Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, in the matter of an application by Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 2042

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, in the matter of an application by Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 2042 - FCA 2019 case summary — Zoe

Background 3 On 5 September 2019, I made orders dispensing with the need for the applicant to comply with s 17C(2)(c) of the Insurance Act provided that the applicant undertook certain other procedural steps directed to the notification of policyholders before the confirmation hearing: see Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, in the matter of an application by Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd [2019] FCA 1453. The extent of the applicant's compliance with those orders is a matter to which I will return. 4 The entities referred to in this application are defined in these reasons as follows: (a) Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (SRZ); (b) the Australian branch of Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (SRAU); (c) Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd (SRAL); (d) the Australian branch of Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd (SRALAU); and (e) Swiss Re Ltd (SRL). 5 Both SRZ and SRAL are foreign corporations, authorised by APRA to conduct a general insurance business in Australia under s 12 of the Insurance Act. Both SRZ and SRAL carry on a Property & Casualty and a Life & Health reinsurance business. 6 Since 1 January 2018, there has been a progressive transfer of the Swiss Re group's Asia-Pacific reinsurance business into SRAL. On 1 January 2018, and then 1 January 2019, the reinsurance business previously carried on by the Singapore branch of SRZ and the Korean branch of SRZ respectively was transferred to SRAL. It is anticipated that, on 1 January 2020, SRAL will have transferred to it the reinsurance business presently carried on through the Japan, Hong Kong and Malaysia branches of SRZ, in addition to the Australian business sought to be transferred under the Scheme. The reinsurance business presently written by SRZ through its China and India branches may also be transferred to SRAL in the future. 7 As noted at p 9 of the actuarial report of Evelyn Chow, the appointed actuary of SRAU and SRALAU, dated 6 September 2019, the details of the Scheme are contained in the following documents (together, the Scheme documents): (a) Scheme for the transfer of the Australian Reinsurance business of SRAU to SRALAU; (b) Summary of a scheme under Division 3A of Part III of the Insurance Act for the transfer of the reinsurance business in Australia of SRAU to SRALAU; and (c) Business Transfer Agreement between SRAU and SRALAU (BTA) with a proposed effective date of 1 January 2020 at 0001 hours Sydney time (Effective Date). 8 The key elements of the Scheme include the following: (a) All of the rights, obligations and insurance liabilities arising under the insurance and reinsurance contracts written by SRAU will be transferred from SRAU to SRALAU. (b) All of the assets of SRAU, less excluded assets of AUD 5.1 million (Excluded Assets) to maintain APRA's minimum Prudential Capital Requirement provided for in Prudential Standard GPS 110 Capital Adequacy (GPS 110), will be transferred to SRALAU. (c) SRALAU will pay to SRAU the net asset value of the transferred business as at 1 January 2020 (Transfer Value), which payment will occur in two stages: (i) the first instalment, to be paid on the Effective Date, will involve the payment of a sum equal to the net asset value of SRAU's insurance and reinsurance business, and insurance assets, as at 30 June 2019, less the Excluded Assets, which has been calculated as AUD 589 million (Initial Transfer Value); and (ii) the amount of the second instalment, to be paid on or before 30 April 2020, will be determined as the difference between the Transfer Value and the Initial Transfer Value paid by SRALAU to SRAU (Adjustment Amount), with the Adjustment Amount to be paid by SRAU to SRALAU in the case of an overpayment and to be paid by SRALAU to SRAU in the case of a shortfall, as provided for in cl 8.1 of the BTA. 9 As explained in the affidavit of Jeremy Challen, Senior Legal Counsel at the applicant, sworn on 17 October 2019 at para 28, the Initial Transfer Value will be settled by way of a Funds Flow Agreement between SRAU, SRAL, SRZ and SRALAU (FFA). Under the FFA, the following will take place on 1 January 2020: (a) SRZ will make a capital contribution of AUD 589 million to SRAL; (b) SRAL will inject AUD 589 million into SRALAU; (c) SRALAU will pay SRAU the Initial Transfer Value of AUD 589 million; and (d) SRAU will, subject to the receipt of written approval from APRA, make a capital repatriation to SRZ of AUD 589 million. 10 Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Mr Challen's affidavit go on to explain that: (a) under the BTA and the FFA, no assets will leave Australia when the assets and liabilities of SRAU are transferred to SRALAU; and (b) it is proposed that SRZ will issue a promissory note to SRAL in the amount of the Initial Transfer Value, which will be held and endorsed between the parties as satisfaction of their respective obligations under the FFA. 11 SRAU has also indicated its intention to apply to APRA, after 1 January 2020 and following the successful transfer under the Scheme, to have its authorisation to carry on an insurance business revoked, as noted on p 20 of Ms Chow's actuarial report. 12 Before I turn to discuss the legislative framework and the evidence presented in support of the application for confirmation of the Scheme, I note one procedural matter. The confirmation hearing for the Scheme had originally been listed to take place on 24 October 2019. Due to an unavoidable judicial commitment, the confirmation hearing had to be brought forward to 23 October 2019. The applicant and APRA were informed of this change on 21 October 2019. At the confirmation hearing on 23 October 2019, senior counsel for the applicant, Mr Owens, indicated that, in light of the adjustment to the time of the hearing, a notice that identified the change was put up, on the afternoon of 21 October 2019, on the same page of the Swiss Re website which contained the link to the Scheme documents. Mr Owens confirmed that no one had indicated that they wished to appear, both before and after the change to the hearing date. A screenshot of the relevant web page which displayed this notice was tendered in court on 23 October 2019. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the course adopted by the applicant provided sufficient notice to persons with an interest in the Scheme of the date change.

