JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT : CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ACT 2004 (WA)

CITATION : SOUTH COAST SCAFFOLDING AND RIGGING and HIRE ACCESS PTY LTD [2012] WASAT 5

MEMBER : MS L WARD (MEMBER)

HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS – FINAL SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 8 DECEMBER 2011

DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S : CC 1041 of 2011

BETWEEN : SOUTH COAST SCAFFOLDING AND RIGGING

Applicant

AND

HIRE ACCESS PTY LTD

Respondent

 

Catchwords:

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Whether application for adjudication was made in time - When payment dispute arose - Whether contract included a time for payment clause - Whether payment claims were rejected

 

Legislation:

Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004 (NT)

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 6(a), s 17, s 18, s 26, s 26(1), s 31(2)(a), s 46(1), Sch 1 Div 5 cl 7, cl 7(3)

 

Result:

Application for review granted

Decision under review set aside and remitted to adjudicator to be decided in

accordance with Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)

 

Category: B

 

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr L Pantotidis

Respondent : Mr B Nugawela

 

Solicitors:

Applicant : Tottle Partners

Respondent : Tan & Tan Lawyers

 

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ampezzo Pty Ltd And Franken [2009] WASAT 109

Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

 

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL :

 

Summary of Tribunal's decision

 

1 The applicant applied under s 46(1) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) to review the adjudicator's decision to dismiss the application for adjudication as being out of time, without making a determination of its merits.

 

2 The application for adjudication was in relation to the failure of Hire Access Pty Ltd to pay the payment claims made in invoices 10-24 inclusive for the total amount of $120,238.27. South Coast Scaffolding and Rigging submitted that the payment claims were due for payment by 30 May 2011. The adjudicator implied all of Sch 1 Div 5 cl 7 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) and decided that the due date for payment was 12 May 2011. Therefore, the last date for service of the adjudication application was 9 June 2011. The application for adjudication was lodged by South Coast Scaffolding and Rigging on 20 June 2011 and was therefore out of time, according to the adjudicator.

 

3 The Tribunal noted, as did the adjudicator, that the contract between the parties did not include a provision about when and how a party was to respond to a claim for payment. Therefore, s 17 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 operated to imply the provisions in Sch 1 Div 5 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004.

 

4 However, in accordance with Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133 at [50], in this case, the provisions in Sch 1 Div 5 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 are implied, with the exception of the 'time phrase' in cl 7(3) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004. The 'time phrase' refers to the introductory words, '[w]ithin 28 days after a party receives a payment claim', in cl (3) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 . As set out in Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133 at [50], it is only if s 18 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 applies that there must be payment within 28 days of claim in accordance with cl 7(3) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 .

 

5 In this case, s 18 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 did not apply, because cl 15 in the contract provided a time by when a payment must be made.

 

6 Further, the Tribunal found that the payment claims made in invoices 10-24 inclusive had not been rejected or disputed by Hire Access Pty Ltd. No written notice of dispute as required by cl 7(2) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 was provided by Hire Access Pty Ltd. Nor was there any evidence before the Tribunal of any oral dispute or rejection of invoices 10-14 inclusive: Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133 at [58] and [59].

 

7 Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the payment claims made on 14 April 2011 were due for payment by 30 May 2011. No payment was made by that date and the payment dispute arose on 31 May 2011. As the application for adjudication was lodged on 20 June 2011, it was within the 28 days required by s 26 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 .

 

8 The Tribunal held that the decision of the adjudicator, to the effect that the application for adjudication was out of time, was incorrect.

 

9 The application for review of the adjudicator's dismissal of the application is granted. The adjudicator's decision is set aside and it is remitted to be decided in accordance with the Construction Contracts Act 2004 .

 

Introduction

 

10 This is an application for review under s 46(1) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CC Act) of an adjudication decision.

