Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales

• Medium Neutral Citation: Legal Services Commissioner v Sandroussi [2013] NSWADT 37
• Decision date: 13 February 2013
• Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division
• Before: The Hon G Mullane, Judicial Member; Mr D Fairlie, Judicial Member; Mr C Bennett, Non-Judicial Member

Decision

(1)The Respondent Solicitor is found guilty of professional misconduct and his name must be removed from the roll of practitioners.

(2)The Respondent must pay the costs of the Legal Services Commissioner, such costs to be as agreed or as assessed by a costs assessor.

• Catchwords: Solicitor - Disciplinary Proceedings - Professional misconduct - Failure to respond to Section 660 Notice.
• Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004; Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 NSW
• Cases Cited: Council of the Law Society of NSW v Tsalidis (No.2) [2010] NSW ADT 297; Legal Services Commissioner v McCarthy [2010] NSW ADT 269; Council of the Law Society of NSW v Sheehan (No. 2) [2010] NSW ADT 135 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Treanor [2009] NSW ADT 115; Law Society of NSW v Fernie [2006] NSW ADT 123; Law Society of NSW v Nazarian [2002] NSW ADT 229.
• Category: Principal judgment
• Parties: Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant); Antoine Sandroussi (Respondent)
• Representation: A Matalani for the Legal Services Commissioner; C M Groenewegen for the Council of the Law Society of NSW; A Sandroussi (Respondent in person)
• File Number(s): 112025

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION

Hon G Mullane (Judicial Member), Mr D Fairlie (Judicial Member) and

Mr C Bennett (Non-Judicial Member)

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1 This was a hearing of disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent Solicitor. It was a hearing together of proceedings commenced by the Council of the Law Society of NSW by its Application filed with the Tribunal on 23 June 2011 and proceedings commenced by the Legal Services Commissioner against the Respondent Solicitor by an Application filed on 7 September 2011.

2 These are the Reasons in relation to the proceedings commenced by the Legal Services Commissioner.

ORDERS SOUGHT

3 The Legal Services Commissioner sought the following Orders in the Application:

(1) A finding that the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct;

(2) In the alternative, a finding that the Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct;

(3) The Respondent's name is to be removed from the Roll of Practitioners;

(4) The Respondent is publicly reprimanded;

(5) The Respondent is fined;

(6) The Respondent must pay the costs of the Legal Services Commissioner of and incidental to the proceedings;

(7) Such other orders as the Tribunal sees fit.

4 At the hearing Mr Matalani for the Legal Services Commissioner submitted that if the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent is unfit to practice, we should strike him off the roll, but If we did not make such a finding there should be an order suspending his practising certificate until the Respondent complies with the Section 660 notice to the satisfaction of the Legal Services Commissioner.

GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION

5 The Ground of the Application is:

"The Practitioner, without reasonable excuse, failed to respond to a Notice issued in writing pursuant to Section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004."

EVIDENCE

6 The evidence in the proceedings comprises:

(1) The Application for original decision filed in the Tribunal on 7 September 2011;

(2) The Affidavit of Steven Anthony Mark sworn 7 September 2011;

(3) The Affidavit of John Vitanza sworn 17 November 2011;

(4) The Affidavit of Steven Anthony Mark sworn 29 November 2011;

(5) Sworn evidence given by the Respondent at the hearing;

(6) Admissions made by the Respondent in Submissions at the hearing; and

(7) Records of the Legal Services Commissioner of previous findings of professional misconduct amd unsatisfactory professional conduct by the respondent.

THE PARTICULARS OF THE GROUNDS

7 The following are the Particulars of the Grounds as set out in the Application. The Respondent has not filed a Reply and has not disputed any matter in the Application. The following Particulars are established by the evidence in the proceedings:

Ground 1

The practitioner, without reasonable excuse, failed to respond to a Notice issued in writing pursuant to section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

1.1 On 12 April 2010, Ms Eman Elzamtar lodged a complaint with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner ("the OLSC") about the conduct of Antoine Sandroussi ("the practitioner").

