain Contracts Void, of the 1991 Act. In relation to those words, then appearing in s88F of the 1940 Act, the Commission in Court Session (Perrignon, Cahill and Dey JJ) in A & M Thompson Pty Ltd v Total Australia Ltd [1980] AR (NSW) 399 at 418 Cahill J (delivering a separate judgment) said: The duty of the Commission is to reach a conclusion on the issues of whether the subject transaction is 'unfair', or 'harsh' or 'unconscionable'. It has been said that those words are a 'tautological trinity' ( Davis v General Transport Development Pty Ltd ) [1967] AR 371) but we prefer to take the view that there is a perceptible difference between the meaning of the term 'unfair' and that of the terms 'harsh' and 'unconscionable'. What is unfair may not be so unfair as to be 'harsh'. But, whether this view be correct or not, once the transaction is found to be unfair the Commission may proceed to exercise its very wide power. In much the same way, we consider that, while strict definitions of 'harsh', 'unreasonable' and 'unjust' may produce a degree of circularity of meaning, turning on the notion of 'fairness', it may be in a given case that a dismissal may be viewed as coming within the ambit of one of the three adjectives but not the others. To avoid the possibility of misunderstanding or error, the tribunal, when making that primary finding, should state explicitly the basis on which it is made".

[30]

The Evidence 14 Written and oral evidence was adduced from the applicant and Mr William Shead, the respondent and co-owner of Trader Nick's. 15 In his affidavit (Ex'A') the applicant said he had left a full time casual position with the Lord Howe Island Board (the local Council) as a result of a request from Bill Shead to come and work for him. 16 He said that on the day of his dismissal, he received a message to call Mr Shead. He did so at 5.30pm and Mr Shead complained that he had not turned up for work. The applicant said he had worked from 6.30 to 11.00am, and had taken four hours time in lieu after asking Rodney Swain ("my supervisor"). Mr Swain said it would be fine and he would tell Bill and Janne Shead. Mr Shead had responded by saying he was the boss - not Rodney Swain - "you are dismissed". The applicant protested his dismissal as it was without any notice or reason. 17 He called Mr Shead back at 6.30pm to discuss the situation. He said Mr Shead became abusive and insulting. The applicant said he was given no reason in writing, or orally, for his dismissal and had been given no warning of unsatisfactory performance. 18 The applicant said the vast majority of employment opportunities on the Island were in tourist accommodation establishments and no vacancies existed when he was dismissed. The small island community also makes it difficult to find work for someone who has been sacked. He eventually found casual work on 25 November 1998, but it was not until 23 June 1999 that his weekly earnings were the same as he had enjoyed before dismissal. 19 The applicant presented detailed medical evidence (Ex'B') of a serious viral infection during his employment. It was diagnosed as "a severe case of glandular fever" requiring hospitalisation. He spent about three weeks off work in hospital and at home recovering. After this, he was advised to work half days until his energy levels recovered. There was no challenge by the respondent to his medical condition or assessment. 20 In respect to his illness, the applicant said his absence was never questioned by Mr Shead, that both Bill and Janne Shead knew he was in hospital and he was never asked for a medical certificate. 21 In oral evidence, the applicant gave details of the job offer from Mr Shead. Mr Shead had visited him at home, in August 1998, offering a position. He did not agree at first, but did subsequently and started a month later. He denied being given a job description and said he was briefly shown around the resort grounds. Various tasks were pointed out to him. 22 The applicant recounted the detail of his two phone conversations with Mr Shead on 30 October. He disputed Mr Shead's version of the conversations. 