10 November 1995
AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES APPROVED UNDER THE EPIP ACT
On 5 May 1995, amendments to the Administrative Procedures
approved under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals)
Act 1974 ('the EPIP Act') came into force. These amendments
represent the Commonwealth's response to the decision of
the Federal Court in Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc v
The Minister for Resources and Anor (1995) 127 ALR 580
('Gunns case'). In the light of these amendments, the Minister
has discontinued his appeal against the decision in Gunns
This briefing provides a short summary of the decision
in Gunns case. The decision was discussed in more detail
in Legal Practice Briefing No. 16 which was published
on 23 February 1995. However, it is critically important
to note that as a result of the amendments to the Administrative
Procedures many of the issues discussed in Legal Practice
Briefing No. 16 are no longer relevant to the operation
of the EPIP Act. Accordingly, Legal Practice Briefing No.
16 must be read subject to this briefing.
This briefing provides a detailed analysis of the amendments
to the Administrative Procedures and summarises the operation
of the EPIP Act in light of these amendments.
It is not possible to identify in this briefing all of
the relevant issues or to set out procedures that will
ensure compliance with the EPIP Act in all cases. As there
are serious consequences for the Commonwealth and private
parties if Commonwealth actions and decisions are vulnerable
to challenge, officers should seek further legal advice
in relation to any specific issues that arise.
The object of the EPIP Act is to ensure, to the greatest
extent practicable, that matters affecting the environment
to a significant extent are fully examined and are taken
into account in relation to Commonwealth actions and decisions:
subsection 5(1). It is the Administrative Procedures approved
under the EPIP Act which detail the environmental assessment
process applying to Commonwealth actions and decisions.
In Gunns case, the Federal Court set aside a decision
of the Minister for Resources to grant a licence to export
woodchips because the Minister failed to comply with the
requirements of the Administrative Procedures approved
under the EPIP Act.
At the time the Minister for Resources granted the licence,
paragraph 1.2.1 of the Administrative Procedures required
that, as soon as possible after 'any initiative' had been
taken in relation to a 'proposed action', the Minister
responsible for the action, or a person on behalf of that
Minister, was to inform the Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories ('DEST') (in practice, the Environment
Protection Agency ('the EPA') in DEST) of the proposed
action and designate a proponent. A 'proposed action' was,
essentially, an action that was likely to affect the environment
to a significant extent.
Accordingly, prior to the amendments, the Administrative
Procedures required Commonwealth decision-makers to address
two issues before making a decision or taking action:
- whether the relevant action would be likely to have
a significant effect on the environment; and
- whether an 'initiative' would be taken in relation
to the proposed action.
In Gunns case, the Minister for Resources decided not
to refer the proposed grant of the woodchip licence to
the EPA and not to designate a proponent. Sackville J held
that the Minister made an error of law in determining that
there was no occasion to designate a proponent. The error
arose because, the Court held, the Minister applied the
wrong test. He did not consider whether the proposed
action affected or would affect the environment to a significant
extent. Rather, he addressed the question whether the
environmental impact of the proposed action was substantially
different from that of proposals previously assessed. Accordingly,
the Minister for Resources failed to comply with the EPIP
Act because he failed to consider whether the woodchip
operations were likely to affect the environment to a significant
It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that it was
not necessary to consider whether there was likely to be
a significant effect on the environment because no 'initiative'
had been taken. It was argued that the grant of the woodchip
licence in 1994 was not an 'initiative' because it was
simply repetitive of earlier actions contemplated in an
environmental impact assessment conducted in 1985. However,
Sackville J rejected this argument. Sackville J concluded
that the consideration by the Minister of the application
for an export licence in 1994 constituted an initiative.
Implications of Gunns Case
Gunns case confirmed that, before taking action or making
a decision, Commonwealth decision-makers were required
to specifically consider whether a contemplated action
was likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
A decision might be set aside if there was a failure to
specifically address this issue or, if the action was environmentally
significant, there was a failure to refer the matter to
the EPA and observe the relevant assessment procedures.