 

11 The adjudication related to a payment dispute concerning invoices 10-24 inclusive (payment claims) and to the termination of that contract by Hire Access Pty Ltd (Hire Access). The payment claims were made under a contract for the provision of labour for internal scaffolding at Perth Arena and are the only aspect of the adjudication which is subject to review by this Tribunal.

 

12 The adjudication application was dismissed, without a determination being made on its merits, as the adjudicator decided that, insofar as it related to invoices 10-24 inclusive, it was made out of time.

 

13 The issue for determination by the Tribunal is when the payment dispute arose and, in particular:

 

14 The scaffolding labour was the subject of two contracts which, for the purposes of the application before this Tribunal, are in identical terms and differ only in relation to the location of the scaffolding within the Perth Arena building site. The contracts are therefore referred to in the singular below.

 

15 Background facts

 

16 The contracting parties are Michael Ebbott T/A South Coast Scaffolding and Rigging (South Coast) and Hire Access. South Coast was contracted to erect scaffolding supplied by Hire Access at Perth Arena between about July 2009 and 8 April 2011.

 

17 Clause 15 (cl 15) in the construction contract is relevant and it states as follows:

 

The sub-contractor shall invoice for Services 30 working days prior to the due date for payment. The payment date being [the thirtieth day] of each month. Any Invoices which are not received by the due [date] will not be processed until the following pay period. Payment of invoices shall be paid either by cheque or bank transfer to the account listed on appendix A

 

…

 

18 In a letter to South Coast dated 10 April 2011, Hire Access claimed to have terminated the contract as at 8 April 2011. The letter stated, in part, that:

 

Until we have undertaken a full assessment of all scaffold works … your labour invoices will be held back from payment.

 

19 South Coast then issued 15 payment claims, all dated 14 April 2011, being invoices 10-24 inclusive, for the total amount of $120,238.27 for work performed under the construction contract between 14 March 2011 and 8 April 2011 (referred to below as the payment claims).

 

20 South Coast claims that invoices 10-24 inclusive were due for payment by Hire Access under cl 15 by 30 May 2011. Hire Access did not pay invoices 10-24 inclusive by 30 May 2011. South Coast made the application for adjudication on 20 June 2011.

 

The decision under review: adjudication 51-11-03

 

21 The adjudication under review is dated 18 July 2011 and is adjudication 51-11-03. In the adjudication under review, the adjudicator also refers to her earlier adjudication 51-11-02, which related to earlier payment claims, and also to invoices 10-24 inclusive.

 

22 In adjudication 51-11-03, the adjudicator was satisfied that s 31(2)(a)(i), s 31(2)(a)(iii) and s 31(2)(a)(iv) of the CC Act were all met. The adjudicator was also satisfied that invoices 10-24 inclusive were payment claims as defined in s 3 of the CC Act.

 

23 However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that s 31(2)(a)(ii) of the CC Act was met because, in her view, the application for adjudication was served by South Coast on Hire Access out of time.

 

24 The adjudicator referred to her earlier adjudication 51-11-02 and implied the provisions of cl 7 of Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act, as she found that the construction contract did not make provision for how and when Hire Access was to respond to claims for payment, other than by way of payment. Therefore, s 17 of the CC Act applied and the provisions in Div 5 of Sch 1 to the CC Act were implied. The adjudicator stated that she relied on the reasoning in Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133 ( Blackadder ).

 

25 The adjudicator found that the latest date for payment of invoices 10-24 inclusive was 12 May 2011 (being 28 days after 14 April 2011). Therefore, she found that the latest date for service of the application for adjudication was 9 June 2011: see s 26 of the CC Act.

 

26 As South Coast served the application for adjudication on 20 June 2011, it was out of time. The adjudicator therefore dismissed the application as she was not satisfied that s 31(2)(a)(ii) of the CC Act was met.

 

Proceedings in the Tribunal

 

27 South Coast sought a review of the adjudication regarding the payment dispute only and not the termination of the contract.

