Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor Coomber, T.Mc. & Ors v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor Palleson, C.J. & Anor v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 88

Federal Court of Australia|1988-03-11|Before: Pincus J

TRADE PRACTICES - claim for damages for misleading conduct - time limitation of actions under ss.82, 87.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - claims for damages inducing claimants to take leased space - when cause of action accrues - applicability of equitable doctrines.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ~- repudiation by tenant - claim for damages by landlord - measure of damages.

BUILDING CONTRACTS - Certificate of Classification - validity - effect on recoverability of rent.

MONEY COUNTS - money paid under unlawful contract - whether recoverable.

Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd Qld G119 of 1984

Trevor McDougall Coomber & Ors v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anow Qld G144 of 1984

Colin James Palleson & Anor v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor Qld G145 of 1984

TREVOR McDOUGALL COOMBER, GREGORY DESMOND KEILY and CAMERON GREGORY GODDEN

Applicants LABRADOR PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD First Respondent HERSFIELD DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION PTY LTD

TREVOR McDOUGALL COOMBER, GREGORY DESMOND KEILY and CAMERON GREGORY GODDEN

BETWEEN: COLIN JAMES PALLESON and BETTY RUTH PALLESON Applicants AND: LABRADOR PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD First Respondent AND: HERSFIELD DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION PTY LTD Second Respondent AND: LABRADOR PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD Cross-Claimant AND: COLLIN JAMES PALLESON and BETTY RUTH PALLESON Cross-Respondents MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 11 MARCH 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT:

orders that 1n the matters of G119/84, G144/84 and G145 of 1984 -

(b) the cross-claimant pay the cross-respondents' costs attributable to the cross-claim, to be taxed;

orders that in the matters of G144/84 and G145/84 there be no order as to costs;

4, directs that the aforesaid orders as to costs not be perfected for fourteen (14) days.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

TREVOR McDOUGALL COOMBER, GREGORY DESMOND KEILY and CAMERON GREGORY GODDEN

Applicants LABRADOR PARK SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD First Respondent

TREVOR McDOUGALL COOMBER, GREGORY DESMOND KEILY and CAMERON GREGORY GODDEN

QLD G145 of 1984 COLIN JAMES PALLESON and BETTY RUTH PALLESON

These reasons relate to three applications which were

heard together. They had in common that all the applicants were

tenants of the Labrador Park Shopping Centre, within the area of

the Gold Coast City Council. Certain legal questions common to

Each application was founded in large part upon allegations of misleading conduct said to be in breach of 558.52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974; I shall sometimes refer to these as the s.52 claims. In the first application, the applicant, Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd, did not pursue its claim

under the Trade Practices Act, but the other two sets of

applicants, in what I shall cali the Coomber (G144 of 1984) and

Palleson (G145 of 1984) cases, pursued s.52 claims.

Of the three respondents, the third, a firm called Jones Lang Wootton, disappeared from the litigation in consequence of a decision I gave in its favour at an interlocutory stage: the case is reported in 61A.L.R. 504; after that hearing the applicants discontinued against that firm. Of the other two respondents, the first (Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd) was the landlord of each of the applicants. It instituted cross-claims against all of them for moneys said to be due under the leases and also, in the

Keen Mar case, sued cross-respondents as guarantors of obligations

In the Coomber and Palleson cases, the claims under s.52 were rather similar, and it 1s enough, to indicate the scope of the dispute in a preliminary way, to refer to the Coomber statement of claim. It complained of the content of a brochure sent in mid-1981 with reference to the then proposed Labrador Park Shopping Centre, and a letter sent with the brochure. It said that those documents contained misrepresentations which induced them to execute a lease of 5 October 1981, as tenants. The

statement of claim also said that one Wakeham, a real estate agent

employed by the third respondent, made representations to the applicants in mid-1981 with the same result - i.e. causing them to Sign the lease in October and act under that lease. They claim to

The pleading then turned to a _ separate subject, discussed in detail below, namely a "Certificate of Classification" made under by-laws pursuant to the Building Act 1975-1981 (Q.). The pleading said that the occupation of the demised premises was at all material times illegal because of the absence of a necessary Certificate of Classification. As a consequence, it was said that the leases were void on the ground of illegality. In the result, that assertion was abandoned, but the marrower argument was advancec that because of an illegality arising in the course of performance, the lease was unenforceable during the period when no Certificate of Classification authorising occupation existed. Further, the applicants asserted,

they were entitled to recover the moneys they had valid.