[4]

Legislative Framework 13 The transfer and amalgamation of insurance business occurs pursuant to Division 3A of Part III of the Insurance Act. 14 Section 17B(1) provides that no part of the insurance business of a general insurer may be transferred to another general insurer or amalgamated with the business of another general insurer except under a scheme confirmed by this Court. 15 Section 17E, which deals with an application to this Court for confirmation, is in the following terms: (1) Any of the bodies corporate affected by a scheme may apply to the Federal Court for confirmation of the scheme. (2) An application for confirmation must be made in accordance with the prudential standards. (3) APRA is entitled to be heard on an application. 16 The prudential standards referred to in s 17E(2) can be found in Prudential Standard GPS 410 Transfer and Amalgamation of Insurance Business for General Insurers (GPS 410). 17 APRA appeared at the confirmation hearing. Besides expressing certain reservations regarding the capital repatriation mechanism in the Scheme, to which I will return, counsel for APRA, Mr Claxton, indicated that APRA was otherwise satisfied that the orders sought by the applicant were appropriate. 18 Section 17F, which concerns the Court's discretion to confirm a scheme, relevantly provides as follows: (1) The Federal Court may: (a) confirm a scheme without modification; or (b) confirm the scheme subject to such modifications as it thinks appropriate; or (c) refuse to confirm the scheme. (1A) In deciding whether to confirm a scheme (with or without modifications), the Federal Court must have regard to: (a) the interests of the policyholders of a body corporate affected by the scheme; and (b) if a report relevant to all or part of the scheme has been filed with the Court under section 62ZI - that report; and (c) any other matter the Court considers relevant. 19 It is well-accepted that the Court is to look to the interests of the relevant policyholders of both the transferor and transferee insurers and consider whether implementation of the scheme will detrimentally affect them in a material way: see, for example, Re MDU Australian Insurance Co Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 490 at [7] per Emmett J; Re Westport Insurance Corporation (No 2) [2009] FCA 1598; 181 FCR 530 at 535 [32] per Lindgren J. Here, however, it should be noted that the transferee company SRALAU (as opposed to SRAL) has no existing policyholders. 20 It has also been noted in past applications which have similarly involved a scheme transfer between two Australian branches that it provides contextual assistance to understanding the impact of such a transfer on Australian policyholders to have regard to wider financial information pertaining to the financial position and risk profiles of any relevant foreign insurer beyond simply their branch operations in Australia: see Atradius Credit Insurance N.V., in the matter of Atradius Credit Insurance N.V. (No 2) [2016] FCA 1495 at [17]; W.R. Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited, in the matter of Division 3A of Part III of the Insurance Act (1973) (No 3) [2016] FCA 1497 at [15]; AXIS Speciality Europe SE (Australia Branch), in the matter of AXIS Speciality Europe SE (Australia Branch) (No 2) [2017] FCA 276 at [13].