 

28 Both parties agreed that the matter ought to be determined by the Tribunal on the papers. The papers before the Tribunal are identical to those provided to the adjudicator, with the addition of written submissions from both parties. The last written submission was received by the Tribunal on 8 December 2011.

 

South Coast's submissions

 

29 South Coast submits that, in accordance with Blackadder at [50] - [51], the adjudicator was incorrect to import the terms under cl 7(3) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act. This was because the construction contract already had a written provision about when a payment must be made.

 

30 South Coast submits that cl 15 provided that the time for payment was 30 May 2011 and that the payment dispute therefore arose on 31 May 2011, giving it until 28 June 2011 to lodge the application for adjudication. As the application for adjudication was made on 20 June 2011, South Coast submits that it was within time and that the adjudicator should have considered it on its merits.

 

31 Further, South Coast submits that Hire Access did not dispute or reject any of the payment claims made in invoices 10-24 inclusive. South Coast claims that any notice of dispute had to occur between 14 April 2011 (when the invoices were raised) and 22 May 2011 (being 28 days before the adjudication application was lodged).

 

32 South Coast submits that a claim cannot be disputed before it has been made and that therefore any communication before 14 April 2011 cannot be in dispute of invoices 10-24 inclusive. Further, a claim cannot be disputed where, although the invoices have issued, they have not been seen and assessed by the principal. For example, see the email from the State Manager of Hire Access to South Coast dated 21 April 2011 (marked 'Hire 6 by Hire Access') where the State Manager states that he had not seen the final claim although he was informed that it had been provided to Perth headquarters.

 

Hire Access' submissions

 

33 In relation to invoices 10-24 inclusive, Hire Access submits that a progress payment cannot be claimed prior to 'due' performance. In this case, Hire Access submits that, as South Coast has not duly performed the work under the construction contract, there is no entitlement to issue the payment claims.

 

34 In the alternative, Hire Access contends that if a payment claim has been made, then it has been disputed as set out in the letter dated 10 April 2009 from Hire Access to South Coast, and other correspondence, including the email from the State Manager of Hire Access to South Coast dated 21 April 2011. Hire Access submits that the application for adjudication was therefore out of time because the payment dispute arose more than 28 days before 20 June 2011.

 

The relevant statutory provisions

 

35 The CC Act requires an adjudicator to dismiss an application without making a determination of the merits on a number of stated grounds, which include the application not having been served in accordance with s 26 of the CC Act.

 

36 Section 26(1) of the CC Act relevantly provides that to apply for an adjudication application, the party must apply within 28 days after a payment dispute arises.

37 Section 6 of the CC Act provides, that a payment dispute arises, as follows:

 

For the purposes of this Act, a payment dispute arises if -

 

(a) by the time when the amount claimed in a payment claim is due to be paid under the contract, the amount has not been paid in full, or the claim has been rejected or wholly or partly disputed;…

 

38 Section 3 of the CC Act defines 'payment claim' as follows:

 

payment claim means a claim made under a construction contract -

 

(a) by the contractor to the principal for payment of an amount in relation to the performance by the contractor of its obligations under the contract; or

(b) by the principal to the contractor for payment of an amount in relation to the performance or non-performance by the contractor of its obligations under the contract;

 

39 Sections 17 and 18 of the CC Act set out when terms will be implied into a construction contract as follows:

 

17. Responding to claims for payment

 

The provisions in Schedule 1 Division 5 about when and how a party is to respond to a claim for payment made by another party are implied in a construction contract that does not have a written provision about that matter.

 

18. Time for payment

 

The provisions in Schedule 1 Division 5 about the time by when a payment must be made are implied in a construction contract that does not have a written provision about that matter.

 

40 Clauses 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act follows:

 

7. Responding to a payment claim

 

(1) If a party that receives a payment claim -

(a) believes the claim should be rejected because the claim has not been made in accordance with this contract; or

(b) disputes the whole or part of the claim, the party must, within 14 days after receiving the claim, give the claimant a notice of dispute.