23 He added that during his two months of employment he had only seen Mr Shead twice; believing he spent most of his time in Sydney. The applicant said that on the day of dismissal he had been repairing a yacht for a guest introduced to him through Mr Shead. He had asked if he could do the repairs and Mr Shead had said "just take off the time in lieu". 24 The applicant attests that his hours of work were 6.30am to 3.00pm - not 8.00am to 4.00pm, as contended for by Mr Shead. He said the only day he worked 8.00 to 4.00 was his first day when he was shown around the workplace. He said Mr Shead had agreed to these hours in order to have the grounds clean before 8.00am. 25 In responding to Mr Shead's evidence concerning the requirement of the job to drive a vehicle, the applicant said that Mr Shead was aware, from the outset, that he was suspended from driving, but it would not be a problem. The only driving required would be waste removal and the truck could be driven by Mr Swain. 26 He denied ever being warned, or spoken to, by Mr Shead about: a) the hours of work; b) his medical absences; c) being a disruptive influence; d) his loss of driving licence; e) a requirement for Mr Shead to be satisfied with his performance 27 The applicant also denied being criticised by a Mr Kotton Patterson a contractor doing work at the Blue Peters Restaurant around 24 October 1998. Upon returning to work from his illness, he was required to assist in the setting up of Blue Peters under the supervision of Kotton Patterson. 28 About this time the applicant raised with Mr Shead, an issue of overtime owed to him. Mr Shead had said to take time off in lieu. Mr Shead asked for a statement of his hours, but he had not provided it. He said that $100 was paid, but this appeared as sick leave on his pay advice. 29 The applicant responded to criticism of his lack of knowledge of the desalination and hydroponics equipment. Mr Shead said he would show him - but he didn't and he asked Mrs Shead for some literature about it. Mr Swain mainly worked with the equipment. 30 The applicant said that he was told at the commencement of employment that if either of the Sheads were unavailable, he should answer to Rodney Swain. 31 In cross examination, the applicant said that his hours of work were agreed in a meeting involving Mr and Mrs Shead and their daughter, Emma. He had asked for, and it was agreed, he would work the same hours as his previous employment with the Island Board. The applicant denied he started work at 6.30am for his own convenience, so he could go out on his boat in the afternoon. 32 He said Mr Shead did not give him any written job description, but did discuss the requirement of the job which was "a fairly faithful recitation" of the job description attached to Mr Shead's statement (but subsequently replaced by Ex'1'). 33 The applicant was questioned as to the conversation with Rodney Swain on the day of dismissal. He said that he told him that he only had that afternoon to repair a yacht being sailed by a guest of Trader Nick's, Chris Mathews and that Mr Swain had said it "should be okay" and he would tell the Sheads. In re-examination, the applicant said that Chris Mathews had approached him after Mr Shead told him that one of his staff (the applicant) was a steel fabricator and could help him. 34 In respect to Mr Swain's role, the applicant said he was not told Mr Swain was a supervisor, but was like a supervisor and if there were any problems when the Sheads were not around, he should go to Mr Swain. 35 In the conversation with Mr Shead, the applicant acknowledged that Mr Shead had given him reasons for dismissal - taking time off and not being around. He said that in the second conversation, he believed Mr Shead had made up his mind and would not reverse his decision. He had protested that it was unfair, particularly as he had left a job to come to work for him. 36 The applicant gave evidence that, soon after his dismissal, he had secured employment back with the Island Board. 37 Mr William Shead is the co-owner, with his wife, of Trader Nick's. He provided two witness statements (Ex'2' and Ex'3') and gave oral evidence. 38 I shall not recount those matters which are not in dispute. However, not surprisingly, there were a number of significant conflicts of evidence between Mr Shead and the applicant. Mr Shead said:

[47]

viii) employment opportunities, for people who live on the Island, are " quite good ". 40 In oral evidence, Mr Shead qualified par 10 of his first written statement which dealt with the reasons for termination. He said the reasons were "in my mind", but he may not have expressed them (T.p39). 41 Mr Shead attested that he had provided the applicant with a written job description, although it differs from that attached to his statement. This was explained as a computer print out copy of the document. In any event, Mr Shead said he had verbally communicated the duties in the job description to the applicant. He said the applicant did not complain about any of the duties. 42 Mr Shead said that he did not recall the applicant wanting to work his previous hours, but he (Mr Shead) had said that 8.00am to 4.00pm was the time needed. He said there was no discussion of Rodney Swain being a supervisor and that the applicant was only responsible to him and his wife. 43 Mr Shead gave evidence that he was off the Island for long periods and that his wife had told him that the applicant was hard to find and didn't complete jobs given to him. 44 Mr Shead reaffirmed his written evidence that Mr Kotton Patterson had complained about the applicant's work and he had conveyed these concerns to the applicant. As to the overtime issue, he said it related to the work with Mr Patterson and Mr Shead requested the details. He had never told him to take time in lieu. 45 In the phone conversation on 30 October, Mr Shead said he told the applicant of his concerns with taking time off and he was never around when he was needed. He agreed he told him he was better off working in a government job, because there he would receive supervision. He said that he did not reconsider his decision when asked by the applicant in the second phone conversation an hour later. Mr Shead said he had considered and thought about the applicant's dismissal. Mr Swain had told him that he had never given the applicant permission to leave, and that he was not his supervisor. 46 In a question from the Bench, Mr Shead said he was aware the applicant was working from 6.30am, but did not raise it with him. In re-examination Mr Shead clarified his answer by saying it wasn't until about 28 or 29 October he was aware of these hours. 47 In cross examination, Mr Shead confirmed that he knew Chris Mathews well. Mr Mathews had told him he needed repairs on his yacht and he had told him that he had someone working for him who was a boilermaker, or welder, and he would put him in touch with him. 48 He said that there was no agreement with the applicant that he would work from 6.30am to 3.00pm. He didn't know he was working these hours until about 29 October. Prior to this, other people had questioned where he was, but because he was so busy, he never inquired. 49 Mr Shead was closely questioned on the job description said to have been handed to the applicant on his first day of employment. Mr Shead maintained that the job description was given to him although there may have been "slight amendments". He didn't keep an exact copy of what he gave to the applicant, nor have him sign or acknowledge receiving it. 50 Mr Shead was questioned as to his written statements (Ex'2' and Ex'3'). He said he could not recall who, or if, someone witnessed his statements (T.p60). 51 Mr Shead gave evidence that he showed the applicant how to operate the desalinator. 52 As to expressing concern with the applicant's work, he said he raised with him several times concern with his work; it was just light conversation, not a warning. He regarded a conversation with him on 24 October as a warning, but would not describe earlier conversations as warnings. 53 Mr Shead reaffirmed his conversations with Kotton Patterson and accepted that the work the applicant was doing for him at Blue Peters wasn't part of his job description and he had just returned from sick leave. His overtime claim arose from this time because he was working long hours. 54 Mr Shead was asked if Mr Patterson would drink a bottle of Jack Daniels a day. He said he didn't know what he drank, but was aware he drank during the day and would leave for work with a bottle of Jack Daniels on his lap. 55 As to his second statement Mr Shead agreed that the actual words of the conversation with the applicant were not used. Mr Shead confirmed that in the conversation of 30 October, the applicant had told him he had left early, taken the time in lieu for overtime worked at Blue Peters and that Mr Swain had said it would be okay. 56 In re-examination, Mr Shead said while he didn't use the words, these were the intent of the words he used, or the effect of them. 57 Mr Shead also confirmed in re-examination that he had spoken to Mr Swain before speaking to the applicant. 58 A letter from Mr Shead to the Commission following the earlier conciliation proceedings was admitted as Ex'5', but only insofar as it confirmed that a job description, identical to Ex'1', was sent to the Commission on 23 February 1999.

[105]