Although this aspect of the decision graphically highlights
the potential significance of the EPIP Act, it is consistent
with the previous understanding of the Act and is relatively
However, Gunns case had major implications for ongoing
Commonwealth decisions and actions in relation to projects
for which a proponent had been previously designated under
the EPIP Act for example, Commonwealth export approvals
in relation to a mine operating within the scope of an
earlier assessment. Gunns case demonstrated that, even
if a project had previously been assessed under the EPIP
Act, it was still necessary to designate a proponent in
respect of each Commonwealth action proposed to be taken
in relation to that project unless the Commonwealth
action did not constitute an 'initiative'.
The concept of an 'initiative' thus became critically
important. However, Sackville J gave only limited guidance
on what constituted an 'initiative', although he suggested
the concept would be construed widely. On this basis, there
was significant uncertainty as to whether, in relation
to a project that had been previously assessed under the
EPIP Act, it was necessary to continue to designate a proponent
each time the Commonwealth took action. For example, Gunns
case suggested it was likely that, at least in some cases,
a proponent would need to be designated before the Commonwealth
granted an export approval in relation to a mining operation,
even when the mine was generally operating within the scope
of a previous assessment. This aspect of the decision created
significant uncertainty about the operation of the EPIP
Act and, to an extent, represented a departure from the
previous understanding of the Act's operation.
The decision in Gunns case also identified another area
of uncertainty. The Administrative Procedures required
Commonwealth decision-makers to examine the environmental
significance of a 'proposed action'. However, on the basis
of the reasoning in Gunns case, it was unclear whether
the 'proposed action' was the Commonwealth action (for
example, the grant of an export approval) or the relevant
private operations (for example, the mining operations).
As a result of the uncertainty identified in the decision
in Gunns case, it was decided to amend the Administrative
Procedures. These amendments came into effect on 5May 1995.
A motion to disallow the amendments was defeated in the
Senate on 27 June 1995. As indicated above, in the light
of the amendments, the Minister has discontinued his appeal
against the decision in Gunns case.
The Operation of the EPIP Act - the
Amended Administrative Prodedures
The two most significant features of the amendments to
the Administrative Procedures are:
- the deletion of the concept of an 'initiative' and
its effective replacement by an exception for Commonwealth
actions which are covered by an existing and adequate
- the insertion of a definition of an 'environmentally
The following paragraphs summarise the application of
the EPIP Act to Commonwealth actions and decisions in light
of the amendments to the Administrative Procedures. It
is noted that there may be some Commonwealth legislation
that does not allow environmental factors to be considered
in relation to particular decisions. The EPIP Act will
not apply to such decisions. Further advice should be sought
if this issue arises.
Step 1: Is there a Commonwealth action?
The Administrative Procedures apply to every action that
is a 'Commonwealth action'. A 'Commonwealth action' is
essentially defined to include an action of a kind referred
to in any of paragraphs 5(1)(a) to (e) of the EPIP Act
that is proposed to be taken by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth
or an authority of Australia, either alone or in association
with any other government, authority, body or person. The
actions referred to in paragraphs 5(1)(a)(e) are as follows:
(a) the formulation of proposals;
(b) the carrying out of works and other projects;
(c) the negotiation, operation and enforcement of agreements
and arrangements (including agreements and arrangements
with, and with authorities of, the States);
(d) the making of, or the participation in the making
of, decisions and recommendations; and
(e) the incurring of expenditure.
The definition of 'Commonwealth action' will include
action of a kind identified above which arises in relation
to direct financial assistance granted, or proposed to
be granted, to the States: subsection 5(2) of the EPIP
It is clear that a wide range of actions will attract
the operation of the Administrative Procedures including
the granting of export approvals, the funding of projects,
the conduct of defence activities and decisions on the
operation of airports.
Step 2: Is the proposed Commonwealth action an 'environmentally
significant action' or is it, for other reasons, desirable
to designate a proponent in order to achieve the object
of the EPIP Act?
Before the Commonwealth action is taken, the Minister
responsible for the action ('the action Minister'), or
a person acting on the Minister's behalf, is required to
consider whether the action that is proposed to be taken
is an action for which a proponent should be designated.
A similar obligation is imposed upon Commonwealth authorities.
(In this briefing, a reference to the action Minister includes
a reference to a person acting on behalf of the action
Minister or, where appropriate, the Commonwealth authority
responsible for the action.)