(2) A notice of dispute must -

(a) be in writing;

(b) be addressed to the claimant;

(c) state the name of the party giving the notice;

(d) state the date of the notice;

(e) identify the claim to which the notice relates;

(f) if the claim is being rejected under subclause (1)(a) - state the reasons for the belief that the claim has not been made in accordance with this contract;

(g) if the claim is being disputed under subclause (1)(b) - identify each item of the claim that is disputed and state, in relation to each of those items, the reasons for disputing it; and (h) be signed by the party giving the notice.

(3) Within 28 days after a party receives a payment claim, the party must do one of the following, unless the claim has been rejected or wholly disputed in accordance with subclause (1) -

(a) pay the part of the amount of the claim that is not disputed;

(b) pay the whole of the amount of the claim.

…

Consideration

 

41 The Tribunal must decide if the adjudication application was lodged within 28 days after the dispute arose as required by s 26(1) of the CC Act. This finding will depend on when the payment dispute arose.

 

42 In Blackadder at [36] - [37], the Tribunal decided that, under s 6(a) of the CC Act, a payment dispute can be triggered in two situations, namely:

 

 

Payment claim

 

43 By way of a preliminary issue, the Tribunal will deal firstly with Hire Access' contention that South Coast was not entitled to issue invoices 10-24 inclusive. The Tribunal notes that the adjudicator was satisfied that invoices 10-24 inclusive were payment claims as defined in s 3 of the CC Act. A payment claim means, in effect, that a particular amount is claimed for particular work under the construction contract. The predominant feature of a payment claim is the claim by the contractor that it has performed particular work.

 

44 In this matter, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it, that invoices 10-24 inclusive are payment claims, as they relate to payments in relation to the performance by South Coast of its obligations under the contract. In the Tribunal's view, Hire Access has raised general concerns about the quality of the work performed by South Coast and safety issues. However, it has not at any time disputed that the work was actually performed by South Coast under the construction contract. In the Tribunal's view, there is no basis for implying 'due' performance into the s 3 definition of 'payment claim'.

 

45 Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that invoices 10-14 inclusive are payment claims as defined in the CC Act.

 

Schedule 1 - implied provisions

 

46 Part 2 of Div 2 'Implied provisions' of the CC Act describe circumstances in which different provisions in Sch 1 of the CC Act are to be implied into construction contracts. The relevant provisions of Sch 1 are implied where the construction contract does not have a written provision about a particular matter.

 

47 The Tribunal notes that the construction contract under consideration in this matter contains no written provision about how to respond to a payment claim, other than by way of payment under cl 15 of the construction contract. Accordingly, s 17 of the CC Act applies.

 

48 The Tribunal is satisfied that the construction contract did contain a written provision about the time by when a payment must be made, namely, cl 15. Accordingly, s 18 of the CC Act does not apply in this case.

 

49 Blackadder dealt with the issues of when and how to respond to a payment claim and when s 17 and s 18 of the CC Act are to be implied. In Blackadder at [42], the Tribunal stated:

 

It is clear that it was Parliament's intention that the contract should itself stipulate both when a response to a payment claim is to be made, and how to respond, failing which the provisions in the schedule about 'that matter' will be implied. …

 

and at [50], the Tribunal stated:

 

