Mr Christopher Gunning v Cetnaj Queensland Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 6627
•3 AUGUST 2012
[2012] FWA 6627
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 3 August 2012.
The decision has been amended to correct a typographical error at paragraph [56].
Laura Vogler
Associate to Senior Deputy President Richards
Dated 9 August 2012
[2012] FWA 6627 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Christopher Gunning
v
Cetnaj Queensland Pty Ltd
(U2012/5236)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 3 AUGUST 2012 |
Summary: whether dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable - Westpac bank accounts - allegation of fraud - honesty - duty to answer employer’s relevant questions in investigation.
[1] This application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was lodged on 20 February 2012. The Applicant was Mr Chris Gunning, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy in relation to his dismissal by the Respondent, Cetnaj Queensland Pty Ltd. The Applicant was dismissed on 17 February 2012.
[2] As mentioned above, the application was made on 20 February 2012. It was subject to a conciliation conference on 12 March 2012, and then allocated to me on 8 June 2012, and set for hearing on 20 June 2012. None of the parties were aware of the reason for the delay in bringing this matter to arbitration. No reason is apparent on the file.
[3] The Applicant did not attend the hearing on 20 June 2012, though the Respondent did attend, along with its various witnesses. The Applicant had scant reason for not doing so. The hearing was then set down for 30 July 2012, which was a date set at the convenience of the Respondent.
[4] At the time of his dismissal the Applicant performed duties as a sales representative of the Respondent, whose business involved the sale of a large range of lighting products to the public and to trades.
[5] Prior to the dismissal, the Respondent had uncovered inadvertently an apparent scheme to defraud the Respondent of monies owing to it. The background to this scheme is as follows.
BACKGROUND AND RESPONDENT’S CLAIMS
[6] On 8 February 2012 a customer returned product to the Respondent’s Tweed Heads branch seeking assistance in its operation. Upon presenting the product at the Respondent’s place of business, the Respondent could not identify a store invoice to support the sale of the product to the customer.
[7] The customer then presented a copy of an invoice in relation to the product. The invoice was from a purported business which identified itself as “LED Pacific”. The invoice was for a sum of $1890.11.
[8] The customer claimed that the product had been purchased at the Tweed Heads branch through the sales representative, a Mr Dylan Adams.
[9] Upon the investigation, it was found that the products in question were supplied by the Respondent through a purchase order and out of the Respondent’s existing inventory.
[10] The customer who had raised this matter originally gave further information to the Respondent that it had been required to pay the invoice by cheque into a Westpac bank account, which it did on 30 January 2012.
[11] The invoiced amount ($1890.11) referred to above was made to the account. The account, as is explained below, in actuality was a joint business account opened by Mr Adams and the Applicant. It was at this point the bank (Westpac) became suspicious of the activity around the account as the cheque was made out to a business entity and not to the named account holders.
[12] The invoice for the above amount directed that the payment be made to an account referred to as “LED Pacific”. The BSB and account details were also provided. An option for payment via PayPal was also provided and an e-mail address attached to that account was cited in the invoice.
[13] The purchase order raising one of the product lines involved in the sale was a purchase order raised through the Respondent’s Burleigh Heads branch in the name of the Applicant. The Applicant's name was put down as the point of contact and the invoice stated that Mr Adams was to collect the product.
[14] I should add at this stage that following the dismissal of the Applicant, a second ‘customer’ came forward with a similar experience as the initial customer. The amount that was paid into the account was a sum of $1,112.65. This money was to be paid into the joint account on 29 January 2012, but payment was delayed as the customer had been provided the incorrect BSB and account details. There is no contest that the two amounts referred to above were placed into the joint account.
[15] The Applicant, as mentioned above, was a sales representative, and he worked at the Burleigh Heads Branch of the Respondent’s business.
[16] The Applicant and Mr Adams were flatmates.
[17] Mr Adams had ceased to be an employee of the Respondent on 27 January 2012, three days before the matter referred to above came within the knowledge of the Respondent.