1.2 The practitioner provided an initial response to the complaint on 14 May 2010.

1.3 By letters dated 24 May 2010 and 28 September 2010, the OlSC requested further information from the practitioner.

1.4 The practitioner did not respond to either of the letters referred to in Particular 1.3.

1.5 On 26 November 2010, the practitioner was personally served with a Notice pursuant to section 660(1) of the legal Profession Act 2004. The Notice required a response by no later

than 5.00pm on 17 December 2010.

1.6 By facsimile letter dated 17 December 2010, the practitioner responded to the Notice referred to in Particular 1.5.

1.7 The OlSC thereafter continued its investigation, which included sending correspondence to various third parties.

1.8 By letter dated 10 January 2011, the OlSC sought further information from the practitioner by no later than 4 February 2011.

1.9 By letter dated 3 February 2011, and in response to a request for assistance from the OlSC, Hicksons lawyers provided further information and documentation.

1.10 By letter dated 1 March 2011, the OlSC sought further information from the practitioner by no later than 18 March 2011.

1.11 By letter dated 22 March 2011, and in response to a request for assistance from the OlSC, Mitry lawyers provided further information.

1.12 The practitioner did not respond to either of the letters referred to in Particulars 1.8 and 1.10.

1.13 On 3 April 2011, the practitioner was personally served with a Notice pursuant to section 660(1) of the legal Profession Act 2004. This Notice required a response by no later than 5.00pm on 29 April 2011.

1.14 The practitioner did not respond to the section 660 Notice referred to in Particular 1.13.

1.15 By letter dated 20 May 2011, the OlSC sought an explanation as to why the practitioner failed to comply with the Notice. The letter also advised the practitioner that failure to comply, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, is professional misconduct. The practitioner was asked to provide his explanation by no later than 24 June 2011.

1.16 As at the date of filing this Application, the practitioner has not provided an explanation for his failure to comply with the Notice referred to in Particular 1.13, nor has he communicated further with the OlSC.

BACKGROUND

8 In early 2010 a former client of the Respondent, Ms Elzamtar lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner about the Respondent. She alleged that, without notice, he failed to appear on her behalf at the Bankstown Local Court in 18 January 2008, and failed to communicate with her before or after the listing of her matter.

9 Ms Elzamtar reported to the Legal Services Commissioner her motor vehicle was stolen and she lodged a claim for its loss with her insurers, GIO. The claim was denied on the basis that the vehicle was unsafe at the time the policy was taken out. She instructed the Solicitor to take proceedings against the GIO for compensation for the loss of her vehicle pursuant to the policy. He agreed to do this. She met him several times in preparing for the hearing and paid a deposit of $1,500 for him to prepare the Statement of Claim and file it in Court. He did this. The Statement of Claim was served on the GIO in about mid-2007.

10 Then in June 2007 the respondent went to Bahrain and did not return to Australia until August 2007. It appears that the GIO filed an appearance in the proceedings and they were listed in the Local Court on 18 January 2008. The solicitor for GIO told the Legal Services Commissioner that numerous attempts to contact the Respondent by telephone were unsuccessful. Messages were left, but he did not return the calls. Also numerous emails to his email address shown on the Statement of Claim were not responded to. In September the Respondent went back to Bahrain. He said that he planned to stay there a maximum of three weeks, but instead remained until June 2008. He told the Legal Services Commissioner that:

"During the early stages of that period I attempted to contact Australia and organise another solicitor to manage the file of Ms Elzamtar, but was unsuccessful."

11 He said:

"I communicated my predicament to Mr Hendricks by way of e-mail and attempted to have another solicitor I knew the handle the matter but was unsuccessful and soon, in December 2007, even my access to e-mail was severely restricted. It is for these reasons that I failed to communicate with the client or failed to appear for her in January 2008."

12 He said to the Legal Services Commissioner "At no time did I wilfully ignore Ms Elzamtar or willingly failed [sic] to communicate with her."

