Manjunath Ananth v National Australia Bank

[2015] FWC 2244

[2015] FWC 2244

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Manjunath Ananth
v
National Australia Bank
(U2014/15318)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 1 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Manjunath Ananth (the Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for relief from unfair dismissal. At the time of the dismissal the Applicant was employed as a Business Analyst (BA) at the National Australia Bank (NAB or the Respondent). His employment was terminated for poor performance on 31 October 2014. The Applicant seeks reinstatement to his position.

[2] Mr Bakri of Counsel sought permission to represent the Applicant and Mr McNab of Counsel sought permission to represent the Respondent in the hearing of the application. I was satisfied that to grant permission would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently and therefore determined to exercise the discretion available to me and grant permission pursuant to s.596(2) of the Act.

[3] Mr Ananth and Mr Kosta Vasilev, who was previously employed as a Senior Programmer Analyst, gave evidence for the Applicant. Mr James O’Carroll Lead, Delivery and Capability in the Technology team and Mr Hai To Manager Delivery in the Wealth Insurance Technology team gave evidence for the Respondent. The Applicant reported to Mr O’Carroll and Mr O’Carroll reported to Mr To.

[4] I have considered all of the evidence and submissions of the parties in this matter. For the reasons set out below I find that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed and his application should therefore be dismissed.

The Applicant’s performance

[5] The Applicant worked for a company called Aviva from 2005. In about 2010 Avivia was taken over by the Respondent and the Applicant’s employment transferred to NAB. At this time the Applicant was a Senior Test Analyst.

[6] In about October 2013, as a result of a restructure, the Applicant’s position as a Senior Test Analyst was made redundant. The Applicant elected to remain with the Respondent and successfully applied for a position as BA.

[7] As a business analyst the Applicant was required to:

• develop an understanding of business requirements in relation to technology products. This is then developed into a Business Requirements Document;



• break the requirements down into smaller tasks for the developers;



• work with the developers to clarify questions or areas of uncertainty;



• act as an intermediary between the business and developers as the application is developed.

[8] As the Applicant’s direct manager and ‘people leader’ in the BA role, Mr O’Carroll held regular one-on-one meetings with the Applicant (1:1 meetings) commencing in November 2013.

[9] From December 2013 Mr O’Carroll had commenced raising issues with the Applicant in respect to his performance. Notes of the 1:1 meetings between Mr O’Carroll and the Applicant indicate that those sessions were held relatively regularly. 1 Whilst the notes in evidence are only for the period November 2013 - March 2014 Mr O’Carroll’s evidence is that these notes are only part of the notes of such meetings that he kept. The notes indicate that feedback to the Applicant included the need to take ownership of his work, the need to think outside the box, the need to stop thinking like a tester etc. Mr O’Carroll provided specific feedback on issues raised and advised the Applicant explicitly that, at least in February, he was not meeting the requirements of the job. In both February and March Mr O’Carroll noted that the Applicant felt he was doing a good job. The Applicant does not dispute that these 1:1 meetings occurred, the accuracy of O’Carroll’s notes or that the meetings continued beyond March 2014.

June review

[10] On 11 June 2014 the Applicant was provided with a letter (June letter) advising him that his performance remained below expectations, that it needed to improve, and that if it did not improve by 25 July 2014 his employment would be reviewed and may be terminated. 2 Whilst the Applicant acknowledges the letter he says that it was communicated to him that he was ‘fine in the work.’

[11] There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that the Applicant was told he was doing fine with his work. The circumstances surrounding the receipt of the June letter include a discussion where the Applicant was told he was not meeting the expectations of his role. The weight of evidence, including that of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To, is such that I cannot accept that the Applicant was told he was doing fine.

[12] Attached to the June letter and provided to the Applicant were some specific examples of where he was not meeting his role requirements. 3 The June letter also set out a number of specific goals, strategies and actions (some of which had already been taken) to assist him in meeting his performance requirements.4 For reasons given later in this decision I am satisfied that the Applicant received specific BA training. I am also satisfied that the Applicant had access to a mentor. Whether he chose to utilise that access is a separate matter. I do note that the Applicant did raise an issue with respect to his mentor in March 2014 but this appears to have been addressed by Mr O’Carroll. There is no evidence that the Applicant raised any further issues with Mr O’Carroll or Mr To about his mentor.