[18] The Respondent discovered through the assistance of Westpac that the bank account into which the $1890.11 was to be paid was a business account in the joint names of Mr Adams and the Applicant.
[19] The Respondent was suspicious, subsequently, about the Applicant’s involvement in the above activity and interviewed the Applicant on 13 February 2012.
[20] In that interview the Applicant maintained that he had no knowledge of a business called LED Pacific. More particularly, he stated that he had not heard of “that brand”. 1
[21] He also stated that he set up a joint account with Mr Adams so that they could manage their living expenses and rent payments, as they were flatmates. The Applicant denied any knowledge of the activities referred to above.
[22] The Applicant was aware that the allegations made about his involvement in the relevant matters were serious and could result in the termination of his employment.
[23] The Respondent became increasingly concerned by what it came to understand about the depth of the Applicant’s involvement in the conduct as set out.
[24] Following the interview on 13 February 2012, the Respondent discovered that the joint living expenses account was in fact styled as a Westpac “Every Day Business Account” and was not a common savings account.
[25] On 16 February 2012 Mr David Jensen, the Respondent’s Regional Manager and the Applicant travelled to the Burleigh Heads Westpac branch to investigate the status of the monies in the joint account. The Applicant did not direct Mr Jensen to the Burleigh Waters branch where the account had been set up and where he had recently made inquiries about accessing the account. Instead, the Applicant directed Mr Jensen to another Westpac branch in the area. The potential relevance of this conduct is subject to discussion below.
[26] On 17 February 2012, the Bank Manager of the Burleigh Waters Westpac branch, Ms Carolyn Hogan, informed the Respondent that the bank’s fraud department was looking at the matter regarding the joint account. The status of the account had fallen into question, as mentioned above, because there had been a difficulty in paying a cheque in the name of a business entity (LED Pacific) into a business account in joint names.
[27] Ms Hogan also informed the Respondent that she held a copy of an e-mail from the Applicant which had been directed to the customer who had attempted to bank the cheque into the LED Pacific business account. That email string also included an email (dated 20 January 2012) to the customer under the Applicant’s name and email address setting out the alternative payment arrangements in lieu of the inability to provide payment by cheque.
[28] On 17 February 2012 the Respondent again met with the Applicant. The Respondent informed the Applicant that it had reached the view that the Applicant had been dishonest in regards to its investigations of the apparent fraud that had been uncovered. It had in its possession a purchase order that it contended was raised by the Applicant for the purpose of obtaining the goods sold to the relevant customer. It had a copy of an LED Pacific invoice with bank account details which were the account details applicable to the joint account set up by the Applicant and Mr Dylan Adams. It possessed an e-mail under the Applicant’s name referring to the LED Pacific invoice (referred to above).
[29] The Respondent surveyed the evidence that had come before it and terminated the Applicant’s employment at the interview of 17 February 2012. The Respondent terminated the Applicant's employment - as it put it in its materials - for theft and misconduct.
APPLICANT’S CLAIMS
[30] The Applicant, however, claims that the Respondent has misunderstood the evidence before it, and that he has at no stage participated in any fraud.
[31] At the outset, the Applicant contends that he did not create the purchase order referred to above and had identified it himself (after he was interviewed by Mr Jensen). He argued that Mr Adams must have been the author of the purchase order. The Applicant suggested that Mr Adams could have been utilised a computer whilst at one of his quite frequent visits to the Burleigh Heads branch and created the purchase order. It appears from the Applicant’s evidence, as well as that of Mr Shaun Dunlop, who is the Branch Manager of the Tweed Heads branch of the Respondent business, that not all computers were password protected and if an employee’s staff code was known, then a purchase order could be drawn up without difficulty.
[32] The Applicant also contended that while an e-mail was directed under his name to the relevant customer in relation to the LED Pacific invoice, this was a fraudulent e-mail. The Applicant claimed that while the address may be very similar to his, there was nonetheless a difference (in that there was no region identification (“au”) at the end of the address. The Applicant claimed that Mr Adams had access to his computer as a flatmate and could have readily dispatched the e-mail on any number of occasions.