13 The client's complaint alleged that the Solicitor told her she would not be required to attend the first court date and her presence would only be necessary if the Defendant decided to proceed to a hearing, whereupon a second date would be set for that hearing. She said two months passed and she had not heard from him. She attempted to contact him from time to time by telephone but each time the telephone calls went "straight to message bank". She said she went to his home to see if he was at his office. His wife answered the door and said that the Respondent was out of the country but would be back in two weeks. The client returned two weeks later but the property was vacant.

14 The client complained that the Respondent failed to inform her that he was not going to be available to represent her in Court or that he was going to Bahrain.

15 The client complained that on 18 January 2008 when there was no appearance by her or on her behalf, her proceedings were dismissed and she was ordered to pay costs of the GIO.

16 The client said she had engaged another solicitor but all of her papers were held by the Respondent and she could not find him. She said she had to contact the GIO for copies of documents and it was then that she was advised that her case had been dismissed and she was ordered to pay the Court costs and the costs of GIO.

17 The Legal Services Commissioner's requests of 24 May 2010 and 28 September 2010 was for the Respondent to inform the Legal Services Commissioner who Mr Hendricks was and what he expected Mr Hendricks to achieve. The Notice under Section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 served on 26 November 2010 required the Respondent to answer those questions, to provide contact details for Mr Hendricks, and to provide "a copy of your file register as at September 2007". The Notice required that information to be provided by 5pm on 17 December 2010. The Respondent provided that information on the morning on 17 December 2010.

18 The letter of 10 January 2011 requested, among other things, that the Respondent provide the Legal Services Commissioner with the name and contact details of the Solicitor he alleged he had attempted to have handle the matter, provide details of his contact with Mr Hendricks including the form and date of the communication and copies of any documents evidencing that communication, and also requested production of the original file for the work for Ms Elzamtar. The letter requested that that information and documents be provided no later than 4 February 2011. The Respondent did not reply at all.

19 By letter of 1 March 2011 the Legal Services Commissioner drew the attention of the Respondent to the fact that the Solicitors for the GIO e-mailed him "on a number of occasions, including 19 November (x 3), 23 November and 6 December 2007", and he responded 6 December 2007 and asked that Hicksons contact Richard Mitry, solicitor, in his absence". They also drew his attention to the fact that by e-mail 17 December, Mr Mitry advised Mr Hendricks of Hicksons that he did not act for Mr [sic] Elzamtar in this matter and that Mr Hendricks subsequently e-mailed the Respondent on 21 December 2007.

20 The letter then asked that the Respondent advise the Legal Services Commissioner as to the relationship he had with Mr Mitry at material times and of the basis on which he advised Mr Hendricks to contact Mr Mitry. It also stated:

"In this contexts I note in your letter to this Office dated 17 December 2010 that you state, 'I managed to give the file for Habibeh to Mr Richard Mitry, solicitor and could not dispose of the file for Ms Elzamtar'."

21 Again in the letter if 1 March the Legal Services Commissioner requested that the Respondent provide his original file in the matter of Elzamtar as requested in his letter of 10 January 2011. Responses to the letter of 1 March 2011 were requested by no later than 18 March 2011. The letter also foreshadowed that if he did not respond by then, the Legal Services Commissioner would again immediately issue a Section 660 Notice. The Respondent did not reply to the letter of 1 March.

22 Accordingly, on 3 April 2011 the Respondent was served with a further Notice under Section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 requiring him to provide by no later than 5pm on 29 April 2011 responses to the following questions:

"1. Please describe the professional relationship you had with Mr Mitry in late December 2007.

2. Please detail the basis on which you advised Mr Hendricks of Hicksons Lawyers to contact Mr Mitry.

3. Please provide your original file in the matter of Elzamtar."

23 The Respondent did not reply to the Section 660 Notice.

24 At the time of the hearing the Respondent had still not replied to the Notice. So far as we are aware he has not replied since the hearing, despite having assured us at the hearing "I can answer the letter today.".