[13] The Applicant gave oral evidence that he was under no doubt of what was expected of him and under no doubt that he had completed those requirements satisfactorily. This would appear to contradict his written evidence in which he says he did not have a clear set of goals for this review period. 5

[14] I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and the Applicant’s oral evidence that he was well aware of the goals set for him during this review period.

[15] On receipt of the June letter the Applicant went on sick leave returning on 14 July 2014. Because of this sick leave the end date of the review period specified in the June letter was extended to 29 August 2014.

[16] The evidence of Mr O’Carroll is that, on the Applicant’s return to work from sick leave, there was a slight improvement in his performance for about two weeks but that it slipped again shortly thereafter.

September review

[17] A further formal meeting with the Applicant was held on 4 September 2014. The Applicant expressed surprise that he was still under review having thought the review period ended in July. Given this confusion it was decided to commence a second review period. The Applicant was provided with a document setting out in detail his performance review. 6 The document set out the earlier goals as had been provided in June and examples of where he had not met those requirements. It also included details of the second review period ending 3 October 2014 including specific reporting requirements of the Applicant for the period of the review (he would report to O’Carroll) with a return to reporting to Carmine D’Errico should he complete the review period satisfactorily. The Applicant was advised that, during the review period, Mr O’Carroll would provide details of the work he was required to complete. In this respect later that day Mr O’Carroll sent an email to the Applicant detailing the project he was to work on during the review period.

[18] The Applicant’s evidence is that the goals identified in the September review document as having been communicated to him in June were not provided to him in June at all. 7 This evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. The Applicant’s oral evidence is that he received the goals (repeated in the September document) and associated strategies in the meeting of 11 June 2014. Further, his evidence is that he provided a response to the goals and strategies.8 To do so he must have received the criteria that he now claims he had not seen before. I therefore reject the Applicant’s evidence on this point.

[19] I do not accept the evidence of the Applicant that there was any confusion over who he should report to in this review period. The September document provided to him is clear. He was, during this period, to report to Mr O’Carroll.

[20] Following this meeting Mr O’Carroll met with the Applicant at least weekly.

October meetings

[21] On 20 October 2014 Mr O’Carroll met with the Applicant and advised him that he had not met the required performance standards. He was provided with a copy of the review document 9 which reiterated matters set out in the June letter, the September review document along with the requirements that had been set for him, notes taken by O’Carroll during the regular meetings, feedback from work colleagues (gathered anonymously) and a final outcome summary. That summary indicated that, while the Applicant had demonstrated a good work effort, concerns remained of his aptitude for the role of BA. A meeting to discuss the matter was scheduled for 21 October 2014.

[22] On 21 October 2014 Mr O’Carroll and Mr To met with the Applicant and provided him with a formal letter advising him that he had failed to meet the performance standards expected of him and that his ongoing employment was under review including consideration of the termination of his employment. He was given until close of business on 22 October 2014 to provide any written response to management.

[23] The Applicant’s evidence is that at this meeting he requested a longer period of time to respond to the letter. Both O’Carroll and Mr To give evidence that no such request was made by the Applicant. On this matter I prefer the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To. Mr O’Carroll also gave evidence that this meeting was not held until late October - even though the review period concluded on 3 October - as he was still waiting for the Applicant to complete some work as part of the review. This indicates that, while the review process needed to be completed, Mr O’Carroll could tolerate some delays to enable the Applicant to show his performance to his advantage. I also accept the evidence of Mr To that the Applicant was given time away from work to prepare his response. These actions by Mr O’Carroll and Mr To indicate a willingness on their part to provide the Applicant with time and space to be able to deal with the performance issues confronting him. This approach is not consistent with the Applicant’s claim of a refusal of extra time. I therefore reject the Applicant’s evidence that he requested, but was denied, extra time to provide a response.

[24] The Applicant provided his detailed response on 22 October 2014. 10 Mr O’Carroll says that the reply did not respond to the concerns that he had of the Applicant’s performance.