The Administrative Procedures require a proponent to
be designated in relation to a Commonwealth action if the
action Minister is satisfied that:
- the action is an environmentally significant action;
- for other reasons, it is desirable to designate a proponent
in order to achieve the object of the EPIP Act.
In effect, before a Commonwealth action is taken, the
action Minister is required to consider whether the action
is an 'environmentally significant action' or whether it
is, for other reasons, desirable to designate a proponent
in order to achieve the object of the EPIP Act.
Is the action an environmentally significant
An 'environmentally significant action' is defined as
' "environmentally significant action" means a Commonwealth
action that will, or is likely to:
(a) affect the environment to a significant extent,
or to result in such an effect; or
(b) have the effect of permitting or causing an action
by another person that:
(i) would otherwise be unlikely to occur; and
(ii) will, or is likely to, affect the environment
to a significant extent, or to result in such an effect;
(c) have the effect of promoting or facilitating an
action by another person that will, or is likely to,
affect the environment to a significant extent, or to
result in such an effect.'
In very general terms, the action Minister must consider
whether a Commonwealth action or any action permitted,
caused, promoted or facilitated by that Commonwealth action
is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
For example, it is clear that a Commonwealth decision
to grant a licence will be an environmentally significant
action if the activities to be carried out under that licence
are likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
Accordingly, in deciding whether the grant of an approval
to export coal is an environmentally significant action
it is necessary to consider the environmental effects of
the coal mining operations. Although the amendments make
this position clear, the Administrative Procedures have
always operated in this way the High Court essentially
recognised this position in 1976 in Murphyores Incorporated
Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1.
By way of further example, a decision to provide funds
to a project which is likely to have a significant effect
on the environment will be an environmentally significant
action, assuming the project would not otherwise proceed
or the Commonwealth decision may be characterised as 'promoting'
or 'facilitating' that project.
The decision as to whether a proposed Commonwealth action
is an 'environmentally significant action' will, like all
administrative decisions, be subject to judicial review.
Accordingly, it must be made after considering all relevant
factors and no irrelevant factors and must not be manifestly
The following paragraphs are intended to provide some
guidance on the criteria to be applied in deciding whether
a Commonwealth action is likely to be an 'environmentally
- 'Significant' in the context of the EPIP Act is used
in the sense of 'an important or notable effect on the
environment': Gunns case at 603 citing Drummoyne
Municipal Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New
South Wales (1989) 67 LGRA 155.
- 'Likely', in the context of New South Wales environmental
impact assessment legislation, has been defined as meaning
a 'real chance' or 'real possibility' and not 'more probably
than not': see Rundle v Tweed Shire Council (1989)
68 LGRA 308. The term 'likely' when used in the Administrative
Procedures should be given a similar meaning.
- It is necessary to 'look to the whole undertaking of
which the relevant activity forms a part to understand
the cumulative and continuing effect of the activity
on the environment': Gunns case at 603, citing Kivi
v Forestry Commission of New South Wales (1982) 47
LGRA 38. Clearly, the action Minister will be required
to consider indirect effects when deciding if a proposed
action is an 'environmentally significant action'.
- Both site-specific and cumulative and continuing effects
can be relevant for example, the effect of associated
infrastructure requirements must be considered when deciding
if the proposed establishment of a defence base or an
airport is an environmentally significant action: Gunns
case at 603 citing Jarasius v Forestry Commission
of New South Wales [No.1] (1988) 71 LGRA 79.
- Section 5A of the EPIP Act effectively provides that
a Commonwealth action will be an environmentally significant
action if the Commonwealth action or any action caused,
permitted, promoted or facilitated by that action could
threaten with extinction, or significantly impede the
recovery of, a native species that is listed as endangered,
vulnerable or presumed extinct, or an ecological community
that is listed as endangered, under the Endangered
Species Protection Act 1992. Information about species
and ecological communities that are listed under this
Act can be obtained from the Australian Nature Conservation
If a project has previously been subject to designation,
this suggests the project was considered previously to
be likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
If a decision is now taken not to designate a proponent
in respect of the same or a similar project, it would be
prudent to address the issue of why the project is now
considered not likely to have a significant effect on the
environment. (The Administrative Procedures provide for
an exception in limited circumstances if a proponent has
previously been designated: see Step 4 below.)