[5]

Evidence 21 At the confirmation hearing, the following affidavits were read in support of the application and are defined in these reasons as follows: (a) affidavit of Jeremy Challen sworn 17 October 2019 (Challen affidavit); (b) further supplementary affidavit of Andrew John Davidson sworn 17 October 2019 (Further Supplementary Davidson affidavit); (c) affidavit of Jenna Maureen Kidd affirmed 17 October 2019 (Kidd affidavit); (d) affidavit of Evelyn Chow affirmed 16 October 2019 (Chow affidavit); (e) affidavit of Andrew McInerney affirmed 17 October 2019 (McInerney affidavit) 22 Mr Challen has been employed by the applicant since 1 January 2015 and currently holds the position of Senior Legal Counsel at the applicant. Mr Davidson has been employed by the applicant since 17 January 1989 and has been a Senior Client Manager Australia and New Zealand at the applicant since October 2005. Ms Kidd has been employed by the applicant since 25 February 2019 as Legal Counsel in the applicant's Legal & Compliance Team. Ms Chow is a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and the appointed actuary for the applicant. Mr McInerney is a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and a principal at Finity Consulting Pty Ltd. 23 Three further transaction documents were tendered by the applicant: the BTA, the FFA and a Project Swiss Re Asia: Australia promissory note (Promissory Note). None of these documents was executed but each was said to in a final form approved by APRA, and therefore the form that would subsequently be entered into. 24 At the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, orders were made, the reasons for which will become apparent below, granting leave to the applicant to file and serve an affidavit about the execution arrangements with respect to the unexecuted transaction documents referred to in [23] and the arrangements regarding APRA's outstanding approval of the Scheme's capital repatriation mechanism. On 12 November 2019, the applicant filed a supplementary affidavit of Jeremy Challen sworn 12 November 2019 (Supplementary Challen affidavit), which addressed these arrangements.

[7]

SRAU 27 Page 12 of Ms Chow's actuarial report contains a summary of SRAU's balance sheet and capital position as at 31 December 2018 and 30 June 2019, as submitted to APRA. 28 As at 31 December 2018, SRAU had: (a) total assets of AUD 2,687 million, total liabilities of 2,121 million, resulting in net assets of AUD 566 million; (b) a solvency coverage ratio of 136%, with available capital of AUD 503 million, a Prudential Capital Amount of AUD 369 million, a target capital amount of AUD 539 million and an Internal Capital Buffer of AUD 170 million; and (c) target capital coverage of 93%, which fell within SRAU's target capital range of 90% to 110% of target capital. 29 As at 30 June 2019, SRAU had: (a) total assets of AUD 3,146 million, total liabilities of 2,552 million, resulting in net assets of AUD 594 million; (b) a solvency coverage ratio of 154%, with available capital of AUD 574 million, a Prudential Capital Amount of AUD 373 million, a target capital amount of AUD 543 million and an Internal Capital Buffer of AUD 170 million; and (c) target capital coverage of 106%, which fell within SRAU's target capital range of 90% to 110% of target capital. 30 Page 15 of Ms Chow's report contains a projected balance sheet and capital position for the years ending 31 December 2019, 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2021. Ms Chow states on the same page that the projected balance sheet and capital position are expected to remain strong in the 3-year projection period with potential for future capital repatriations in line with SRAU's capital management policy whereby surplus capital greater than 100% Target Capital is to be repatriated in the following financial year to the parent legal entity. 31 According to the three-year projection, SRAU will have, for the years ending 31 December 2019, 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2021 respectively: (a) total assets of AUD 2,600 million, AUD 2,507 million and AUD 2,407 million; (b) total liabilities of AUD 1,989 million, AUD 1,939 million and AUD 1,859 million; (c) net assets of AUD 611 million, AUD 568 million and AUD 548 million; (d) a solvency coverage ratio of 181%, 179% and 190%; (e) available capital of AUD 623 million, AUD 585 million and AUD 564 million; (f) a Prudential Capital Amount of AUD 343 million, AUD 327 million and AUD 297 million; (g) a target capital amount of AUD 513 million, AUD 497 million and AUD 467 million; (h) an Internal Capital Buffer of AUD 170 million, AUD 170 million and AUD 170 million; and (i) target capital coverage of 121%, 118% and 121%.