84 The applicant gave oral and written evidence (Ex'1'). 85 I note that the applicant's affidavit contained matters discussed during the conciliation conferences. I ruled such references inadmissible. 86 A statement in reply dated 17 April 2000 was sought to be admitted in evidence. I refused its admission, as it was not filed in accordance with my amended directions. 87 The applicant gave evidence that on 7 April 1999, she was approached by Mrs Shead during work time and told that Blue Peters Cafe would be closing on 19 April. As a result there would be no work available for her. The applicant said that this was unfair. Mrs Shead replied that she had been to Eastern Airlines and had been informed that they were cutting back flights during winter. The applicant replied "it is common for Eastern to cut back flights to Lord Howe Island during the winter season". Despite this comment, she said that Eastern Airlines did not reduce flights until mid June. She also inquired as to fate of other staff members and Mrs Shead said that they might also have to go. The notice of dismissal was confirmed in a letter dated 7 April 1999 - although she said it was not received until 20 April. 88 The applicant said that, while her letter of appointment dated 6 August 1998 stated that she would be employed "subject to business conditions", the Cafe and Williams Restaurant remained open seven days a week. The applicant said that insufficient reasons were given to her as to why she was chosen to be dismissed. She had never received a warning of unsatisfactory performance. The applicant said that her dismissal came within one week of informing Mrs Shead of her pregnancy. 89 After dismissal, the applicant was employed as a waitress from 21 April to 3 June 1999 and then she worked as a nanny and later in a shop for four days a week. She said there were limited employment opportunities on the Island, particularly as she was pregnant at the time. 90 During examination in chief, a schedule of Eastern Airlines flights from 1 to 31 May 1999 was tendered. Also tendered was the letter dated 7 April 1999, and envelope, received by the applicant on 20 April 1999. The significance of the envelope was that the postmark date was smudged beyond recognition. 91 The applicant said that she had sometimes worked night work, performing housekeeping duties and had done so at her previous employment at Pine Trees Lodge. 92 The applicant confirmed that Blue Peters cafe, like other establishments, did close down for part of the year. She said, however, that the work at Blue Peters was transferred to Williams Restaurant. She said that in speaking to other employees, none of them had been told their employment was to end and two retained employees had commenced employment after her. 93 The applicant gave evidence that after she arranged alternative employment at Capella South she noticed that the roster had her working two days beyond what Mrs Shead said was her last day. 94 The applicant denied being handed the 7 April termination letter; she said she received it in the mail on 20 April. 95 The applicant denied the conversation said to have occurred between herself and Mrs Shead concerning the date of her dismissal being 21 April, and not 19 April. 96 In cross examination, the applicant agreed that the only inference to be drawn from the letter of offer of 6 August 1998 was that her continuing employment was subject to business conditions. 97 It emerged in cross examination that, following the resignation of one of the two housekeepers, one employee, Deanne, had been transferred from Blue Peters to a housekeeping position at Trader Nick's. The applicant agreed there were no other housekeeping positions then available. She accepted that she had not been asked to do housekeeping; so a refusal to do so could not have been a reason for her dismissal. 98 The applicant acknowledged that the reason for dismissal was insufficient business and indicators were reduced flights and other business closedowns during winter. After lengthy questioning, the applicant conceded that the flight schedule (Ex'2') disclosed a reduction in flights for the month of May. 99 The letter of 7 April indicated that there was an offer of recommencing employment in September 1999. The applicant agreed that she did not take up the offer. She further agreed that her pregnancy had nothing to do with the decision to terminate her employment (T.p29). 100 The applicant gave evidence as to her employment subsequent to dismissal. On 21 April she commenced employment for six weeks at Capella South (another resort) until it closed for maintenance. 101 The applicant was asked what she thought was unfair when told of her termination of employment. She answered that the timing was unfair, being told to her during the busy lunch period. She said this was the only reason she believed it unfair. 102 In re-examination, the applicant gave evidence that the pay slip disclosed that she was paid up to 19 April as she was paid for three days. She said that not all of the lodges closed down during the off season, eg Beachcomber, Pine Trees and that the cafe side of the business moved up to Trader Nicks.

[109]

116 Mrs Shead was asked about Ex'3' - the envelope with the smudged postmark. She said it was addressed in her husband's handwriting and "could have been" the envelope in which the 6 September 1998 letter of offer was sent to the applicant (T.p45). 117 Mrs Shead said that when Blue Peters closed, Williams Restaurant opened for lunch, whereas previously it only opened for dinner and breakfast. The lunch period was quiet and the breakfast staff continued during the lunch period. The applicant had, on a few occasions, worked at Williams. 118 Mrs Shead said that when she had been given notice the applicant's "performance declined noticeably". She was not flexible in the hours she wanted to work, or the duties she was required to perform. Mrs Shead acknowledged that she had not raised any performance issues with the applicant and had not asked her about housekeeping duties because she had already expressed unhappiness in working night shifts. Mrs Shead said she had moved other staff around and there simply wasn't any way to accommodate the applicant. She said it was coincidence that a week before giving her notice, the applicant had told her she was pregnant. She said she thought about the dismissal decision, but there was no "other answer". 119 Mrs Shead acknowledged that her 30 September statement was incorrect insofar as to when she handed the letter of notice to the applicant. She later gave evidence that she left the letter at the cafe and couldn't be sure the applicant received it. (This was corrected in re-examination by Mrs Shead saying she handed it to her on 8 April). 120 Mrs Shead revealed in cross examination that in February 1999, the applicant was offered a supervisor's job, but had refused it. The salary was to remain the same. 121 In re-examination Mrs Shead clarified what occurred with each employee. She said Mr Urquhart and the applicant were terminated, her daughter left and all others were re-employed. 122 She further clarified the offer of a supervisor's position for the applicant and said there are no supervisors - she just needed someone to oversee the work.