Any decision on what environmental impacts may be attributable
to the making of a decision and the extent of these impacts
will require careful evaluation of environmental issues
and evidence. In making this decision a Commonwealth decision-maker
is not required to consult the EPA however, non-consultation
may carry the risk of overlooking relevant factors and
so give grounds for legal challenge.
It is possible that a Commonwealth decision-maker will
believe that he or she has not been able to obtain sufficient
evidence to consider adequately whether a Commonwealth
action is an environmentally significant action, even after
consulting with relevant parties. If such circumstances
arise, further legal advice should be sought.
Is it, for other reasons, desirable
to designate a proponent in order to achieve the object of
the EPIP Act?
The action Minister is also required to consider whether
it is, for other reasons, desirable to designate a proponent
in order to achieve the object of the EPIP Act. The intention
of this provision is to provide the action Minister with
a broad discretion to designate a proponent and refer the
matter to the EPA even if he or she is not satisfied that
the Commonwealth action is an environmentally significant
In practice, the obligation to consider this issue will
not arise if a proponent is designated on the basis that
the action Minister is satisfied that the Commonwealth
action is an environmentally significant action.
Step 3: Referral to the EPA and designation of a proponent.
If satisfied that a Commonwealth action is an 'environmentally
significant action' or that, for other reasons, it is desirable
to designate a proponent in order to achieve the object
of the EPIP Act, the Commonwealth action must be referred
to the EPA and a proponent must be designated.
Once a proponent is designated, the Commonwealth action
becomes a 'proposed action' for the purposes of the Administrative
Step 4: The exception a proponent previously designated.
In some circumstances, a proponent need not be designated
even if the Commonwealth action is an environmentally significant
The exception, contained in paragraph 1.2.2 of the Administrative
Procedures, is potentially applicable to a Commonwealth
action ('the later Commonwealth action') in circumstances
where a related Commonwealth action ('the earlier Commonwealth
action') has already been referred to the EPA and a proponent
designated. As such, the exception will be most relevant
to ongoing projects or activities in respect of which regular
Commonwealth actions are taken for example, a mine in respect
of which regular export approvals are granted by a Commonwealth
Minister. This exception was specifically included in the
Administrative Procedures to overcome the uncertainty associated
with the 'initiative' concept.
The mere fact that a proponent has been designated previously
will not automatically attract the exception. It is necessary
to consider whether, as a result of the previous designation,
the environmental effects of the later Commonwealth action
have adequately been assessed. More specifically, the exception
will apply only if the action Minister considers:
- that the environmental effect of the later Commonwealth
action has been fully taken into account in giving effect
to the procedures in relation to the earlier Commonwealth
action (paragraph 1.2.2(a)); or
- that the environmental effect of the later Commonwealth
- is an extension of the environmental effect of
the earlier Commonwealth action; and
- is not of a nature significantly different from
that of the effect of the earlier Commonwealth
- does not significantly add to the effect of the
earlier Commonwealth action (paragraph 1.2.2(b)).
- is an extension of the environmental effect of
The application of the exception in paragraph 1.2.2 will
involve careful consideration of environmental issues and
evidence. The following paragraphs are intended to provide
only general guidance.
It is important to note that paragraph 1.2.2 will obviate
the need to designate a proponent only if the action
Minister considers that the environmental effects attributable
to the later Commonwealth action have been fully taken
into account (paragraph 1.2.2(a)) or are such that the
criteria in paragraph 1.2.2(b) are satisfied. That is,
designation is not required only if the action Minister
is able to conclude in good faith and on the basis of relevant
factors that one of the tests in paragraph 1.2.2 is satisfied.
If the action Minister is not able to so conclude (for
example, because he or she has insufficient information),
a proponent must be designated.
Paragraph 1.2.2(a): The first limb of the exception
will be satisfied if the environmental effect attributable
to the later Commonwealth action has been fully identified
and considered in giving effect to the Administrative Procedures
in relation to an earlier Commonwealth action. This test
may be satisfied, for example, if the Minister:
- identifies the environmental effects of the later Commonwealth
- examines the scope of the environmental impact assessment
performed in relation to the earlier Commonwealth action.