[9]

SRALAU 34 Page 19 of Ms Chow's actuarial report notes that, while SRALAU was authorised by APRA to carry on insurance business in Australia on 12 August 2019, SRALAU does not intend to write any new or renewal reinsurance business in 2019. As SRALAU has yet to commence carrying on any business, it has remained capitalised at $5,000,110 to comply with APRA's capital requirements in GPS 110. 35 As to SRALAU's expected financial and capital solvency positions following the transfer, Ms Chow stated the following at p 20 of the actuarial report: In respect of financial and capital solvency positions, SRALAU is expected to be effectively the same as SRAU pre-transfer. As a branch of SRAL, SRALAU is estimated to represent approximately 24% of SRAL's total net assets as at 1 January 2020. SRAL is expected to be well-capitalised with a MAS solvency position or CAR ratio being significantly above the minimum required ratio of 120%. Although SRALAU will represent a larger proportion of SRAL compared to SRAU as a proportion of SRZ…SRALAU is owned by the same ultimate parent which is the Swiss Re Group. The financial strength rating of SRAL is the same as SRZ and Swiss Re Group. 36 On the basis of this actuarial evidence, Mr Owens submitted that the position of policyholders from a financial security and solvency perspective will not be materially adversely affected by the transfer to SRALAU because: (a) the nature of the Scheme involves a wholesale transfer of one entity's business to another "empty" entity and therefore there will effectively be no change to the solvency coverage enjoyed by policyholders. (b) there will be no material impact on policyholder security because the financial condition of SRALAU post-transfer is effectively the same as that of SRAU pre-transfer. (c) APRA requires Australian branches to have available solely to Australian policyholders a dedicated pool of assets judged by APRA to be sufficient for the purpose of meeting Australian liabilities, which assets cannot be used to meet non-Australian liabilities without APRA's consent. (d) SRAL is expected to be well-capitalised, with its solvency ratio being well in excess of the minimum MAS requirement of 120%. (e) SRZ, of which SRAU is the Australian branch, and SRAL, of which SRALAU is the Australian branch, both ultimately derive support from the same parent company, SRL. Page 6 of Ms Chow's actuarial report indicates that SRL has been rated as financially strong by three rating agencies, as follows: (i) Standard & Poor's gave a rating of AA- (Very Strong) on 24 October 2018; (ii) Moody's gave a rating of Aa3 (Excellent) on 19 December 2017; and (iii) A.M. Best gave a rating of A+ (Superior) on 13 December 2018. As noted in the section of Ms Chow's actuarial report extracted above at [35], SRZ and SRAL share the same financial strength ratings as SRL. 37 Mr McInerney's peer review report includes, at pp 8-9, the following comments on SRALAU's financial security, which are consistent with Ms Chow's conclusion: When the transfer is completed, SRALAU will be in the same capital position as SRAU was on the day prior to the transfer (subject to a $0.1 million difference, which is immaterial). The actual 31 December 2019 figures will differ from the forecast, but the capital position of SRALAU on 1 January 2020 will be the same as the capital position of SRAU on 31 December 2019. The ICAAP is just as important as the current capital when considering financial security. Swiss Re has been a relatively active manager of capital in Australia, with annual additions and repatriations of capital to stay in line with its capital target… SRAU then has a Target Operating Range (TOR) of 90% to 110% of this capital target and has a track record of annual capital adjustments to be within the range. I understand that the approach of SRALAU will be unchanged and therefore equally sound. 38 At p 9 of the peer review report, Mr McInerney also considers the influence of parental support on the financial strength of the Australian branches, as follows: While the corporate structure within the Swiss Re Group is important for legal and regulatory purposes, in the marketplace insurance companies commercially buy their reinsurance from 'Swiss Re', not from SRAU based on its Australian capital. Market participants have full confidence that the financial security of the Australian branch is the same as the overall Swiss Re Group. The ratings of SRZ and SRAL, as core and highly strategic subsidiaries of the Swiss Re Group, are the same for each of the international rating agencies. SRAU and SRALAU both benefit from the same financial ratings. In addition, SRAU and SRALAU follow the same capital management policy as documented in both ICAAP's. Therefore, we have high confidence in the financial strength of SRAU and SRALAU.

