Mr Luke Raymond Carlon-Wilde v Moore Park Bowls and Sports Club Inc
[2011] FWA 8612
•8 DECEMBER 2011
[2011] FWA 8612 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Luke Raymond Carlon-Wilde
v
Moore Park Bowls and Sports Club Inc.
(U2010/12612)
COMMISSIONER SPENCER | BRISBANE, 8 DECEMBER 2011 |
Introduction
[1] This decision relates to an application made by Mr Luke Carlon-Wilde (the Applicant) to Fair Work Australia (FWA) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant contended that the termination of his employment by Moore Park Bowls and Sports Club Inc (the Respondent), was harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable.
[2] The matter could not be resolved by conciliation accordingly directions were set for the filing of written submissions and evidence. The matter was initially listed for hearing before FWA, as currently constituted. At this hearing it was clear that the material filed by the parties was insufficient and the Applicant claimed he was prejudiced as he had no access to particular documents. He had not previously sought these. By consent, further directions and hearing dates were set.
[3] The Applicant was self-represented and the Respondent was represented by Mr Eric Porter, Workplace Relations Manager, Clubs Queensland.
[4] Whilst this determination does not make reference to all of the materials filed in relation to this matter all of such have been considered.
Relevant Legislative Provisions
394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy
(1) A person who has been dismissed may apply to FWA for an order under Division 4 granting a remedy.
Note 1: Division 4 sets out when FWA may order a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Note 2: For application fees, see section 395.
Note 3: Part 6-1 may prevent an application being made under this Part in relation to a dismissal if an application or complaint has been made in relation to the dismissal other than under this Part.
(2) The application must be made:
(a) within 14 days after the dismissal took effect; or
(b) within such further period as FWA allows under subsection (3).
…
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.
Background
[5] The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as the Club Manager. The Respondent submitted the Applicant commenced employment on 11 March 2009; whereas the Applicant submitted that he commenced employment with the Respondent on an unspecified date in February 2009. The parties agreed that the Applicant’s employment was terminated on 6 September 2010.
[6] The Respondent claimed the Applicant’s employment was terminated for failing to follow a lawful direction, by not applying for and becoming a gaming nominee for the Respondent. The Respondent also alleged that the Applicant, had not fulfilled important duties required of the Club Manager and that the Applicant had purchased items using the Club’s finances without approval of the Management Board. The Respondent also held concerns that the Applicant was involved with the tampering with one of the Club’s gaming machines and removing money. In addition the Respondent held suspicions, that the Applicant was involved with unaccounted and missing funds of the Club.
[7] The Applicant claimed that his employment was terminated for ‘personal reasons’ after a change in the makeup of the Management Board. The Applicant claimed the duties, he was accused of not fulfilling, were at no time his responsibility. The Applicant denied any involvement with the misappropriation of the Respondent’s money and denied any involvement with tampering with a gaming machine.
Summary of the Submissions
[8] The Respondent submitted the Applicant was provided with a letter, dated 12 January 2010, from Mr Michael Sullivan, the then Chairman of the Respondent, advising the Applicant of a number of ‘directives’ requiring his immediate attention. The directives included, amongst others, a requirement that the Applicant become a gaming nominee, that if the Applicant’s phone account exceeded the $40 per month allowance, he must pay the balance and that he “must make suitable arrangements to refund the Club for overpayments for car”. 1 The letter also stated that the Applicant’s bar tab was $50 and any amount he incurred above this, must be paid by the Applicant and settled each week. The Applicant claimed that “no further action was taken in regard of this letter until 30th August 2010”.2
[9] The Respondent submitted that a meeting was held between the Applicant and the Executive Committee of the Respondent on 18 January 2010. The Respondent tendered a document called “Minutes of the Meeting with Manager - Luke Carlon-Wilde” dated 18 January 2010. 3 The Respondent submitted that the meeting was held to discuss the directives contained in the letter of 12 January 2010. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was handed an application to become gaming nominee in this meeting.