[25] In his reply the Applicant said that he had medical issues and was not well throughout the review period. He said that, despite having low energy levels on most days, he attended work. In response to this comment in his reply, Mr O’Carroll asked the Applicant to provide further advice from his doctor as to the effect of his health on his ability to perform his role. The Applicant advised Mr O’Carroll on 29 October 2014 that he visited his doctor who advised him that his medical condition had no major impact on his performance. 11

Final meeting

[26] A final meeting was held with the Applicant on 31 October 2014. Mr O’Carroll and Mr To were present as was the Applicant. The Applicant’s representative attended the meeting by phone. The Applicant says that his representative was not present at the very start of the meeting but joined soon after. Mr O’Carroll says that he, Mr To and the Applicant arrived in the meeting room, the Applicant rang his representative who then called back. Mr O’Carroll says, and Mr To agrees, that the meeting did not commence until the Applicant’s representative was on the phone. On this point I prefer the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To to that of the Applicant. On a number of these seemingly small details the Applicant’s evidence does not accord with that of others who were present. There is no reason to think that Mr O’Carroll and Mr To colluded in their evidence. I am satisfied that the meeting did not properly commence until the Applicant’s representative was present by phone.

[27] In that meeting the Applicant was advised that he had not met the performance standards required of him and that his employment was to be terminated. He was offered the opportunity to resign.

[28] The Applicant sought time to talk to his representative and his family. He was given this time. The Applicant then sought until the following Monday to consider his options (31 October 2014 was a Friday). This request was not granted. The Applicant was advised that if he did not take the option of resignation his employment would be terminated.

[29] The Applicant says that Mr To became upset in the meeting and raised his voice at the Applicant. Mr O’Carroll says that Mr To was frustrated but denied he was angry. Mr To agrees that he was frustrated with the Applicant but that this related to the Applicant’s failure to make a decision about the offer to resign.

[30] The Applicant did not resign and his employment was terminated.

Was the Applicant performing at the level required of him?

[31] The Applicant says that he was told by Mr O’Carroll that he was meeting all of the requirements set for him. Mr O’Carroll says that the Applicant failed to perform at the standard required of him in a BA role.

[32] Whilst the Applicant has maintained that he considered he was performing at the appropriate level he has put nothing to refute the evaluation of his performance by the Respondent. His reply of 22 October 2014 does not addresses the performance issues raised with him in the September meeting, nor does it appear to address the specific task set for him by Mr O’Carroll. There is no evidence that supports the Applicant’s assertion that Mr O’Carroll told him he was performing at the required level, in fact all of the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. That he believed he was performing at an appropriate level does not mean that, objectively, he was.

[33] The Applicant says that Mr O’Carroll provided a reference for the Applicant in his application for a position as BA which supports his view that he Mr O’Carroll thought he performed at a reasonable level. Mr O’Carroll provided this reference in the context of having been the ‘Department Lead’ with respect to the Applicant’s work area for the period May - September 2013. In that reference Mr O’Carroll said that the Applicant worked well within the team, generally completed tasks on time, understood the requirements of tasks and takes responsibility for his work. In his evidence Mr O’Carroll said the Applicant was not exceptional in the role but did a good job. I do not think much turns on this reference. Mr O’Carroll provided it in the context of the work the Applicant had been doing as a test analyst. I have considered the reference and do not consider it is relevant to the performance of the Applicant in his role as a BA.

[34] On the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Applicant failed to meet the performance standards required of him by the Respondent.

The performance management policy

[35] An issue arose as to whether or not the Respondent had properly followed the performance management process. A document downloaded from the Respondent’s system on 12 November 2014 12 was not disputed to be the policy relevant at the time the Applicant’s employment was terminated.

[36] That policy requires inter alia that, in managing under performance, the people leader (in this case Mr O’Carroll) should ‘take immediate steps to address the concerns.’ The employee ‘must be provided with a ‘reasonable period’ of time to improve their performance.’ A ‘reasonable period’ of time will vary depending on the number and complexity of areas requiring improvement, ease of measurement of the role, the time spent in the role, assistance already provided and so on. During this period the people leader and employee should meet regularly. Should an employee’s performance not improve to a satisfactory level the people leader must place the employee on a final review period.