[21]

Procedural Requirements 66 Section 17C(2) of the Insurance Act contains the procedural requirements that must be satisfied before an application for confirmation is made. These requirements are supplemented by the prudential standards contained in GPS 410 and partly modified by the dispensation orders made by the Court on 5 September 2019 (referred to above at [3]), which were relevantly in the following terms: 1. The need for the applicant to comply with section 17C(2)(c) of the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (Insurance Act) be dispensed with provided that the applicant complies with Orders 2 through to 8 below. 2. The applicant, before the Scheme is released for public inspection under Order 5 below, cause a copy of the summary of the Scheme in a form first to be approved by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and which is to include a statement that the Scheme documentation referred to in Order 4 below is available for inspection and download at the website referred to in Order 4 below (Approved Summary) to be sent by pre-paid post or email to: a. each of the policyholders identified in the Policyholder Register as described in paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Affidavit of Andrew John Davidson affirmed on 16 August 2019 (Supplementary Affidavit) in the manner described at paragraph 33(a) of the Affidavit of Andrew John Davidson affirmed on 14 August 2019 (Davidson Affidavit); b. each of the brokers identified in Annexure A annexed to these Orders in the manner described at paragraph 33(b) of the Davidson Affidavit; and c. each of the direct insurance policyholders identified through the process described in the Davidson Affidavit and the Supplementary Affidavit, and listed in Annexure B to these Orders; to the address identified by the process described in the Davidson Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit. 3. The applicant, before the Scheme is released for public inspection under Order 5 below, cause a copy of the Notice of Intention to make the application in a form first to be approved by APRA as required under APRA Prudential Standard GPS 410 Transfer and Amalgamation of Insurance Business for General Insurers (April 2018) (the Approved Notice), as described in the Davidson Affidavit to be published in the following publications: (a) the Government Gazette; and (b) The Australian, being a newspaper circulating in each State and Territory in which an affected policyholder resides; and (c) The Australian Financial Review; and (d) The New Zealand Herald, being a newspaper circulating in New Zealand; and (e) The Insurer, a global insurance trade magazine. 4. The applicant cause links to copies of the Scheme, Approved Summary, Approved Notice and the actuarial report prepared in relation to the Scheme to be placed on its website https://www.swissre.com/australia_newzealand/, such links to be available to the public from before the Scheme is released for public inspection under Order 5 below until the date of the hearing by the Court for the confirmation of the Scheme. 5. The applicant make a copy of the Scheme, Approved Summary, Approved Notice and the actuarial report prepared in relation to the Scheme available for public inspection from 9:00am to 5:00pm (local time) every day (except weekends and public holidays), for a period of at least 15 days at locations first to be approved by APRA in each State and Territory in which an affected policyholder resides. 6. The applicant provide a copy of the Scheme, Approved Summary, Approved Notice and the actuarial report prepared in relation to the Scheme on request to any affected policyholder free of charge. 7. The applicant provide a copy of the Approved Summary by post to each of the APRA-authorised general insurers listed on APRA's Register of General Insurance that has not been identified as an affected policyholder. 8. The applicant provide a copy of the Approved Summary to any new policyholders with their policy documentation for any new policies that are issued by the applicant after the policyholder notification process set out in Order 2 has been completed until the effective date of the Scheme. 67 Before I turn to consider these matters, it is appropriate to raise one other procedural matter. Clause 2(b) of the BTA contains a condition precedent which provides that the agreement will have no effect unless and until the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, or a permitted delegate, approves or otherwise confirms that they have no objection to the acquisition by SRALAU of the Business, as defined in the BTA, under s 41 of the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991 (Cth) (IATA). At para 12 of the Further Supplementary Davidson affidavit, Mr Davidson deposes that the applicant, on 27 September 2019 and 3 October 2019, provided to APRA the notices required to be given under s 38 of the IATA and formally requested a go-ahead decision under s 41(1) of the IATA in respect of the trigger proposals under ss 36(a), 36(d) and 36(e) of the IATA. Mr Davidson indicates that the applicant was advised on 17 October 2019 that the Treasurer had made the decision not to object to the acquisition under the IATA. 68 The applicant has also put on evidence to demonstrate its compliance with s 17C(2), GPS 410 and Orders 2 to 8 of the dispensation orders. This evidence was contained in the Further Supplementary Davidson affidavit and the Kidd affidavit.