[127]

Reasons for Dismissal 124 There is some suggestion that the applicant was dismissed because she had disclosed her pregnancy to the employer. Had this been found to be the true reason, I would have no doubt found such dismissal to be unlawful. However, the applicant herself acknowledged, in evidence, that her pregnancy had nothing to do with her termination. Moreover, I would find it odd that Mrs Shead, a mother herself, would not have sympathy for the applicant and would be most unlikely to dismiss her on the basis of her pregnancy. 125 This leaves then the stated reason for termination - a seasonal downturn in the business. If there is some other unstated, obscure or hidden reason, it is not immediately evident to me or postulated by the applicant. I turn then to consider whether the stated reason can stand the test of scrutiny. 126 The most obvious test of the employer's claim that it intended to close Blue Peters for the winter recess is whether the restaurant in fact closed. The evidence discloses that it did. It would be highly improbable that an employer would go to such extreme lengths as shutting down its restaurant, involving great cost and expense, if the only motivation was to create a circumstance in which an employee could be seen to be legitimately dismissed. I note also that another employee, Deanne, was transferred from Blue Peters to a vacant housekeeping position at Trader Nick's. This employee had seniority over the applicant. 127 It seems also of some relevant significance that the applicant's letter of offer of employment, dated 6 August 1998 (annexed to the originating application) prescribes commencement date, hours of work, remuneration and then concludes with "Subject to business conditions, we intend to operate the Cafe and/or Williams Restaurant all year round". 128 In my view, the proviso "subject to business conditions" and reference to "all year round", is entirely consistent with the vagaries of climatic conditions which no doubt affect this business, like many other tourist/resort businesses which are seasonally based. 129 I would also observe that it takes no meteorological or geographical genius to appreciate that Lord Howe Island does not have consistent climatic conditions and that its main employing business, tourism, is seasonally affected. 130 In addition, the letter of offer satisfies me that the applicant was aware of, and understood, the nature of her employment and accepted it on the basis I have earlier described. Her evidence in cross examination corroborates this view (T.p18). 131 Two further evidentiary matters need to be referred to. Firstly, the applicant tendered an airline flight schedule (Ex'2') and following detailed questioning she admitted that the schedule disclosed a downward revision resulting in fewer flights to the Island during the month of May. 132 Secondly, Mrs Shead gave evidence that she employed fifteen persons in the peak period and four in the off season (T.p45). This evidence was not contradicted. 133 I am satisfied therefore, that the respondent's reason for dismissal was legitimate and soundly based. There is no evidence leading to any other reason for dismissal.

[130]

Conflicting Evidence 142 Mr Barnett described some of the circumstances disclosed in this case, as having a "bad smell" about them. I would observe there is some strength to Mr Barnett's submission. However, the Commission cannot be moved to make findings on a submission that certain strange circumstances have a "bad smell" about them. While the Commission makes findings on the balance of probabilities, there must at least be some evidentiary base for doing so. A mere whiff or a pong is insufficient. 143 It is not only the respondent's evidence I am troubled by. I feel bound to express concern at aspects of both the applicant's and respondent's evidence. 144 There are some peculiar and inexplicable aspects of the respondent's evidence; the primary example of which was Mrs Shead's conflicting versions as to how, and when, the applicant received the letter of 7 April. Her evidence changed four times. 145 In her first statement, Mrs Shead said she handed the letter to the applicant at the time of the conversation of 7 April; in her second statement she said she handed it to her on the next day, 8 April; in cross examination she said she left it for her in the cafe and was unaware if she received it. Then, in re examination, she said she gave it to her on 8 April. The applicant insists she received it in the mail on 20 April. There was little contest as to the conversation of 7 April. There is no doubt the applicant was aware of her termination and the reason for it. 146 Then there is the curiously smudged envelope addressed to the applicant in Mr Shead's handwriting. It was suggested by Mr Rochfort, in questioning Mrs Shead, that this might have been the envelope the letter of offer of 6 April 1998 was in. To her credit, Mrs Shead said she couldn't be sure. In addition there was no other evidence of letters being sent to the applicant. However, as I noted during the proceedings, this envelope could not possibly have been sent in 1998 as its stamp bore the image of the 1999 International Year of the Elderly. It also seems strange that the applicant would keep an envelope for over twelve months. 147 I find on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant received the 7 April letter, by post, on or about 20 April 1999. 148 The following questions however remain unanswered: Who smudged the date stamp on the envelope to obliterate the date - and for what purpose? Why would Mrs Shead be less than truthful in her evidence?

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (140 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (1)