[37] It was put in submissions that the Applicant had been placed in a final period of review without being given a ‘reasonable period’ (the informal process) to improve his performance.

[38] Any consideration of the process undertaken by Mr O’Carroll clearly demonstrates that he followed the requirements of the performance process document. He undertook the informal process from at least December 2013 until June 2014 when the Applicant was advised he was being placed on a final review period. The Applicant was given seven months in which he was advised his performance was not at the level required, where he was offered and given training and where he had access to a mentor before the formal review period contemplated by the policy was instigated. Whilst submitting that the seven month period was not adequate, the Applicant did not say what he thought would have been a ‘‘reasonable period’’.

[39] I am satisfied that the informal process engaged in, as contemplated by the policy, is that process which occurred from December 2013 to June 2014 where Mr O’Carroll had regular discussions with the Applicant (the 1:1 meetings) in which he raised performance issues with the Applicant.

[40] I am satisfied that the period of seven months was a ‘reasonable period’ within which the ‘informal’ process occurred.

Did the Applicant receive appropriate training for his role as Business Analyst?

[41] The Applicant says that a lack of access to training adversely affected his ability to perform his role. In particular he says he did not receive any BA specific training, that he did not receive training on ‘Jira’ and that he did not receive ITIL training.

[42] Mr O’Carroll’s evidence is that not long after the Applicant commenced as a BA he was sent on a 2-day BA specific course. 13 Mr O’Carroll says that the Applicant was also asked to identify training he wished to attend to assist in his development.14 Mr O’Carroll’s evidence is that the Applicant did not indicate any further courses he wished to attend.

[43] The Applicant agrees that he attended BA training. The criticism of the Applicant is that it was not specific BA training as non-business analysts attended. I do not accept the Applicant’s submission that this does not mean it was not specific BA training.

[44] The Applicant gives no evidence as to how lack of training on ‘Jira’ was critical to him demonstrating performance at the required level. There is no evidence that the Applicant sought training on ‘Jira’ or that such training or assistance was unreasonably denied to him.

[45] Mr O’Carroll gives evidence that training on ITIL for his team was not delivered until November 2014, after the Applicant’s employment had ceased. Documentary evidence in support of this was produced and not contested. I accept Mr O’Carroll’s evidence on this point.

[46] I am satisfied that the Applicant was given access to training he sought. There is no evidence to support his contention that he was not provided with training or that he sought to attend training and this was denied.

Was Mr O’Carroll aware the Applicant had an illness and should this have been further investigated?

[47] The Applicant gives evidence that he constantly told Mr O’Carroll that he was unwell. Mr O’Carroll says that at the beginning of each 1:1 meeting he would conversationally ask the Applicant how he was. At times the Applicant replied that he wasn’t feeling great but Mr O’Carroll says that at no time did he specifically mention a medical condition that adversely effected his ability to do his job.

[48] In his reply letter to the Respondent of 22 October 2014 the Applicant specifically raised his health issues as a factor affecting his performance during the review period. Mr O’Carroll asked the Applicant to get more advice from his medical practitioner as to whether these issues affected his ability to do his job. I am satisfied that, until the Applicant raised the issue in his response of 22 October 2014, Mr O’Carroll was not aware of the extent of any health issues of the Applicant. In an email to the Applicant on 23 October 2014 in which he sought the further information Mr O’Carroll said ‘having never brought up any of this information we are obviously surprised and concerned about the size of the impact, and in light of this we would like to gather some more information.’ 15 At the time of sending the email Mr O’Carroll had no reason to misrepresent his knowledge. The email was sent well before the Respondent could know the Applicant would make an application for unfair dismissal.

[49] It was put in submissions that, at this point, Mr O’Carroll should have made further inquiries of the Applicant’s medical practitioner. In support of this the Applicant relies on a medical report provided by the Applicant’s doctor, apparently in 2012, when the Applicant was performing the role of Senior Test Analyst. 16

[50] I do not accept that Mr O’Carroll should have made further inquiries of the Applicant’s doctor and certainly not without some suggestion from the Applicant that such advice should be sought. The situation may have been different if the Applicant clearly said he had a medical condition that affected his ability to perform his job at the level required and asked to be able to provide more medical information or if his doctor had suggested there was some medical issue that should be disclosed. The Applicant had the opportunity to raise health issues but provided feedback clearly indicating that there were no medical condition that had a major impact on his performance.