The Certificate of Classification was also relied on in the pleading in quite another way. It was said that, by various acts and omissions, the applicants were misled about the Certificate of Classification, that the respondents should have positively informed the applicants of the illegality to which I have referred, and the respondents were guilty of further breaches

of s.52 with respect to the Certificate of Classification issue.

misrepresentations related to statements made by one Mickles on

behalf of the respondents in 1982, after the applicants went into

The applicants claimed substantial damages under all

In the Palleson pleading, the same basic structure is found and that makes 1t unnecessary to analyse the pleading in detail. However, in many respects the specific allegations of

As appears from what has already been said, the allegations of misrepresentation are based on events which occurred before the leases were executed, as well as on some

events which occurred after that. One importance of the distinction 1s that, as to the former class, questions arose about

the time bar in s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act, and they are

dealt with below. As to the latter, not all were pressed. The

allegation in the Palleson case concerning the statements made by Mickles in 1982 were struck out by consent during the course of the hearing and, in his address, counsel for the applicants, Mr

Macklin, abandoned the similar claim in the Coomber case,

That left, as the only allegation of misrepresentation after the execution of the leases, those concerning the Certificate of Classification. The argument was, in substance, that I should find that the tenants had suffered loss by not being told about the difficulties about Certificates of Classification,

which are set out in detail below. Mr. Macklin's submissions

appeared to recognise that there were problems in connecting the Certificates of Classification with any loss suffered by applicants; despite the earnest arguments directed to that point, the difficulty seemed to me plainly insuperable, and it is my view that the s.52 case based on the Certificates of Classification has no substance. I have held, however, for the reasons set out below, that the absence of the Certificates of Classification defeats cross-claims made for rent and other moneys due in respect of

In the result, the substantial misrepresentation case advanced in the Coomber application, as well as that in the Palleson application, was that oral and written statements made before the leases were entered into were misleading. I have set out my views about that below and have found in favour of the applicants on the question whether misleading statements were made inducing them to enter into the leases. I have, however, heid as a matter of iaw that the case based on those statements fails because of the three year time bar in s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act. I have also rejected the applicants' claim for return of moneys paid on the ground that the leases were illegal; for convenience that 1s dealt with under the heading "Illegality",

The somewhat unusual result, then, is that both the claims and cross-claims fail, for reasons I have just outlined and which are explained in more detail below. These reasons also deal

with a contention, which has been upheld, that the evidence

adduced in support of the cross-claims was, quite apart from the

illegality question, insufficient. The reasons do not deal with some other legal questions which were raised, and, more importantly, do not touch on the subject of damages for breaches of s.52; were 1t not for the time limitation defence, I would have assessed damages in favour of the applicants in the Coomber and

The term "misrepresentations" refers to both the allegations of conduct that is "misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive" under s.52 and allegations of misrepresentation in respect of land, in breach of s.53A. Despite my conclusion that these claims must fail as being time barred, 1t seems to me right to set out my findings on those of them which appear to have substance; I have not dealt with those which either seemed clearly not to have had an inducing effect or were for

other reasons not such as to require separate discussion.

Mr Callinan Q.C., who led Messrs Myers and Perry for the respondents, pressed the argument that the applicants 1n both the Coomber and Palleson cases made their own assessments of the prospects of the proposed new shopping centre. I accept that to a considerable extent that submission is correct, particularly with respect to the applicants in the Coomber case. Further, it is my view that an important reason for the losses suffered by the applicants during their periods of trading in the centre was simply that its location was not such as to draw the public as

well as had been hoped; that, of course, was a matter which the

applicants were in as good a position to gauge as were the respondents. IT am satisfied that, at material times, business done by the specialty shops at the centre was disappointing, and in that sense the centre was unsuccessful. I reject the evidence

of Mr A.R. Pearce, on behalf of the respondents, suggesting the

Although the simple fact of the centre's location was a substantial cause of losses sustained, I am satisfied that the applicants in the Coomber and Palleson cases were misled in respects I shall discuss, and that the misleading statements contributed to their respective decisions to take space in the