[33] The Applicant also argues that he created, with Mr Adams’ assistance, a business account because it was in no way substantially different to a common, everyday account. Moreover, the Applicant claimed that his efforts to open a joint account online were restricted to opening a business account only. 2
[34] The Applicant also claims that whilst he had approached the Burleigh Waters branch to make a query about the joint account a few days before 13 February 2012, he did so only to make an enquiry as to whether the account was active and whether it could operate to receive rental payments etc. That is, the Applicant argues that he did not make the query with the intention of accessing any of the funds in the joint account, at least perhaps other than the $50.00 he deposited into the account at the set-up stage.
[35] It should be noted at this time that Mr Adams had departed from Queensland and ceased to be the Applicant’s flatmate on or about 10 February 2012. It was at this time that the Applicant had dropped Mr Adams off at the Brisbane airport. Mr Adams, purportedly, had gone to live in Western Australia on a permanent basis.
[36] The Applicant claims that he had by that time become suspicious of Mr Adams’ behaviour. At around the same time the Applicant claims that he became aware of two sums of money having been deposited into the joint account. One of these sums is that referred to above. The Applicant claims that he queried Mr Adams about the origins of that money and Mr Adams told him that it was all “OK”.
[37] In all, the Applicant contended that he had not heard of LED Pacific, (or at least that “brand”), was in no way a participant in any attempt to defraud the Respondent, and if anything had been an unwitting participant in a scheme to profit from his employer’s enterprise by conducting a sham business transaction. On this basis, the Applicant contends that he was dismissed harshly, unjustly and unreasonably.
[38] There is indeed, a measure of doubt, about the extent of the Applicant’s involvement in the conduct set out above. Arguably, it may have been Mr Adams who created the purchase order under the Applicant’s name. He was a frequent visitor at the Respondent’s Burleigh Heads branch and the computer system was generally available to any user. Similarly, it may again have been Mr Adams who accessed the Applicant’s personal computer and sent an e-mail with an invoice from LED Pacific (referred to above).
[39] But there are other matters that create particular difficulties for the Applicant’s case.
[40] The Applicant’s evidence was that there was no substantive difference between creating a business account and a common, personal savings account for the purposes that he stated that he intended: the facilitation of payment of rent and household expenses. The Applicant claimed that the business account was the only option available to him when he created an account online. The business bank account was thereafter set up formally upon personal appearance by the Applicant and Mr Adams at the Westpac Burleigh Waters branch on 20 January 2012 (where the applicants were required to show appropriate identification).
[41] Ms Hogan's evidence was altogether more complex, however. Ms Hogan’s further evidence was that the on-line account was cancelled at the time of the discussions with the bank as a new joint business account had to be created. 3
[42] Ms Hogan also vividly recalls listening in on the conversation between the Personal Banker, Mr Adams and the Applicant at the time the account was being set up. She indeed recalls having heard either one of Mr Adams or the Applicant state that the account was to be a business account and facilitate a “LED lighting business”:
Did you have any understanding of the purpose of the account?---Yes, most definitely did. It was stated - I'm not sure which gentleman stated it but both were in the room at the time that the purpose of the account was for business purposes, to set up an LED lighting business.
You don't recall which of the gentlemen said that to you?---No, but both were in the room during the interview.
So no one said, "Hang on. It's not for that purpose at all. It's for some other purpose"? One said it and the other didn't dissent?---That's correct, and the account was opened as a business account. Yes. Christopher had initially opened a business account over the Internet and - not a personal account, a business account, and then Christopher and Dylan came in together to sign the paperwork, and the account had only been opened in Christopher's name. So when they came to sign the paperwork we explained that it was only in Christopher's name but if they wanted it in joint names we would need to close that Internet account down and open up a joint account for them to run the business through. And they both agreed that they would close that one account down that had been in Christopher's name only, and that they would open a joint account in joint names for business purposes. 4
[43] This evidence contrasts with the Applicant's claim he had no knowledge of an LED lighting business (or at least the LED Pacific “brand”).