Schedule 1 cl 7(3) of the CC Act provides that within 28 days of a party receiving a payment claim, it must, if appropriate, pay either the whole of the claim or that part that is not disputed. The only time element of that clause is the introductory words, '(w)ithin 28 days after a party receives a payment claim' (time phrase). This then begs the question as to the subject matter of the remainder of the clause. It must be said that we have had considerable difficulty in attempting to properly construe the scheme provided through s 17 and s 18 read with Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act. We have come to the conclusion that the only sensible answer is that the remainder of cl 7(3) and cl 7(4) of the CC Act constitute parts of the response to a payment claim, and therefore are 'about when and how to respond'. This is because s 17 and s 18 of the CC Act describe the provisions in Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act variously as provisions about when and how a party is to respond, or about the time when a payment is to be made. The entirety of the provisions in the schedule is therefore to be regarded is dealing with one or other of those subject matters. We think our conclusion in this regard is further strengthened when it is considered that cl 7(3) of the CC Act forms part of a self-contained code of conduct on the part of the party receiving the payment claim - see the reference in Sch 1 cl 7(3) to cl 7(1), and the reference in Sch 1 cl 7(4) to cl 7(3) – which is not conducive to easy severance, with the obvious exception of the time phrase. The result is that, in our view, if, as we have found, s 17 of the CC Act applies, everything within cl 7 with the exception of the time phrase must be implied into the contract. If s 18 applies, there must be payment within 28 days of claim in accordance with cl 7(3) of the CC Act. (Tribunal emphasis added)

 

50 As only s 17 of the CC Act applies, in accordance with Blackadder , everything within Sch 1 cl 7 of the CC Act, with the exception of the time phrase, must be implied into the construction contract. As stated in Blackadder at [50], the 'time phrase' is the introductory words of Sch 1 cl 7(3) of the CC Act. The Tribunal notes that its interpretation of Blackadder appears to differ to that of the adjudicator, as she implied all of Sch 1 cl 7 of the CC Act, including the time phrase.

 

When is the due date for payment of invoices 10-24?

 

51 Applying the above reasoning to the facts in this application, the Tribunal finds that, in accordance with cl 15 of the construction contract, as invoices 10-24 were issued on 14 April 2011, the due date for payment is 30 May 2011 (some 46 days later).

 

52 Accordingly, at the latest, a payment dispute will arise if the payment claim is not paid by 30 May 2011.

 

53 However, as set out above, a payment dispute may arise before 31 May 2011 if the payment claim is rejected or disputed between 14 April 2011 and 30 May 2011. This second issue is examined below.

 

Have the claims in invoices 10-24 inclusive been rejected or wholly or partly disputed by Hire Access?

 

54 As set out above, the payment claims were made on 14 April 2011. Sch 1 Div 5 cl 7(1) of the CC Act operates and requires that Hire Access, within 14 days after receiving the claim - that is, by 28 April 2011 - is to give South Coast a notice of dispute. Hire Access failed to give any notice of dispute which meets the requirements of Sch 1 Div 5 cl 7(2) of the CC Act. For example, in none of its correspondence between 14 April 2011 and 28 April 2011 (or at any time) did Hire Access identify the claim to which the notice of dispute relates or the basis of any rejection or dispute.

 

55 However, as decided in Blackadder at [58] and [59], the effect of a late or otherwise non-complying notice of dispute is that it will:

 

… nevertheless trigger the establishment of a payment dispute and thereby require an adjudication application to be served within 28 days of that event. The purposes of the CC Act are in no way advanced by requiring a claimant to sit back and ignore a manifest rejection of a claim until such time as the date for payment under the contract falls due. The entire scheme of the CC Act emphasises the urgency governing adjudication, all of which, consistent with the second reading speech, is designed to achieve timely payment of monies payable under construction contracts.

 

… The effect of the implied provisions is that the failure to give a written notice of dispute within the 14 day timeframe will result in an obligation to pay the claim in full. But that gives, in our view, no valid reason for ignoring an actual rejection or dispute of a claim in part. A claimant may well need to take some care to ensure that, for instance, an oral rejection or dispute is recorded in writing and communicated with an opportunity for clarification. But if there is a rejection or dispute, it is consistent with the scheme of the legislation that a claimant should be able to act upon it to ensure that timely payment is achieved.