Looking at the matter broadly, i1t was not really surprising that these applicants were misled. Presumably because of doubts about 1ts location, the centre did not prove to be very attractive to prospective tenants and Wakeham had trouble filling it; naturally, the applicants sought information about their likely co-tenants, but Wakeham was disinclined to tell them the rather depressing truth on that subject. He also laboured under the difficulty that the landlord told him little about the

intended nature and physical characteristics of the centre.

Mr and Mrs Palleson leased shop numbers 11 and 12 as a

restaurant and take-away shop. I set out hereunder my findings on

the most substantial allegations of misrepresentation made by

(i) Chicken Shop. Palleson said that Wakeham told him that there would be a "national chicken take-away" operating three shops; that conversation 1s not precisely dated, but apparently took place in May or June 1981. In cross-examination 1t was suggested to Palleson that what Wakeham said was that there were discussions with a national chicken take-away and he was hopeful of securing them. When Wakeham gave his evidence, however, he said he believed about June 1981 that the national chicken chain were going to proceed. He said, "They had given me indications

Palleson's version 15 similar to that of one of the apolicants in the Coomber case, Mr Keily, who was told much the

same - "There would be a national take-away chicken food there ...

comprising three shops, and also that they had been committed".

The matter 1s discussed in the correspondence Wakeham had with his principal. His letter to Pearce dated 3 August 1981 says that a large chicken operator had made a "tentative offer of $600.00 per week for the three tenancies". That had been rejected. On 17 August the "Chicken Spot" chain were said to have increased their offer to $675, on the basis that the landlord paid to fit the shops out; that was apparently unacceptable. On 16 October 1981, Wakeham wrote to say that "Chicken Spot" had

I have no doubt that Wakeham discussed the matter with

prospective tenants and used the prospect of the presence of such a shop as aeselling point, and am sufficiently confident of Palleson's recollection of what Wakeham said to make a finding in favour of the applicants on this point. That is, I am satisfied that Wakeham overstated the position, and that his having done so

(ii) Fifteen Other Prospective Tenants. Palleson said

that Wakeham told him that there were "fifteen prospective tenants that were interested in the take-away food shop. He said if we

wanted the shop, we would have to make a very quick decision and decide whether we wanted them or not." Wakeham said on that point, when asked by junior counsel for the respondents, that he could not be specific, but may have told Palleson that at the time

there were "several commitments and strong enquiry".

In answer to me, Palleson said that fifteen seemed a lot

Having 1n mind Wakeham's response to this point, I have concluded that the representation in question was made. Clearly enough 1t was untrue. Despite the answer given to me just mentioned, I am of opinion that the misstatement had some inducing

effect. It contrasts sharply with the tone of the correspondence

between Wakeham and the respondents, which is fairly consistently pessimistic; for example, on 16 October 1981 Wakeham wrote to say

that there had been little success with fast food operators.

(ili) Rental. It is clear, and not disputable, that Palleson was misled by Wakeham as to the rental required, but

since there is a question whether, even so, this statement may be

relied on, it is desirable to set out the facts in some detail.

Palleson gave evidence that he said the rental of $300 per week asked seemed very high and asked whether rentals were

negotiable. He received the answer, "No, they are not negotiable.