SECTION 660 OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2004

25 Section 660 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 says:

Requirements in relation to complaint investigations

(1) For the purpose of carrying out a complaint investigation in relation to an Australian lawyer, an investigator may, by notice served on the lawyer, require the lawyer to do any one or more of the following:

(a) to produce, at a specified time and place, any specified document (or a copy of the document),

(b) to provide written information on or before a specified date (verified by statutory declaration if the requirement so states),

(c) to otherwise assist in, or co-operate with, the investigation of the complaint in a specified manner.

(2) For the purpose of carrying out a complaint investigation in relation to an Australian lawyer, the investigator may, on production of evidence of his or her appointment, require any associate or former associate of a law practice of which the lawyer is or was an associate or any other person (including, for example, an ADI, auditor or liquidator but not including the lawyer) who has or has had control of documents relating to the affairs of the lawyer to give the investigator either or both of the following:

(a) access to the documents relating to the affairs of the lawyer the investigator reasonably requires,

(b) information relating to the affairs of the lawyer the investigator reasonably requires (verified by statutory declaration if the requirement so states).

(3) A person who is subject to a requirement under subsection (1) or (2) must comply with the requirement.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(4) A requirement imposed on a person under this section is to be notified in writing to the person and is to specify a reasonable time for compliance.

(5) A person who is subject to a requirement under subsection (1) or (2) is not entitled to charge the investigator for doing anything in compliance with the requirement.

26 Section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 NSW states that a penalty unit is $110. Accordingly the maximum fine for failure to comply with a section 660 notice is $5,500.00.

Subection 671(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 provides that the failure of an Australian legal practitioner to comply with any requirements of a section 660 Notice by an investigator is professional misconduct.

27 The Notice service on the respondent of 3 April 2011 was signed by the Legal Services Commissioner personally. Section 658 of the Act says that in Chapter 6 (Provisions relating to investigations) an "investigator" includes "an investigator or independent investigator under Chapter 4 (Complaints and discipline). Subsection 526(1) of Chapter 4 provides: "The Commissioner may conduct an investigation into a complaint instead of referring it to a Council for investigation, or may take over the investigation of a complaint from a Council, if the Commissioner considers it appropriate." Accordingly, the Commissioner was, for purposes of the Section 660 Notice, an investigator.

THE RESPONDENT'S CASE

28 In his oral evidence the Respondent alleged (for the first time) that when he came back from Bahrain after his first visit in 2007:

"When I came back I had no practice. All my files had gone."

29 He also said that in February 2011 when he found suitable premises he moved there, but did not notify the Law Society until May 2011. He said it was not until after June 2011 that the Law Society changed his address on the web site. He said:

"During that period I am supposed to have received the Notice."

And,

" I can honestly say that for the life of me I don't remember it - I can't say I didn't."

30 But the Notice was served on him personally on 3 April 2011 at 50 Whelan Avenue, Chipping Norton, NSW, 2170. So the Tribunal does not accept his evidence that he does not recall receiving the Notice.

31 The Respondent also said in his evidence:

"I had no reason not to provide the information - it is basic information. I had no reason not to comply."

32 But the Respondent's claimed that he no longer had a file for Ms Elzamtar, was not raised till the hearing. He did not offer that excuse in response to the Legal Services Commissioner requests in the letter of 10 January 2011 to his Post Office Box at Moorebank, and the letter 1 March 2011 to the same address, and the Section 660 Notice of 3 April 2011, which was served on him personally. Nor did he offer any such explanation in response to the letter of 20 May 2011 pointing out that in the absence of a reasonable excuse, his conduct in failing to comply with the Notice was, pursuant to Section 671 of the Act, professional misconduct, and asking him to provide any explanation he had for that conduct.

33 Nor did the Respondent file any Reply offering any reasonable excuse. He did not file any Reply alleging that all his files had gone when he returned from his first trip to Bahrain. We do not believe the evidence of the respondent that "All my files had gone."

34 When the Respondent was asked at the hearing: "Do you say you did not receive the letter of 20 May?" he avoided the question. He said, "I didn't see" the letter of 1 March 2011, and then said:

"They were all sent to my home address. I didn't see them. By then I was practising in Liverpool."