[10] The Respondent submitted that a further letter, dated 29 January 2010 and signed by Mr Sullivan, was forwarded to the Applicant. 4 The letter, amongst other things, requested confirmation that the gaming nominee application form has been sent off and asked the Applicant about the status of the telephone account. The letter also stated that the Applicant’s bar tab was $1380.00 in arrears and staff of the Club would be advised of such. The letter requested a response from the Applicant by 5 February 2010.
[11] The Applicant submitted a letter in response to the 29 January letter from the Respondent. The Applicant’s letter is not dated but the Applicant submitted it was circulated to each Board member on 3 February 2010. In this letter the Applicant confirmed he had submitted the gaming nominee application but suggested it might take “2-3 months” to process. 5 The Applicant admitted that the bar tab was “higher than normal” and confirmed he had indeed changed the telephone plan to a $60 per month account as $40 per month was not enough. The Applicant also confirmed in that letter that the overpayment in relation to the car would be paid back at a rate of “$200 per week”.
[12] The Applicant stated in his submissions that he forwarded several more letters to the Board dated 20 March 2010, 8 June 2010, 26 July 2010 and 1 August 2010. The Applicant submitted, in evidence, letters dated 20 March 2010, 8 June 2010, 26 August 2010 and 1 September 2010.
[13] The Applicant submitted, in a letter to Mr Michael Sullivan, the then Chairperson, dated 20 March 2010, that an incident had occurred at the Club on 19 March 2010. The Applicant stated that he had been harassed and assaulted by two patrons of the Club and that the letter was intended to report the incident.
[14] The Applicant submitted, in a letter dated 8 June 2010, that he was again harassed and assaulted on the Club’s premises by two different patrons of the Club. The Applicant requested a response to his letter within 48 hours. In a further letter dated, 26 August 2010 to Mr Terry Dalby, the then Chairperson (from July 2010 for approximately 3 months), and to Ms Marie Irvine, the then Secretary, the Applicant informed them of the letter he had forwarded to Mr Sullivan on 8 June 2010. The Applicant submitted in that letter that his complaint was unanswered by the Respondent. The Applicant explained again that he wanted the complaint addressed and again requested a response within 48 hours. The Respondent made no written submissions in relation to these letters of complaint. The Applicant submitted he received no satisfactory response.
[15] On 30 August 2010 the Respondent forwarded a letter to the Applicant requesting that he provide the Board with a series of documents including the “Current Gaming Nominee in your name” and requested an update on accounts payable. This documentation was requested to be made available by 5pm Friday, 3 September 2010. The Applicant made no written submission in relation to this letter.
[16] On 1 September 2010 the Applicant wrote to the Respondent, citing a letter he claimed to have provided to the Respondent (but not submitted in his evidence) on 6 July 2010, requesting that he be paid for 307 hours of overtime, he claimed to have accrued. The Applicant also requested a reply to this letter by 3 September 2010. The Respondent made no written submissions in relation to this letter. However, the Respondent referred to the Applicant’s contract; and in particular clause 5 that indicated that the hours of work would be “those necessary to effectively carry out the duties of the role.”
[17] The Applicant was issued with a final letter, dated 6 September 2010, notifying him of the termination of his employment. The letter stated that the Applicant’s employment was terminated for “refusal to carry out a reasonable lawful direction of the employer,” for failing to apply for, and obtain, accreditation as a gaming nominee of the Respondent. The letter also states:
- Failed to attend payment of accounts within the required period;
- Failed to advise the Management Board of the correct financial position of the club by excluding the unpaid accounts in your financial reports;
- Failed to include the outstanding accounts in your end of year financial statements;
- Failed to provide the auditor with a true account of the financial position of the club for audit purposes;
- Failed to include accruals and obligations in the end of year financial statements
“In addition you have -
All of which amount to gross negligence.”
[18] The Respondent submitted that Applicant did not apply to become a gaming nominee despite repeated requests by the Board to do so. Ms Marie Irvine, Club Secretary, gave evidence that the Applicant requested that she, and Mr Dalby, sign his application to become a gaming nominee on 2 September 2010. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant made this request despite saying he had already sent off his application to become a gaming nominee in his letter dated 3 February 2010.