All rentals are fixed." Wakeham gave evidence that he told Palleson the rentals were fixed and that that was not true. He said that to say so was "normal commercial practice ... not lying

It 1s important to note that not only were the rents unfixed, but the truth was quite otherwise. The agents for whom Wakeham worked were free to negotiate such rental as they could get; the higher the rental, the higher their commission. One Tormey wrote on behalf of the agent on 21 May 1981 setting out the fee income, namely $20,000, based on $200 per week per _ shop, increasing to $25,000 if they achieved $250 per week and $30,000 if they achieved $300 per week. The letter made clear that for intermediate levels of income there would be an intermediate figure - e.g. $275 per week was to bring $27,500 fee to "ensure that we fight for every last dollar of income". The agent wrote

to Palleson on 3 June 1981 (less than a fortnight later) saying

It may be that it is difficult, in practical commerce,

for an agent to answer such a question as Palleson asked and it

may seem odd for an agent to evade it. Yet here the statement that the rentals were fixed was simply a lie and was an inducment

to Palleson to contract as he did; cf. Nicholas v. Thompson £19241

(iv) Single Shopping Level. There was a representation

that the centre would be constructed on a single shopping level; that has not been shown to be false. The expression "single shopping level" in my opinion means, at least prima facie, that there is no difference between levels of the various shops. That

The applicants sought to make the case that the statement meant that there was no step-un from the carpark to the

(v) Ease of Access. Counsel for the applicants said in

his address that particular reliance was placed upon a representation as to ease of access to the centre. However, it does not appear to me that these applicants can make out the case pleaded, that they were induced to sign the lease and enter into possession by a statement as to the access provided. The lease was not executed until December and, at that time, the general

nature of the access provided must have been obvious enough.

(vz) Level of Carpark. This allegation was based on the brochure referred to above, which appeared to depict the line

of shops as being at the same level as the carpark; in the

result, it was not. Palleson complained of the difference between

the level of the shops and that of the carpark. He said that he

became aware of the difference in level "a few days prior to the opening" or "within a week prior to opening". In

cross-examination he agreed that he wanted to go into the centre

One could not be satisfied, on that evidence, that he was unaware of the difference between the level of the carpark and that of the shops on 2 December 1981 when these applicants executed the lease. It is not alleged in the pleading that they came under any obligation to take space in the centre before 2

Although I think, on balance, that the brochure us misleading 1n the respect alleged, it does not seem possible to find for these applicants on the basis being discussed. I reach that conclusion with some regret, because of two circumstances.

One 1s that the correspondence between the agent and the principal does not suggest that any trouble was taken to ensure that the

brochure accurately represented what was proposed. Secondly, Wakeham himself, in his letter of 16 October 1981 to the

respondents, expressed the view that the difference in levels

(vil) Access Directly into a Shop. In this heading I

include the representations in paragraphs 16(c) and (d) of the statement of claim, which are to similar effect. Unfortunately for the applicants, I think the answer to this allegation is the

same as to that last discussed - that is, it is not shown to my

satisfaction that before entering into the lease Palleson was unaware of the substantial step-up from the carpark to the shops;

the presence in that difference of level necessitated that there

These applicants executed a lease on 5 October 1981; their task in showing that some of the statements made about the character of the centre misled them is inherently easier, because they committed themselves earlier than did the Pallesons. Nevertheless, there was much made of the point that they had

opportunities to observe the nature of the centre during the

applicants in this case, gave evidence that Wakeham said, in June

1981, that one would "virtually be able to drive up to ... whichever shop the shopper wanted to shop at and go in quite

easily and go out quite easily." These applicants also rely, of course, upon the brochure as suggesting the same. In cross-examination, Ke1ily gave evidence that he visited the building two or three times a week during the course of construction, but he claimed that the difference in levels was only apparent when the carpark was sealed. He also said that the fact that the shopping centre and the carpark would all be on the

same level was a matter he took into account in agreeing to enter

It is not easy to determine when it was, or should have been, evident to Keily that there was a substantial difference in levels. He expressed the view that it was not until about three weeks prior to the opening (i.e. three weeks prior to December 8 1981) that it was evident that the external carpark level was

going to be different from that of the shopping level.

Godden, another of the applicants 1n this case, said that he visited the site during the course of construction a number of times, so he presumably also had opportunity to notice the difference in levels. In his opinion, the "main thing" was

Coomber said he expected there would be no impediment from the carpark to the shopping. His evidence was to the effect that, although he noticed during the course of construction that there was an apparent gap between the carpark level and that of

the shops, he thought the difference could be overcome by filling.