(This may be an environmental impact assessment prepared
under State legislation if that assessment was considered
by the EPA in deciding that no assessment of the earlier
Commonwealth action was required under the EPIP Act);
- is satisfied that the environmental effects of the
later Commonwealth action were fully identified
and examined in the earlier environmental impact assessment.
For example, if an environmental impact statement ('EIS')
was prepared under the EPIP Act in 1988 in relation to
a coal mine and the environmental effects associated with
that mine in 1995 were fully identified and considered
in the 1988 EIS, it will not be necessary to designate
a proponent before granting an export approval from that
mine in 1995.
Paragraph 1.2.2(b): The second limb of the exception
requires the action Minister to compare the environmental
effect of the later Commonwealth action with the environmental
effect of the earlier Commonwealth action. Under this limb,
it is not necessary to designate a proponent when the later
Commonwealth action will result in an extension of the
environmental effect beyond that of the earlier Commonwealth
action provided that the extension of the effect on the
- not of a nature significantly different from the effect
of the earlier Commonwealth action; and
- does not significantly add to the effect of the earlier
The difference between the first limb and the second
limb of the exception in paragraph 1.2.2 is illustrated
in the following example. Assume that it is proposed the
coal mine assessed in 1988 will triple in size in 1995
and new port facilities will be constructed to accommodate
this increase. If these developments were fully assessed
in the 1988 EIS then the first limb of paragraph 1.2.2
would apply and further designation would not be required.
However, if these developments were not fully assessed
in the 1988 EIS it is necessary to consider, before granting
an export approval in 1995, whether the environmental effect
of the expanded mine will be of a nature significantly
different, or will significantly add to, the environmental
effect of the 1988 mine. If so, a proponent will need to
be designated before a 1995 export approval is granted.
It is important to note that, notwithstanding that the
exception in paragraph 1.2.2 would otherwise apply, a Commonwealth
action may be referred to the EPA and a proponent designated
if the action Minister considers that it is desirable to
designate a proponent in order to achieve the object of
the EPIP Act: see Step 2 above.
Step 5: Determining the level of assessment
Once a matter is referred to the EPA and a proponent
is designated, it is the responsibility of the EPA and
the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories
('the Environment Minister') to determine the level of
assessment that is required. The Environment Minister may,
but is not obliged to, require that:
- a public environment report ('PER') be prepared; or
- an EIS be prepared (an EIS is more detailed than a
It is important to note that the designation of a proponent
does not necessarily lead to a requirement for a PER or
an EIS. In determining the level of assessment, the EPA
and the Environment Minister must take into account a range
of environmental factors and any other relevant environmental
assessment, including any previous Commonwealth or State
assessment. In practice, it is common for the EPA to determine
that no PER or EIS is required if an adequate State assessment
has already been conducted.
The Environment Minister may not require a PER or an
EIS if satisfied that to do so would be contrary to the
Step 6: Preparing the environmental impact assessment
The Administrative Procedures set out the relevant processes
that must be followed if the preparation of a PER or EIS
is directed: for example, the relevant public consultation
procedures. Although not expressly stated in the Administrative
Procedures, it is clear that the proponent of the proposed
action must prepare the EIS or the PER. The proponent may
be a non-Commonwealth entity for example, a company applying
for foreign investment approval.
Step 7: Carrying out a proposed action while the assessment
The clear intention of the EPIP Act is that a proposed
action should not be carried out until the assessment process
under the Administrative Procedures has been complied with.
If a proponent is designated in relation to a proposed
decision and the decision is then taken before the Administrative
Procedures are complied with, it is possible a court would
set aside that decision if the decision were challenged:
for example, on the basis of a failure to take into account
However, the amendments to the Administrative Procedures
expressly provide a mechanism enabling the Environment
Minister to permit certain proposed actions to be undertaken
before the assessment process is complete: see paragraphs
1A.1.11A.1.5. A proponent must be designated before permission
Permission to proceed with a proposed action is available
only in relation to the 'ongoing operations of a project',
such as a mine that has been operational for some years.
Permission will not be available in relation to new projects
in respect of which there are no 'ongoing operations'.
It must be noted that permission is not automatically
available. The Environment Minister may grant permission
only if it is considered in the public interest to do so.