[19] The Respondent submitted further that the Applicant failed to carry out his duties as Manager of the Club. The Respondent cited clause 1.4 of the “Position Description”, signed by the Applicant on 31 August 2009, as evidence of the Applicant’s duties in relation to accounting and financial matters of the Respondent;
“1.4 Accounting
- Supervision of accounting procedures, and where appropriate, preparation of accounts, and accounting procedures and maintenance;
- Interpretation of financial results;
- Preparation of budgets and Treasury returns.”
[20] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant failed to fulfil his duties as the Club Manager. Ms Irvine claimed on behalf of the Respondent, that the Applicant did not collect the Club’s mail and as a result accounts and tax were unpaid and overdue and the Club had received demands for late payments. 6 Ms Irvine submitted that the Applicant incorrectly and deliberately claimed the Club was in a better financial position than it actually was.
[21] Mr Dalby gave evidence that the Applicant made several purchases using the Respondent’s finances without the required approval of the Board. Mr Dalby submitted that these expenditures included the purchase of vehicle for the Manager’s use, a Blackberry phone, a photocopier and a new betting system.
[22] The Respondent submitted further that since the Applicant’s termination the state of the Club was examined and a number of issues were discovered. The Respondent submitted that it was discovered that there were some issues with the clearance of a gaming machine on Sunday, 3 January 2010. It was submitted that Mr Ernest Cock, an employee of the Respondent, was required to do a ‘special clearance’ and discovered that $620 was missing from the note acceptor of gaming machine number 4. It was submitted that Mr Cock reported this deficiency to the Applicant. The Respondent submitted that Mr Cock was advised by the Applicant not to panic and stated that he would “check it out” when he came in. The Respondent claimed that Mr Cock was further advised by the Applicant not to worry as the matter would “fix itself up by the end of the month”. The Respondent also submitted that when the clearances were done on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 (the usual day for doing clearances) the money had been replaced and gaming machine number 4 balanced.
[23] The Respondent asked their security company to provide the records, showing the times, dates and security access codes that had been used to access the machines during this period. The report from the security company showed that the access codes of Mr Cock, and Ms Jacqueline Muir, had been used to disarm security in this period, where the money appeared to be missing and then replaced. Both Mr Cock and Ms Muir gave evidence that they were not at the Club at the times, the security report showed they had been, and both gave evidence that at some point in the past, they had given their access code number to the Applicant. In response to this, the Applicant submitted that all staff had access to the Club and all entry codes were stored on the desktop on the main computer. The Respondent disputed that staff access codes were known or available to other staff and several statements were provided, from other staff members of the Respondent’s, in support. 7
[24] The Respondent submitted that after the Applicant’s termination an extensive review of the Club was undertaken. Ms Liz Braddon of the Respondent, submitted on behalf of the Respondent that during the Applicant’s employment, approximately $60 000 8 went missing in unaccounted cheques. The Respondent also submitted that a laptop was purchased by the Applicant and it subsequently went missing.
[25] The Applicant refuted these allegations stated he was terminated for “personal reasons” and disputed that he failed to carry out a lawful direction. The Applicant maintained that the duties he is alleged to have failed to carry out, were not his responsibility. The Applicant also denied any involvement with the missing, and subsequently replaced $620 from the gaming machine. The Applicant denied any involvement with the missing laptop. In relation to the repeated requests to become a gaming nominee, the Applicant stated that “On Thursday, 2nd September I provided the requested documents to the Board including my application to become a gaming nominee.” 9 The Applicant also stated in his letter, circulated 3 February 2010, that he had already submitted the gaming nominee application.
[26] The Applicant submitted that he was not warned, that failure to fulfil the duties as stated, including completing the gaming nominee certification, would result in termination. The Applicant submitted that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, put by the Respondent.