It has to be said that the allegations made about access from the carpark to the centre gain strength from the evidence of Wakeham. He said he himself believed at the time he was negotiating with Keily that the shopping centre would be at the same level as the carpark. He was not prepared to deny the

possibility that he communicated that belief to Keily.

I have already referred to Wakeham's letter, expressing,

on 16 October 1981, his concern about the difference between the

levels. It seems to me that the letter assists these applicants in two ways. Firstly, 1t increases the probability that Wakeham communicated to Keily the idea that access from the carpark to the shops was immediate and direct. Secondly, it diminishes the

likelihood that these applicants were aware of the true situation at any date significantly earlier than 16 October 1981. I reiterate that they executed their lease on 5 October 1981. It is, of course, possible that by that date it must have been obvious that there was a substantial difference in level, but in

I therefore find that the combination of the brochure and what Wakeham told Keily about 1t gave Keily the impression (which was also Wakeham's) that one would be able to walk directiy from the carpark to their shop; that was an important attraction to these applicants. The means of access in fact available, and

always intended, was significantly less convenient.

(11) Ease of Access from the Gold Coast Highway. The

brochure says that: "A high proportion of Brisbane holiday makers could be expected to stop at the centre due to ease of access and convenience of shopping." The expression "Brisbane holiday makers" must mean people coming from Brisbane for a holiday or returning to Brisbane after a holiday - presumably including those coming down only for a day. Obviously, a high proportion of those people would be unlikely to shop at the centre if 1t were hard to get to from the highway. Keily gave evidence that he asked Wakeham about access, and was told there would be a slow-down lane

coming from Brisbane and also in the other direction. That turned

out not to be so. He told counsel for the respondents that he quizzed Wakeham about access. Godden said that at a meeting with the manager after they took possession, there was a suggestion that lights would be installed at the corner of Babbidge Street and the highway. Godden claimed that people coming from Brisbane were apprehensive about stopping to turn in. Traffic lights were

installed at the corner after these applicants vacated.

When Wakeham was asked about it, he said that he understood that the developer had been seeking Department of Main Roads approval, apparently for a slow-down lane, but that had not been given. He believed that the developer was attempting to

achieve the installation of slow-down lanes but "at that point in

Wakeham said, and I believe him, that he did not recall

I have had some difficulty in coming to a conclusion on this aspect. I found Keily an impressive witness, but have been concerned about the difficulty of his distinguishing between features of the centre said to be in prospect and those said to be definite. On the whole, I have not been able to feel myself sufficiently satisfied that the slow down lanes were said to be in

(iii) Chicken Shop. Keily said in his evidence that, in a conversation with Wakeham in June 1981, the latter told him that

a national take-away chicken food store would be in the centre,

comprising three shops, and that "they had been committed". Pressed on the subject in cross-examination, he at first suggested

that Wakeham had claimed the chicken chain had "signed", but then reverted to "committed". In this case also, the question arises whether one could be sure enough about what Wakeham said on the point. The account of the dealings with the chain in question given above, in discussing the Palleson case, makes 1t clear that

it would not have been right at any stage to suggest that the

On the whole, I am satisfied that Wakeham misled Keily in the respect alleged and that his having done so was a cause of these applicants executing their lease. It may not seem a very large point, but 1s to be considered against the background that, as the correspondence amply shows, Wakeham was having difficulty getting tenants to commit themselves. That, in the judgment of a national chain of speciality shops, the centre was one in which 1t

was worth taking space was, I think, a significant inducement.

For the reasons just given, I find that the applicants

in the Coomber and Palleson cases were induced by misleading conduct; but in all three suits, i1t was pleaded against the

applicants that their claims under the Trade Practices Act were

As to the claim by Keen Mar, no limitation question

arises because, as I have said, the Trade Practices Act claim was

abandoned during the hearing. As to the Coomber and Palileson claims, it is necessary to consider whether they were brought in

Both applications were filed on 7 December 1984 and the

respondents contended that the claims are barred by s.82(2) of the

Section 82(1) vests ina person damaged by conduct in

contravention of (among other provisions) s.52, a right to recover

the amount of the loss. Section 82(2) reads as follows:

"An action under sub-section (1) may be commenced at any time within 3 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued."