In assessing the public interest, the Environment Minister
must take into account any relevant advice provided by
the action Minister. In addition, the permission may be
granted subject to a condition that the proposed action
must not be continued after a specified time if the relevant
assessment process is not completed by a specified time.
For example, assume a proponent is designated in relation
to the grant of an export approval from a mine that has
been operational for a number of years. Prima facie, the
export approval cannot be granted until the Administrative
Procedures are complied with. However, if the Environment
Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so,
he or she may permit an export approval to be granted from
the mine while any required assessment is being undertaken
under the Administrative Procedures.
Step 8: Environment Minister makes recommendations
At various stages in the assessment process (whether
or not an EIS or PER is required), the Environment Minister
may make comments, recommendations or suggestions concerning
the proposed action to the action Minister. For example,
the Environment Minister may recommend that certain conditions
should be imposed in relation to a proposed action in order
to protect the environment.
Step 9: Consider the assessment and the recommendations
of the Environment Minister
All ministers, departments and Commonwealth authorities
are obliged to ensure that the outcomes of any environmental
assessment including any PER or EIS and the comments, recommendations
or suggestions made by the Environment Minister or his
or her Department are taken into account when deciding
whether to proceed with a Commonwealth action and, if so,
what conditions should be imposed.
However, the Environment Minister is not given the power
to veto a proposed Commonwealth action. In particular,
the relevant decision-maker is not bound to give effect
to the outcome of a PER or EIS or to the comments, recommendations
or suggestions of the Environment Minister. The decision-maker
is merely required to consider these factors before proceeding
with the proposed action. In this respect, it is relevant
to note the comments of a US Supreme Court judge who stated,
in relation to the US National Environment Policy Act (on
which the EPIP Act was based), 'NEPA merely prohibits uninformed
rather than unwise agency actions': Robertson v Methour
Valley Citizens Council (1989) 109 S.Ct. 1835 at 1846.
However, it must be understood that the consequences
of non-compliance with the EPIP Act and the Administrative
Procedures are potentially significant. A failure to observe
the required processes whether it be a failure to designate
a proponent or a failure to ultimately take into account
the outcomes of the assessment process may result in a
court setting aside a Commonwealth decision. This is, of
course, precisely what occurred in Gunns case.
Note: Two flowcharts have not been included in this
HTML version. The flowcharts are:
Table A: Deciding whether to designate a Proponent
under the EPIP Act
Table B: Summary of EPIP Act process after designation
Please contact the AGS Corporate Communications if
you would like to be sent printed copies of the flowcharts.
Telephone (02) 6253 7052.
The Administrative Procedures make provision for various
other matters including:
- in limited circumstances, the granting of an exemption
to a Commonwealth action, or a class of Commonwealth
actions, from all or any of the requirements of the Administrative
- the conduct of inquiries into the environmental aspects
of Commonwealth actions for example, the Shoalwater Bay
Commission of Inquiry: see also section 11 of the EPIP
- the carrying out of a review by the EPA of the environmental
aspects of a Commonwealth action, whether or not that
Commonwealth action has been completed.
To ensure compliance with the EPIP Act, Commonwealth
officers may wish to consult the EPA in relation to environmental
issues that arise in relation to proposed actions and decisions.
The Attorney-General's Legal Practice should be consulted
in relation to any legal issues arising from the application
of the legislation.
Review of the EPIP Act
The EPA is currently undertaking a comprehensive review
of the EPIP Act. Many of the substantive reform issues
identified in the review will be the subject of further
consultation in 1996: for example, issues relating to the
role of the Commonwealth and the jurisdiction of the EPIP
Act and issues relating to the process for initiating assessment
under the Administrative Procedures.
However, the Commonwealth is currently considering proposals
which would deliver procedural improvements to the Commonwealth's
environmental impact assessment process. These proposals,
if implemented, would involve amendments to the Administrative
Procedures in early 1996. The proposals are aimed at improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of the assessment process
once proposals are referred to the EPA.
Please note that the obligations described in this Briefing
are unlikely to be materially altered if the proposals
currently being considered are implemented. However, some
additional obligations may be introduced.
ISSN 1448-4803 (Print)
ISSN 2204-6283 (Online)
The material in this briefing is provided
for general information only and should not be relied
upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Please contact
the Legal Practice before any action or decision is taken
on the basis of any of the material in this briefing.