 

56 For reasons of consistency, a member of the Tribunal should generally follow an earlier decision of the Tribunal which is on point, unless satisfied that the earlier decision was clearly in error: see Ampezzo Pty Ltd And Franken [2009] WASAT 109 at [42] and the cases cited therein by Senior Member Raymond. Relevant to the context of differently constituted Tribunals making decisions under the same legislative scheme, President Brennan J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as he then was, stated 'Inconsistency is not merely inelegant: it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.': see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639. In relation to the ability to communicate notices of dispute orally under the CC Act, the Tribunal does not consider the earlier decision in Blackadder to be clearly wrong. Therefore, the Tribunal follows Blackadder in that regard.

 

57 In relation to whether or not Hire Access has disputed the payment claims contained in invoices 10-24 inclusive, a review of the correspondence between the parties and provided by Hire Access to the adjudicator indicates to the Tribunal that only the following document could be construed as a dispute of rejection of the payment claims:

 

I am unable to provide you with further information as requested today. I received a phone call from Scott Williams on your behalf, advising that he would be putting your claim together and it would come to myself. I have still not seen this as discussed today.

 

You have informed me that you have provided to Perth HQ, this was only informed to me by yourself in our conversation today. I have requested the information regarding the final claim and will assess once received[. Y]ou have indicated a higher value then [sic] what I would have been happy with, and I will have to assess and clarify if supported. We will need to fix the scaffolding that is not to Australian standards and this will not be at a cost to Hire Access. The quality of work was your responsibility and we need to address these issues. We have also found other areas that were substandard[.] I will assess as quick[ly] as possible with the rest of the operational issue[s] also. Once these are all fully resolved and we are sure we are not at cost, then we can act against the Final Claims. Please[,] as previous[ly] spoken about and in this email[,] the cost of fixing and repairing the substandard scaffolding will be out of these %, and is why we need to address and assess before agreeing on the final % rate. Thanks[.]

 

58 The other documents emanating from Hire Access and which are before the Tribunal are either dated before 14 April 2011 or are not addressed to South Coast; rather, they have been sent to a third party, namely, BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. In the Tribunal's view, the scheme of the CC Act is such that a payment claim cannot be rejected before it has been made.

 

59 In relation to Hire 6, in the Tribunal's view, it does not dispute or reject invoices 10-24. This is because the author of the email is yet to see the payment claims, as he states that he had not seen the final claim, although he was informed that it had been provided to Perth headquarters. Blackadder and cl 7(2) of Sch 1 Div 5 of the CC Act both make it clear that any rejection or dispute must be unequivocal and identify with some specificity the reasons for the dispute and the claim to which the notice of dispute relates. While it could be argued that Hire Access had general issues relating to the standard of the work done by South Coast and some safety issues, these fall a long way short of a rejection or dispute in relation to some or all the claims made in invoices 10-24 inclusive under the CC Act.

 

60 Further, there is no evidence before the adjudicator of any claimed oral 'notice of dispute', as was permitted in Blackadder.

 

61 In the Tribunal's view, having considered all of the material before it, there has been no notice of dispute given by Hire Access to South Coast, either in writing or orally, before the due date for payment. Accordingly, the payment dispute did not arise at any time before 31 May 2011 as the payment claims have not been rejected or disputed.

 

62 Therefore, the payment dispute arose on 31 May 2011. South Coast had to apply for adjudication within 28 days after the dispute arose, which is by 28 June 2011. As the application was lodged on 20 June 2011, it was within time.

 

Conclusion and orders

 

63 For the above reasons, The Tribunal concludes that the adjudicator's decision dismissing the application on the basis that the adjudication application was served out of time must be set aside.

 

64 The Tribunal will accordingly issue an order as follows:

 

1. The application for review is granted.

2. The decision under review (adjudication 51-11-03) is set aside and remitted to the adjudicator to be decided in accordance with the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA).

 

I certify that this and the preceding [64] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MS L WARD, MEMBER