On the face of 1t, these claims fall within s.82(1) and it was therefore necessary to begin them within three years after

The first question 1s whether the limit prescribed by s.82(2) 1mposes an absolute bar, or whether there is a discretion to grant relief not subject to any time limit, under s.87. That provision has been amended several times. When these applications were instituted, the section was in the form set out in the 5th edition of Mr. Miller's book, Annotated Trade Practices Act. At the date of occurrence of the events in question, it was in that form but for the opening expression, "Without limiting the

generality of section 80", appearing at the beginning of both

subs.(1) and subs.(1A): see the Statute Law (Miscellaneous

Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1983 Sessional Volume 1, p.524.

Ido not here set out the provisions of s.87; it is enough for my purposes to summarise them, so far as relevant. The section says that where in a proceeding instituted under Part VI of the Act, the Court finds that a party to the proceeding has suffered loss or damage by contravening conduct, the Court may, whether or not it makes an order under s.82, make such order or

orders as it thinks appropriate against the contravenor if the

Court considers that the order or orders will compensate the party for the loss; subs.(1A) says the Court may, on the application of a person who has suffered loss, make appropriate orders, including an order directing the contravenor to pay the amount of loss

The question is whether, since the applicants in the Coomber and Palleson cases suffered loss by reason of such contraventions as are mentioned in s.87 and there was, when these apolications were filed, no explicit time bar for claims under s.87, they may take advantage of the bar-free provision, rather than relying on s.82(2). The contention is that s.82 and s.87 are simply alternative avenues whereby the applicants may obtain relief, the latter having the critical advantage of having no time

It should be noticed that applications under subs.(1A) are, by Act No. 168 of 1986, made subject to subs.(1CA) which imposes a time limit of three years from the date of accrual of

the cause of action, but if the present proceedings (begun in

were begun in time, they were not retrospectively barred by

The question I have just mentioned - whether the applicants in the Coomber and Palleson cases may take advantage of the absence of any express time limit 1n s.87 - depends for its

The first 1s the decision of the Full Court in Fenech v.

Sterling (1984) 57 A.L.R. 98. The Court there had to consider the

"l.. whether the three-year limitation period prescribed by s.82(2) applied directly or at all to the apolication under s.87(1A)."

It was accepted in argument that an appiication under s.87 "does not have to be founded upon any other proceeding" (p.103) and the Court held that "s 87(1A) 1s free of any prescribed period of limitation" (p.104). However, the Court went on to hold that the remedies under s.87(1A) are discretionary; the Court said in effect that the fact that the time limit prescribed by s.82(2) had

elapsed could justify an exercise of discretion against allowing

Toohey J. in James v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

(1986) 64 A.L.R. 347 at p.395. There his Honour, acting on the

Full Court's reference to the exercise of discretion just

"It would, in my view, be a curious and unexpected result that a person whose claim is barred by reason of s.B2(2) may nevertheless recover

precisely the amount claimed merely by invoking para.(d) of s.87(2)."

His Honour declined to exercise in favour of the applicants, who had sued beyond the three year time limit

prescribed by s.82(2), the discretion referred to by the Full

The last case to which it is necessary to refer under this heading 1s the decision of the High Court in Sent v. Jet

Corporation of Australia Proprietary Limited (1986) 160 C.L.R.

In that case, the correctness of the concession made in

Fenech v. Sterling was challenged, and successfully; the Court

-.. compensatory relief under sub-s.(1A) can be applied for and granted only if a proceeding is instituted or has been instituted under or for an offence against a provision of Pt VI other than

s.87 in respect of conduct engaged in in contravention of Pt V." (p.545)

As to the question of a time limit, the Court said at

"Although s.87 contains no time limitation, the proceeding on which the power to grant relief under s.87 depends will be barred if it is instituted outside the time, if any, limited for instituting that proceeding."

Read in the context, that would seem to imply that the

s.87 proceeding is also barred, if that on which it depends is

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (460 paragraphs)

Cited By (1)