[44] Ms Hogan also gave evidence that the Applicant had indicated to her subsequently that the purpose of the account was so that he could conduct a business:
[...] So that was the one piece of information that - when I was advised that Chris had been into another branch stating that the account wasn't for business purposes, that I knew was incorrect because I had read that and I had spoken to the staff member who had opened that account. And I had - I'd had numerous conversations with Christopher and Dylan about the account after it was opened, and trying to access funds from the account. At one stage Christopher said to me that he was trying to run a business and that he needed the funds from that account to run the business. So yes, it was fully understood between myself and Christopher and myself and Dylan that it was a business account. 5
[45] In summary, Ms Hogan’s evidence also was that the Applicant, upon attending at the Westpac branch, was required to close the on-line business account he had set up on-line in his own name, and to establish a new joint business account (with Mr Adams). And the intention of the Applicant (along with Mr Adams) was to utilise the account for business purposes (not for household purposes).
[46] This claim contrasted with the Applicant's repeated evidence being that he had set up the business account on line (as the only option) and the Westpac Burleigh Waters branch had little relevance beyond affirming the applicants’ identities for that singular purpose: 6
The household account was a business account, was it?---Yes. Yes, I had an ABN registered in South Australia from 2007. That's irrelevant. When you go onto the Westpac website you can't open a joint account, though a business account you can open a joint account. At Cetnaj Burleigh Heads we had a policy, it was (indistinct) is boss and we didn't have a set lunch break. Well, we very rarely had a lunch break. So it wasn't that we could go to the bank, sit down and spend time setting up an account, so I did it online. I actually did it at Cetnaj. I set up an account online that we - all we had to do is drop into a branch, five minutes, show our ID and we were out of there. 7
[47] Ms Hogan’s wider evidence - from her position as Bank Manager and former Personal Banker - was that no personal banker would ever have advised a customer to create a business account when a common savings account would have been sufficient for the personal purposes for which the account was sought. This is so because of the much higher costs and complexities associated with such a business account. 8
[48] Ms Hogan gave further evidence (beyond her recollections above) that the Westpac computer system continued to record that the account had been set up for an LED lighting business, which was an entry recorded, it appears, on the day that the account was set up.
[49] Ms Hogan also recalled that the Applicant and Mr Adams were in a rush to have the account established and stated that they only had 10 minutes in which to conclude the application. 9 I note the apparent coincidence that the account was set up the day after the first invoice (for $1890.11) had been directed to the customer by LED Pacific.
[50] Finally, the apparent discrepancies between the Applicant's evidence and that of Ms Hogan extended further than this. In contrast to the Applicant's evidence, Ms Hogan’s evidence is also that the Applicant, when he presented personally at the Westpac Burleigh Waters branch to make inquiries about the account, was seeking access to the funds in the account, not just checking that the account was active or operational:
Well, was he only interested in ensuring the account was operating properly or did he want access to funds inside the account?---He wanted the funds in the account.
Did he ever specify which funds he was trying to access? Any of the funds there?---Well there was money in the account so he wanted the money in the account. He didn't say how much. 10
[51] The Applicant's evidence was more to the point that he was checking the status of the account, and then later (at least) that he was seeking to access the $50.00 in the account so that he could seemingly distance himself from the account, or “walk away from it” as he put it. The Applicant did not make any effort to close the account, however, or raise any concerns with the bank about the status or origins of payments made into that account. 11
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
[52] I find that Ms Hogan's evidence establishes the factual case. I come to this view on the basis of Ms Hogan’s:
- authentic recollection of the conversation she heard in relation to the reason the account was being set up (which was to support an LED lighting business);
- authentic recollection of her conversation with the Applicant about the reason for his frustration at not being able to access the account (which was related to his need to run a business);
- evidence concerning the existence of information retained within the bank's computer system (related to the purpose of the account); and
- the bank’s business practices associated with personal and business accounts (which showed it was unlikely a personal expenses account would be established as a joint business account).