[51] I do not accept that the Applicant constantly raised medical issues. The medical report of 2012 is not conclusive of anything except circumstances that existed in 2012. There is no further action Mr O’Carroll could or should have taken.

Did the Applicant have access to his role purpose statement?

[52] The Applicant says that he was not given access to a copy of his BA role purposestatement (RPS) until June 2014 when Mr O’Carroll sent it to him, some 7 months or so after he started in the role of BA. He says that not having a copy of the role statement meant he was not aware of what he was meant to achieve in the position.

[53] Mr O’Carroll and Mr To both gave evidence that the Applicant had access to the RPS through SAP - a system by which employees of the Respondent electronically access their personal details, pay records, apply for leave etc. Mr O’Carroll’s evidence is that the RPS would have been available to the Applicant from the time he took on the role of BA. Mr O’Carroll says he told the Applicant on a number of occasions where to find the RPS on the SAP system but eventually sent a copy to him.

[54] I find it difficult to accept the Applicant’s evidence that he did not have access to the RPS until June 2014 when Mr O’Carroll forwarded it to him. In about October or November 2013 the Applicant applied for the position of BA. It is reasonable to infer that, in doing so, he was aware of the requirements of the position. The Applicant is a highly qualified information technology specialist. He is, by all accounts, a capable person. I find it difficult to accept that the Applicant could not himself access a copy of the RPS either through the SAP system or by direct contact with human resources.

[55] In any event the Applicant did have the RPS from June 2014 when Mr O’Carroll sent it to him. He clearly had access from the time he was placed on the first review period. At best the lack of access to the RPS might explain some difficulties in the first seven months of his employment (although I don’t accept that it necessarily explains all of the performance issues) but that still leaves the issue of the Applicant’s performance from June until the termination of his employment through two review periods. Further the Applicant does not explain how lack of access to the RPS resulted in unjustifiable concerns as to his performance.

[56] Mr Vasilev worked with the Applicant for a period of two to four months from the time the Applicant commenced in the BA role. His evidence is that the Applicant was aware of what his role was as a BA.

[57] Weighing up all of the evidence I am satisfied that the Applicant had access to the RPS for his role from about the time he applied for the position and certainly from the time he commenced in the position.

Was the Applicant hindered in performing his role because he did not have email access?

[58] The Applicant says that for a period of time he did not have access to emails and hence could not meet some of the work requirements of him.

[59] Mr O’Carroll’s evidence is that the Applicant did not have direct access to his emails for a few days but that during this time could have, and was advised to, access his emails via the web browser. The Applicant did not dispute that this was means by which he could access his emails.

[60] I am satisfied that the Applicant could have accessed his emails through his web browser during the period when he had limited direct access to email. I do not consider that the period of time within which the Applicant did not have direct access to email would have severely impacted on his ability to meet the performance standards set by the Respondent.

Was the Applicant unfairly dismissed?

[61] I am satisfied that the Applicant is protected from unfair dismissal, the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code does not apply and this is not a case of genuine redundancy. In determining if the Applicant was unfairly dismissed the remaining matter to consider is if the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[62] In deciding if the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable each of the matters in s.387 of the Act must be considered.

Section 387(a): whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity

[63] For a reason to be valid it must be ‘sound, defensible and well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason ...’ 17

[64] The appropriate test for capacity is not whether the employee was working to their personal best, but whether the work was performed satisfactorily when looked at objectively. 18

[65] On the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Applicant’s performance was not at the level required for the role he was in. Whilst aspects of his performance did improve I accept that his aptitude for the role, based on his performance, remained of concern. That the Applicant truly believed he was performing satisfactorily in the role is not enough - an objective analysis of all of the evidence before me suggests that this was not the case.

[66] I have rejected that the Applicant was not properly supported through the provision of training and that the Respondent failed to properly investigate the Applicant’s ill health.

[67] For all of these reasons I find that there was a valid reason for the dismissal of the Applicant.