[27] The Applicant in his position of Manager admitted he was responsible for the management of the club. 10 The contract for the role contained an attached position description that indicated the accountability for the Applicant, as follows:
“To undertake the duties of the general management, promotion and supervision of the club’s activities, functions, and business and the direction, supervision and control of all other staff”. 11
[28] Mr Sullivan the then Chairman of the club, agreed it was the intention, (as per the contract) of the management committee for the Applicant to be responsible for the whole operation of the club. 12
[29] The Applicant was provided with the application for the gaming nominee, by the Chairman on 18 January 2010 (as per the minutes). 13 The Applicant acknowledged the receipt of such.14
[30] I agree with the Respondent’s characterisation of the Applicant’s responses that his conduct, was evasive and inactive in terms of pursuing the gaming nominee licence.
[31] Whilst the Applicant argued he advised that he did not have to become the gaming nominee, there was not evidence presented to support this. The Chairman refuted this. 15 The Respondent remained steadfast that this was a lawful direction to the Applicant to attain the gaming nominee licence.
[32] The Applicant’s communications to the Board reflect the variations in his responses. The episode continued to reduce the trust and confidence in the Applicant as follows:
“At PN 391 in response to a question the former Chairman indicated that at no time did he indicate to the applicant that he no longer needed to become the gaming nominee.
Ms Irvine, the Secretary of the club, in her statement (Exhibit 14) at para 6 gives details of the circumstances around the request for the applicant to produce evidence that he had obtained his gaming nominee license as directed by the Board in January 2010. This letter is recorded at Attachment 5 of the respondents opening submission and response to the applicant’s application dated 21 June 2011. The applicant in his submission claims that the letter he received stated that he had 7 days to become gaming nominee. The letter he received asked him to produce evidence that he had become the gaming nominee as directed in January 2010.
In her statement (Exhibit 13) the Secretary indicates that following receipt of this letter the applicant sought to have his application for gaming nominee signed. Yet in his response to the request by the Board in January 2010 he indicated to the Board that he had already sent his application for gaming nominee off (Exhibit 8).
The Secretary, in evidence in transcript from PN 1456 to PN 1458 indicates that the applicant was seeking to now, only on 2 September 2010, commence the process that he had been instructed to do in January 2010. This is reaffirmed by the statement of Mr T Dalby the then Chairman at Item 6 which is contained in Attachment 12 of the respondents submissions of 21 June 2011.” 16
[33] The Board also had concerns over the Applicant’s management of accounts payable as set out:
“In Ms Irvine’s evidence at PN 1424 she states that following her appointment as Secretary she noticed mail protruding from the letterbox at the club late in the day. Following discussion with the then Manager she arranged that she would collect the mail. PN 1425.
At PN 1426 she states that once the mail was opened she placed it through the normal process in the club.
Mr Cock in Exhibit 9 (Attachment 9) states that all invoices received were entered into MYOB and placed in a folder for approval by Manager. He also states there was a procedure that all invoices no matter when due were in his (the Manager’s) folder.
In evidence at PN 685 and PN 686 Mr Cock reaffirms that process at the club in relation to invoices. At PN 687 and PN 688 he indicates that no accounts were paid without the applicant’s signature or initial on them.
At PN 689 his evidence is that while the applicant did not physically write the cheque or do the payment he actually authorised the payment of every invoice.” 17
“Mr Donlan, a former Secretary of the club, in his statement ... refers to the procedure that was in place that all incoming and outgoing correspondence, invoices etc. were recorded in the mail register then placed in the Manager’s pigeon hole. In particular he refers to an invoice for the annual liquor licence due on 30 June 2009 which was found in the Manager’s pigeon hole and if not paid by the due date 30 June 2009 could have resulted in the club losing its licence.
- Failed to attend to payment of accounts within the required period;
- Failed to advise the Management Board of the correct financial position of the club by excluding the unpaid accounts in your financial reports;
- Failed to include the outstanding accounts in the end of year financial statements;
- Failed to provide the auditor with a true account of the financial position of the club for audit purposes;
- Failed to include accruals and obligations in the end of year financial statements.
Despite all the evidence above to the contrary the applicant in response to a question at PN 188 denied that he was responsible for the financial payment of accounts for the club. At PN 192 and PN 195 he denies the process in place regarding the handling of correspondence and invoices.