[53] Taken together, or in part, this evidence was compelling evidence that the account was set up for a business purpose, and was used to facilitate the operations of an LED lighting business.
[54] The Applicant, in my view, was cognisant of this purpose. He had taken the initiative to set up the account and attended the bank with Mr Adams for the purposes of completing the necessary protocols to bring the account into operation. Both the Applicant and Mr Adams were in a hurry to set the account up with very little time. The Applicant now contends that he may not have been present when Mr Adams must have made comments about the nature of the account and its purpose. I find this implausible in the evidentiary context. It also conflicts with Ms Hogan’s recollections, which I have preferred.
[55] The Applicant also returned to the bank to access the account, and expressed frustration that because it was inactive he could not run “the business”.
[56] As suggested above, my finding is that Ms Hogan's evidence, consistently and clearly given, is to be believed. It follows that at the very least the Applicant had knowledge of an LED lighting business and that the account was set up for a purpose related to that business. The evidence of a co-worker, Ms Jodie Day, that Mr Adams and the Applicant had informed her that they were setting up an account for every day rent and household expense purposes does not compromise the evidence of Ms Hogan. It may well be that Ms Day was informed as she said she was about the account’s purpose. If this was so, she was misled by the Applicant and Mr Adams.
[57] In the context of the evidence above, I also make an adverse finding - on the balance of probability - in relation to the Applicant's claims as to why he did not direct his employer to the Westpac branch where the account had been set up and where he had only some days prior sought access to the account, an interaction which had resulted in some acrimony.
[58] It appears to me that the Applicant sought to direct his employer in a way that would not fully disclose the nature of his involvement with the business account that had been set up and his interactions with the Personal Banker and Ms Hogan at previous times. The Applicant's explanation to the contrary (based as it was on the temporary unavailability of a business account adviser at the Burleigh Waters branch) was contrived, and could not be relied upon.
CONSIDERATION
[59] The Act provides that a person who has been unfairly dismissed may seek a remedy under s.394 of the Act. Section 385 of the Act reads as follows:
385 What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if FWA is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and
(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
Note: For the definition of consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code: see section 388.
[60] Section 387 of the Act, for its part, provides as follows:
387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, FWA must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(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; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant.
Was there a valid reason for the dismissal?
[61] Section 387(a) of the Act requires Fair Work Australia, in reaching a finding as to whether or not a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, to have regard to whether or not there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees).
[62] The Applicant was dismissed by the Respondent for reasons that he was involved in fraudulent conduct.
[63] I do not find that the evidence necessarily supports such a conclusion.
[64] However, the evidence supports a conclusion that the Applicant was not an honest employee when he was interviewed by the Respondent about his knowledge of the relevant concerns.
[65] The Applicant was asked whether he had ever heard of a business by the name of LED Pacific. He claimed to have no knowledge of any such business undertaking, or at least “that brand”. He did not proffer any further information to his employer or even acknowledge that his response was crafted.
[66] This was a dishonest or misleading reply to an enquiry by the Applicant’s employer. The Applicant had indeed heard of an LED lighting business, and it had been stated to be the reason for the establishment of the business account at the Westpac Burleigh Waters branch and was the reason why he wanted to access the account at a later point.
[67] As I have mentioned above, on the evidence before me - and on the balance of probability - it appears to me that the Applicant also sought to redirect enquiries about the account that had been set up to a different Westpac branch. He did so, in my view, in order to reduce the opportunity for disclosure of the details that were held in that branch about the purposes of the account and his interactions with that account in recent days.
[68] An employee owes a duty to his employer to be honest in his dealings with it. To do otherwise is to compromise the necessary trust and confidence that is an integral part of the employment relationship. This does not mean that an employee must answer any and all questions posed to him or her by his employer in an investigation or interview. But it does mean that an employee must respond honestly to any genuine enquiry made of the employee that is relevant to the conduct or other issues in question or under investigation.