35 He was residing at his home address at the time. He said he could not give any explanation of why the letters were not given to him. But it is noted that the letters of 10 January 2011 and 1 March 2011 were not sent to his home address but to the Post Office Box at Moorebank, which presumably was a business postal address. In addition, the Section 660 Notice was served on him personally on 3 April 2011.

36 In October 2011 the Respondent was directed by the Tribunal to file and serve a Reply and Affidavit. He did not do so. In oral evidence he claimed that he could not do so because:

"I had another event - a "Show Cause" - by the Law Society - or be suspended. Also I couldn't attend in November because of illness".

37 He said the Law Society gave him a Notice to comply by 4 November and if he did not comply he would be suspended. He said:

"I couldn't afford legal advice. My assessment was, 'I'm not going to fight this'."

38 He said:

"I thought it was better to come and plead guilty."

39 He said:

"My evidence is only in mitigation; not in denial."

40 He conceded that he had no "reasonable excuse". Later, he retreated from some of his earlier evidence but he said that, "I can't say I didn't receive the letters from the Legal Services Commissioner". But then he denied reading the letters subsequent to 3 April 2011.

41 In response to further questions from the panel, he said, "I can answer the Notice today".

GROUND ESTABLISHED

42 We find that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of the Notice under Section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and that conduct constitutes professional misconduct.

UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

43 Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 provide:

496 Unsatisfactory professional conduct

For the purposes of this Act:

"unsatisfactory professional conduct" includes conduct of an Australian legal practitioner occurring in connection with the practice of law that falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner.

497 Professional misconduct

(1) For the purposes of this Act:

"professional misconduct" includes:

(a) unsatisfactory professional conduct of an Australian legal practitioner, where the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence, and

(b) conduct of an Australian legal practitioner whether occurring in connection with the practice of law or occurring otherwise than in connection with the practice of law that would, if established, justify a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.

(2) For finding that an Australian legal practitioner is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice as mentioned in subsection (1), regard may be had to the matters that would be considered under section 25 or 42 if the practitioner were an applicant for admission to the legal profession under this Act or for the grant or renewal of a local practising certificate and any other relevant matters.

498 Conduct capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct

(1) Without limiting section 496 or 497, the following conduct is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct:

(a) conduct consisting of a contravention of this Act, the regulations or the legal profession rules,

..............................................................................

(2) Conduct of a person consisting of a contravention referred to in subsection (1) (a) is capable of being unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct whether or not the person is convicted of an offence in relation to the contravention.

CONCLUSIONS

44 Usually where a practitioner has failed to comply with a Notice under section 660 (or its predecessor, section 152 of the Legal Profession Act 1987), the sanctions applied by the Tribunal comprise a reprimand, a fine and sometimes an order suspending the practitioner's practising certificate until he complies with the notice OR an order that he comply within a specified period, in default of which his practising certificate is cancelled. (for example see Council of the Law Society of NSW v Tsalidis (no.2) [2010] NSW ADT 297; Council of the Law Society of NSW V Sheehan (no. 2) [2010] NSW ADT 135; Council of the Law Society of NSW v Treanor [2009] NSW ADT 115; Law Society of NSW v Fernie [2006] NSW ADT 123; and Law Society of NSW v Nazarian [2002] NSW ADT 229.)

45 But in some situations more serious sanctions should be invoked. For example in Legal Services Commissioner v McCarthy [2010] NSW ADT 269, the Tribunal imposed a fine of $10,000 and required the practitioner to submit to supervision of his practice for a period of 2 years, to be implemented by him providing the Legal Services Commissioner copies of any written complaints received from clients and reporting monthly to the commissioner about his practice and any complaints.

46 We find though that the conduct of the Respondent is of much more serious concern than the conduct of the practitioner in that decision.

47 In this matter we have considered whether the Respondent is a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice. In that regard we have had regard to his past professional conduct.