In response to a question from the applicant at PN 447 as to who use to pay the bills in the club the former Chairman replied –
“The invoices were presented to you and you decided what was to be paid by the staff. The staff, either Noel or Debbie, would draw a cheque and get us to sign it, with a copy of what it was for and that …”
In relation to the assertion by the respondent in the letter of termination that the applicant –
The applicant, in his statement (Exhibit 1), claims that these were “not his responsibility to undertake this duty”.
At PN 82 of transcript the applicant has admitted that he was responsible for the management of the club and as indicated at para 5 of this submission the position description attached to his signed contract of employment indicated that the accountability of the position was –
“To undertake the duties of general management, promotion and supervision of the clubs activities, functions and business and the direction, supervision and control of all other staff”.” 18
[34] With respect to the missing money from the gaming machine; the Chairman responded to questions about this as follows:
“Mr Sullivan when questioned about the missing money from the gaming machine at PN 403 replied –
“Yes. We called an immediate meeting of the executive and we sat outside where nobody was there. It was the executive and myself, and we discussed it, what to do, and Mr Carlon-Wilde told us, “Don’t call the police. It’s just a glitch in the system and it’ll work itself out”.
In his statement Mr Sullivan in referring to a statement the applicant stated at the 10 March 2011 hearing at PN 335 that he pleaded with Mr Sullivan to ring the “coppers”. He wanted the police involved. Mr Sullivan states –
“Regarding the security breach I called an executive meeting with Luke Carlon-Wilde and he told us it was just a glitch in the system and it would settle itself back down during the month. At no time did he say to call the police”.
Mr Donlan in his statement (Attachment 8) states –
“During the Executives meeting with Mr Carlon-Wilde regarding the missing money, at no time did he ever ask for the police to be called. During that meeting he never looked at any of the members but kept his eyes down and looked at the table saying over and over “It will work itself out” “it will work itself out”. This, of course, is not true”.
The minutes of this executive meeting are contained in Attachment 14 of the respondents opening submissions.
The report from MaxGaming shows that Mr Cock’s security code number was used to disarm the security at the club at 5:24am on Sunday 3 January 2010. In his statement at para 5 Mr Cock states that he arrived at work at approximately 7:00am and found the alarm off and lights on. In response to a question about his whereabouts at the time the security was disarmed Mr Cock at PN 672 replied that he was weeding in his front lawn and sweeping it.
In response to a question from the applicant Mr Cock stated that the applicant had admitted that he was at the club on the morning of Sunday 3 January 2010 (PN 1015).
Mr Cock in his statement at para 8 claims that when the clearance was done as usual on Wednesday 6 January 2010 the missing money was back in the machine. This is verified by Ms Ormond at para 9 of her statement.
On this occasion it was another staff members security number that was used to disarm the security at the club and then gaming machine number 4 had the note acceptor door opened, note acceptor stacker removed and replaced and the door closed.
Ms Muir in her statement which is (Attachment 13 of the respondents opening submission) states that she locked up the club at approximately 8:30pm on Tuesday 5 January 2010 and proceeded directly home. She claims she did not go out again.
The security company’s records show that the clubs security was armed at 8:52pm on Tuesday 5 January 2010 and then disarmed at 9:42pm and armed at 9:45pm on Tuesday 5 January 2010. All of these transactions utilised Ms Muir’s security code.
Mr Cock, Ms Muir and the applicant acknowledged that the applicant had both Mr Cock’s and Ms Muir’s security code.” 19
[35] These further events; raised significant suspicions about the Applicant’s behaviour and management of the club. Again, the conduct diminished the trust and confidence in the Applicant’s capacity to manage the club.
Consideration
[36] FWA is required to assess with whether the Applicant was unfairly dismissed. Relevantly, for present purposes, that question turns on whether the dismissal was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable". Section 387 of the Act specifies the criteria, that the Tribunal must take into account, in considering whether it is satisfied the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Each of those is considered as follows:
(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
[37] The Applicant submitted that the reason for his dismissal was for “personal reasons” and not related to his capacity or conduct. The Respondent submitted, that the Applicant was dismissed from his employment for failing to follow a lawful direction and for not fulfilling duties that were required of him in the Club Manager role and outlined in his offer of employment and position description. The Applicant had been advised that it was a condition of his employment to attain the gaming licence. The mitigating circumstances he raised have been considered. However his failure to attain the licence, after the further direction, considered together with the other inadequate management issues (as outlined) being experienced with the Applicant, provided a valid reason for the dismissal.