[69] In this case, it was imperative that the Applicant honestly demonstrate that he had no part in the fraud that was perpetrated upon his employer. The Applicant knew - when he was interviewed on 13 February 2012 - this to be an important issue, and he knew his employment was at risk if he was incriminated in the conduct. Despite this, the Applicant failed in his duty to honestly respond to his employer in relation to a genuine inquiry. And by so doing, he has bought into question the totality of his conduct and the future capacity of the Respondent to place trust in him.
[70] This is not the reason, in its entirety, for the Respondent’s dismissal of the Applicant. As I have said above, I have not reached any conclusion on the evidence of the Applicant being intimately involved in any fraud against his employer. The evidence does not travel that far.
[71] I have found, instead, that the Applicant possessed relevant knowledge and information about the purpose of and his interactions with the Westpac bank about the joint account which he did not impart faithfully to his employer upon a reasonable enquiry being made, and that this jeopardised his employment consequently.
Was the Applicant notified of that reason?
[72] Section 387 (b) of the Act requires me to take into account whether the Applicant was notified of the reason for his dismissal. On the basis of what I have found immediately above, the Applicant cannot be said to have been notified of the reason as I have found to be for his dismissal.
Was there an opportunity to respond?
[73] Section 387(c) of the Act requires me to have regard to whether or not the Applicant was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to his capacity or conduct alleged by his employer. The reasons I have given immediately above, there was no opportunity presented to the Applicant, nor could there have been absent the wider evidence that has come into existence over the course of this proceeding.
Was there are unreasonable refusal to allow a support person?
[74] Section 387(d) of the Act requires me to take into account any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal. The Respondent opposed no such request by the Applicant. Equally, however, the Applicant was dismissed summarily by the Respondent and he had no opportunity to consider such matters as representation.
Size of the Employer’s enterprise and availability of HR advice
[75] Section 387(f) of the Act and s.387(g) relate to matters regarding the size and dedicated human resource management resources available to the Respondent. These are not matters that are relevant to the current proceedings.
Any other matters
[76] Section 387(h) of the Act provides for Fair Work Australia to consider any other relevant matters. There are no such matters that were pressed that must be taken into account that are directly relevant to my decision making. I note at my own initiative that the Applicant was dismissed summarily. In such circumstances, any argument might be made that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh. I have taken this into consideration.
CONCLUSION
[77] Notwithstanding that I have not upheld the finding by the Respondent that the Applicant was involved in fraudulent conduct, I have nonetheless found that the Applicant had failed to be honest in his dealings with his employer in relation to genuine and reasonable enquiries about the extent of his knowledge of certain conduct. The Applicant did not divulge his awareness of any matters involving a purported LED lighting business. He did not openly and honestly explain the context of the business account that was set up and its purpose. Nor did the Applicant conduct himself honestly when he directed his employer to the Westpac Burleigh Heads branch and not the Burleigh Waters branch (where the account had been set up and where he had interacted with banking staff).
[78] The failure of the Applicant to be strictly honest in relation to these enquiries has been fatal to the employment relationship. No matter what procedural deficiencies have been lacking in this matter they did not in any way cure or deflect or in some manner diminish the seriousness of the Applicant’s substantiated misconduct in this regard.
[79] Because of this conclusion, I conclude in turn that the Applicant was not dismissed harshly, unjustly or unreasonably.
[80] The application under s.394 of the Act is therefore dismissed.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr C. Gunning for himself
Ms D. McPhillips for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2012.
30 July.
Brisbane.
1 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 232-234, 278, 286.
2 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PN 423.
3 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PN 750.
4 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 748-750.
5 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PN 758, also see 767, 780.
6 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 122, 127, 131, 427, 432.
7 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PN 423.
8 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PN 780.
9 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 763.
10 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 767, 768-769.
11 Transcript of proceedings, dated 30 July 2012 at PNS 215-221.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR527524>
1
0
0