48 The Respondent was admitted as a solicitor on 16 July 1999. On 13 March 2004 the Professional Conduct Committee of the Law Society of NSW found there was a reasonable likelihood that he would be found guilty by the Tribunal of unsatisfactory professional conduct namely breach of an undertaking and failure to communicate and reprimanded him.

49 The Respondent informed us in his submissions, after Mr Matalani had introduced evidence of past disciplinary action, that in 2004 he and an accountant were the directors of his practice company. He alleged the accountant opened a trust account for the practice without his knowledge, and without him being a signatory. He further alleged that the accountant did not keep proper records for the trust account and when an investigation occurred, he was required for 2 years to practice only as an employed solicitor.

50 The records produced show that 29 July 2004 the Law Society cancelled his practising certificate for 6 months for breach of section 62 of the Legal Profession Act 1987, which required a solicitor to keep proper records of trust money. We do not accept that he was not aware that there was a trust account with trust money in it. Subsection 62(4) provided that a wilful contravention of the section constituted professional misconduct. In the absence of the Respondent providing evidence to the contrary, we conclude that his conduct on that occasion was professional misconduct.

51 When the Law Society issued him with another practising certificate in January 2004, it was conditional upon him working only as an employed solicitor for 2 years. That expired in January 2007.

52 As we found in the Law Society proceedings against him heard with these proceedings, in 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 the Respondent failed to comply with the condition of his practising certificate to undertake Mandatory Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE").

53 In June 2007 the Respondent undertook in writing to the Law Society that he would complete the MCLE he had failed to attend in the previous year within 90 days. He breached that undertaking.

54 In June 2008 he gave a similar undertaking in respect of MCLE he had failed to complete 2007/2008. He breached that undertaking.

55 Each of the matters in paras 52-54 was found by us to constitute professional misconduct.

56 It was not until March 2010, after the Law Society had resolved to take further disciplinary proceedings against him, that the Respondent, who by then had been a solicitor for more than 10.5 years, complied with the MCLE requirements for the first year since 2005/2006.

57 The tribunal also found the Respondent guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in not replying to letters of 3 August 2007 and 29 October 2008 from the Law Society of NSW.

58 We find that the Respondent's behaviour since 2004 demonstrates a substantial and consistent failure to reach and maintain a reasonable standard of diligence and a reasonable standard of competence. The Respondent's lack of commitment to diligence and integrity and his lack of commitment to continuing legal education, and through it competence, in our view render him unfit to engage in legal practice.

59 We could have no confidence that a reprimand and substantial fine would result in the Respondent achieving and maintaining competence and diligence. We would expect he would continue to conduct himself the way he has since 2004.

60 The public are entitled to expect a solicitor to have greater competence and diligence than the Respondent, given his attitudes, is likely to provide. The profession's reputation needs to be protected from conduct of the Respondent that demonstrates his lack of competence and diligence.

61 We have concluded that the proper result is for the Respondent's name to be removed from the roll.

COSTS

62 Subsection 566(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 provides:

(1) The Tribunal must make orders requiring an Australian legal practitioner whom it has found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct to pay costs (including costs of the Commissioner, a Council and the complainant), unless the Tribunal is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

63 The evidence does not disclose any "exceptional circumstances", and accordingly, the Respondent should pay the costs of the Law Society.

ORDERS

64 The orders are:

1) The Respondent Solicitor is found guilty of professional misconduct and his name must be removed from the roll of practitioners.

2) The Respondent must pay the costs of the Legal Services Commissioner, such costs to be as agreed or as assessed by a costs assessor.

**********

Addendum :

This decision had been prepared by Tribunal members to be published in conjunction with the decision in Council of the Law Society of NSW v Sandroussi [2012] NSWADT 40. Due to an oversight in the Registry this did not occur at that time.

Amendments

14 February 2013 - Typographical error, should be 13 February 2013
Amended paragraphs: Coversheet

27 February 2013 - paragraph 7 to read OLSC paragraph 55 to read 52-54

Decision last updated: 14 February 2013