Section 387(b): whether the person was notified of that reason

[68] The Applicant agrees that he was notified of the reason for his dismissal. I am therefore satisfied that this did occur.

Section 387(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person

[69] The Applicant submits that he was not given an adequate time to respond to the reasons for his dismissal. He submits that the time should have been much greater than the two days provided.

[70] The evidence of the Applicant is that he sought extra time whilst the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To is that the Applicant did not seek any further time.

[71] For reasons given above I accept the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To on this matter. Whilst two days may appear not very long I do note that the Applicant was provided with time away from work to prepare his response and he did provide a detailed and lengthy response.

[72] I am satisfied that the Applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the reason for his dismissal.

Section 387(d): any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal

[73] The Applicant submits that, whilst he did have his union representative present at the meeting by phone, the Commission should accept that the meeting commenced prior to his representative becoming available.

[74] For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the Respondent did not unreasonably refuse to allow the Applicant to have a support person present. I prefer the evidence of Mr O’Carroll and Mr To to that of the Applicant that the meeting proper did not commence until the Applicant’s representative was on the phone

Section (e): if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal

[75] The Applicant submits that he was not provided with ‘enough’ warnings of his unsatisfactory performance although does not say how many warnings are enough. I reject this submission.

[76] I am satisfied that the Applicant was advised formally in June 2014 and in September 2014 but also informally from December 2013 in 1:1 meetings of his unsatisfactory performance. The Applicant was twice, in the last five months of his employment, placed on a ‘final review’. In these circumstances it is not possible to sustain a claim that he was not warned of his unsatisfactory performance.

Section 387(f) and (g): the size f the Respondent’s undertaking

[77] The Respondent is a large employer. It has well developed policies and a range of human resource experts.

[78] The Applicant says that no latitude should be given for any deficiencies in the Respondent processes given the size of the Respondent’s business.

[79] I have given no such latitude.

Section 387(h): any other matters

[80] The Applicant submits that I should consider that the Respondent failed to follow its performance management policy, the impact of the dismissal on the Applicant and the Applicant’s length of service with the Respondent.

[81] For the reasons given elsewhere I am satisfied that the Respondent abided by its performance management policy. The Applicant was given an adequate period of time within which to improve his performance. He was on notice from late 2013 that his performance was not at the standard required and was formally on notice in June 2014 that his performance must improve and that if it did not his employment was at risk.

[82] The Applicant obtained employment immediately on being dismissed from the Respondent. Whilst that work is on a fixed term employment contract the contract operates until 30 June 2015 it pays substantially more than the Applicant received with the Respondent. Whilst the Applicant has lost his ongoing employment status and the security this brings I do not fully understand the impact of the dismissal on the Applicant. That he has secured employment until June 2015 has provided him with an adequate opportunity within which to secure on-going employment.

[83] The Applicant’s evidence is that he was sought out by an IT recruitment firm for the position he now holds. This does suggest that he has marketable skills that are sought after and that his age has not been an inhibiting factor in gaining further work.

[84] The Applicant was employed by the Respondent for about 10 years. He submits this is a matter I should take into account.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

[85] For all of the reasons given above I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Conclusion

[86] I therefore find that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed. The application is dismissed and an order to this effect will issue with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Y. Nakri of Counsel with F. Nathar of Ryan Carlisle Thomas for the Applicant.

A. McNab of Counsel with A. Leikin of King & Wood Mallesons for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2014.

Melbourne:

March 18, 19.

 1   Exhibit R2, annexure 7.

 2   Exhibit R2, annexure 10.

 3   Exhibit R2, annexure 11.

 4   Exhibit R2, annexure 12.

 5   Exhibit A2, paragraphs 14 and 19.

 6   Exhibit R2, annexure 14.

 7   Exhibit A2, paragraph 21.

 8   Exhibit A2, annexure MA7.

 9   Exhibit R2, annexure 17.

 10   Exhibit R2, annexure 19; Exhibit A2, annexure MA13A.

 11   Exhibit A2, annexure MA14.

 12   Exhibit A3.

 13   Exhibit R2, para 21.

 14   Exhibit R2, annexure 7.

 15   Exhibit A2, annexure 14.

 16   Exhibit A4.

 17   Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.

 18   Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137 [62].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR562648>