[22]

Section 17C(2)(a): Provision of Scheme to APRA in accordance with GPS 410 69 Section 17C(2)(a) requires a copy of the scheme for which confirmation is sought and any actuarial report on which the scheme is based to have been given to APRA in accordance with the prudential standards. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of GPS 410 make clear that these documents must be provided to APRA before the relevant notice of intention to apply to the Court for confirmation of the scheme is published, and before any approved summary of the scheme is given to each affected policyholder. 70 Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Further Supplementary Davidson Affidavit record that various versions of the following draft documents were provided by the applicant to APRA between August 2019 and October 2019: (a) the draft scheme document; (b) the draft summary of the Scheme; (c) the draft notice of intention to apply for confirmation of the Scheme; (d) Ms Chow's actuarial report; (e) Mr McInerney's peer review report; and (f) a draft copy of the agreement pursuant to which the applicant and SRALAU proposed to effect the Scheme. 71 Mr Davidson deposes at paras 10 and 11 that the applicant emailed APRA on 6 September 2019 to request formally its approval of the final summary of the Scheme and the final notice of intention, which approval was given by APRA on 9 September 2019. 72 At paras 16-19 of the Further Supplementary Davidson Affidavit, Mr Davidson states that the applicant's policyholder register was updated and finalised, and template notification letters prepared, for the mail-out required by Dispensation Order 2. Each of the letters contained the stipulated statement that the Scheme and associated documentation would be published on the Swiss Re website. 73 Mr Davidson confirms at para 40 that, as at 17 October 2019, 99% of identified policyholders in the final policyholder register and the direct insurance policyholders list, and 100% of brokers on the final broker list were confirmed as having been mailed a copy of the approved summary of the Scheme.

[23]

Section 17C(2)(b): Publication of notice of intention to make application in accordance with GPS 410 74 Section 17C(2)(b) requires a notice of intention to make the confirmation application to have been published by the applicant in accordance with the prudential standards. Paragraphs 9 and 11 of GPS 410 provide as follows: 9. The insurer must publish the notice of intention in a form approved by APRA: (a) in the Government Gazette; and (b) in one or more newspapers, approved by APRA, circulating in each State and Territory in which an affected policyholder resides. 10. The notice must, at a minimum: (a) state the places, dates and times that an affected policyholder may obtain a copy of the scheme and any associated documentation; and (b) give the address of each place at which a copy of the scheme and any associated documentation may be obtained. 11. The notice must be published before the scheme is released for public inspection under paragraph 16. 75 Dispensation Order 3 lists several other publications in which the notice of intention was required to be published. 76 At paras 43 and 44 of the Further Supplementary Davidson affidavit, Mr Davidson deposes that the applicant arranged, on 9 September 2019, for the notice of intention to be published on 17 September 2019 in the relevant publications, from all of which confirmation of publication was received on 17 September 2019. 77 Mr Owens drew the Court's attention to a typographical error in the wording of the notice of intention that was published in the specified publications. The notice contained the following sentence: Should the Scheme be confirmed by the Court, SRAU will be substituted for SRALAU under policies issued or underwritten by SRAU. 78 For this statement to have been correct, the first two acronyms should have been swapped to read "SRALAU will be substituted for SRAU". 79 Mr Owens accepted that this was a regrettable error but submitted that this did not constitute a reason to refuse confirmation on the basis that the meaning of the notice would still have been clear and that APRA had approved the form of the notice prior to publication. 80 I am satisfied that, when viewed in context, the purpose and meaning of the notice was clear, notwithstanding the error.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (30 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (6)

Cited By (2)