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason;
[38] The Applicant was notified of his dismissal in a letter dated 6 September 2010. The letter was hand delivered to the Applicant’s address while the Applicant was away from the workplace. The termination letter included the reasons for termination. It is considered that, on the evidence, the Applicant received the letter.
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person;
(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;
[39] The Applicant did not make submissions in relation to element (c).
[40] Neither party made submissions in relation to criterion (d). However, there was no explicit refusal by the Respondent to the Applicant, to have a support person present, at any prior discussions. However given the manner of delivery of the termination letter, which was sent to the Applicant’s home, the process of a support person and a meeting was not afforded to the Applicant.
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal;
[41] The Respondent made repeated endeavours to have the Applicant fulfil his contracted obligation to attain the gaming licence. He failed to do so.
(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;
(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
[42] Neither party made submissions in relation to these criteria. The Respondent is a club funded by memberships and not considered to be a significantly sized or resourced corporate entity. The Respondent is a member of Clubs Queensland, and therefore has access to human resources and industrial advice. The Applicant argued the process of clarification by the Board as to his management responsibilities was not clear. However the management requirements of the Applicant were fundamental and set with sufficient detail. The Applicant endeavoured to suggest the process and requirements of him were unclear. However, the Applicant was aware of his obligations.
(h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant
[43] The Applicant was given a significant degree of autonomy in the running of the club. The change of management endeavoured to reign this in dramatically after a review of the books and operations. The Applicant submitted that the books did not reflect the true picture of the club’s financial position or accurately record all transactions. He also stated his ability to manage was impeded by a lack of clear direction from the newly comprised Management Board. He stated that there was an element of the club’s membership that did not support the changes he had made. The Applicant stated he had worked hard to address the clubs difficulties and had made great improvements for members, with little support from the Board.
Conclusion
[44] The procedure provided to the Applicant was deficient, however the Applicant had not fulfilled the lawful direction as contained in his contract of employment (and further reiterated to him) to obtain the gaming licence and appropriately manage the club. The Applicant’s inadequate management actions breached the trust and confidence (held by the management committee) in the Respondent. These were essential duties and important operationally to the Respondent.
[45] Given the determination of a valid reason for the dismissal on the basis of the grounds as outlined; it is not necessary to address issues regarding additional matters alleged against the Applicant at the time of the termination or discovered after the termination.
[46] Accordingly, having regard to the basis of the valid reason for the dismissal, the procedural deficiencies and the other matters referred to by the Applicant are not sufficient to conclude that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The lack of adherence to the contract requirement and failure to meet the continued directive to obtain the licence provided a valid reason for the dismissal. Therefore the application made pursuant to s.394 is dismissed. I Order accordingly.
COMMISSIONER
1 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 1.
2 Statement of Luke Carlon-Wilde, [5].
3 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 2.
4 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 3.
5 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 4.
6 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 10.
7 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 15 includes Statements from John O’Rouke, Leah Dodswell, Jacqueline Muir, Peter Leeson, David Zeller, Ken Walker, and Ernest Cock.
8 Submissions of Respondent, Attachment 20 - Statement of Liz Braddon.
9 Statement of Luke Carlon-Wilde, [9].
10 Transcript 29 August 2011, PN82.
11 Final submissions of Respondent, Paragraph 5.
12 Transcript 29 August 2011, PN341-342 and PN349.
13 Exhibit 6.
14 Transcript 29 August 2011, PN373.
15 Transcript 29 August 2011, PN38.
16 Final submissions of Respondent, Paragraphs 14-17.
17 Final submissions of Respondent, Paragraphs 20-23.
18 Final submissions of Respondent, Paragraphs 26-30.
19 Final submissions of Respondent, Paragraphs 75-83.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR517732>
0
0
0