Mr Peter Farrell v Holman Webb Lawyers

[2015] FWC 8647

[2015] FWC 8647

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

EX TEMPORE DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Peter Farrell
v
Holman Webb Lawyers
(U2015/11252)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL SYDNEY, 18 DECEMBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal, serious misconduct, repeated swearing and unacceptable behaviour, summary dismissal, application dismissed.

[1] This decision reproduces in edited form the decision and reasons which were stated on transcript at the conclusion of the hearing conducted in relation to this matter on 4 December 2015.

[2] In this matter, Mr Peter Farrell alleges he was unfairly dismissed from his employer; Holman Webb Lawyers (the respondent/employer) as per s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Farrell represented himself and Ms Mataere, a Senior Associate from Holman Webb Lawyers appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Background

[3] Mr Farrell was employed as a full time mail room clerk in the administration team, having commenced employment with Holman Webb on 26 October 2009 1. Mr Farrell’s employment was terminated on 4 August 2015, a termination letter dated 3 August 2015 was provided to Mr Farrell.2 The termination letter was signed by the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Malakou and the Human Resources Manager, Ms Britton and states:

“I am writing to you about the termination of your employment with Holman Webb lawyers.

I refer to the previous meetings held with you in respect to unacceptable serious misconduct as detailed in the Final Warning letter dated 2 April 2015.

In addition to this yesterday at approximately 2.45 pm you refused to carry out a work task issued by the Workplace Relations Group.

Specifically you were asked whether you had received the team's email regarding an urgent brief that had to be delivered.

You asked whether it could go in the DX. It was explained to you that it could not as the barrister wanted in that afternoon to read whilst he was in Albury tomorrow. You again asked could it go in the DX and you were informed that it needed to go that afternoon. You said you would not agree to take it and walked away.

You were then asked by the teams partner Rachael Sutton to come back as you were required to deliver the brief. You were asked near the CTP photocopier and yelled out across the office at Rachael and Natalie, "F**ck off I told you I can't take it." A number of staff heard this.

You were then asked to return to their area, which you did. You were very angry, agitated and were pacing. You were asked by the partner to apologise to Natalie, you apologised in an agitated tone. You were then asked to apologise properly, which you then did.

The partner asked you to please take the brief to chambers. You grabbed it from Natalie in an aggressive way which caught the Partners finger as you grabbed if (sic) from her. You were asked to calm down. You then hurried off with the brief in hand and sent an email to the partner at 3.11 pm stating "Done."

We consider that you actions constitute serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal and in light of the previous warnings in respect of the same conduct we feel we have no alternative but to terminate your employment, effective immediately.

You will be paid any accrued entitlements to annual leave and outstanding remuneration, including superannuation, up to and including Friday, 7 August 2015. You are not required to work up until 7 August 2015 and this time will be treated as notice in lieu.”

[4] Attempts to conciliate this matter unfortunately were unsuccessful. Mr Farrell consistently maintained that the only outcome he was prepared to accept was reinstatement.

Applicant’s submissions and evidence

[5] Mr Farrell tendered an outline of submissions, 3 a witness statement,4 gave evidence and was cross-examined.

[6] Mr Farrell submitted that he suffers from an anxiety disorder, which had not previously been raised with the employer. It is stated in Mr Farrell’s outline of submissions that he suffers the anxiety disorder of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCD), for which he has previously sought medical treatment. As a result of Mr Farrell’s disorder, it is at times difficult to predict his behaviour.

[7] In support of this submission, Mr Farrell tendered an unsigned letter with no letter head from a Christopher McDonald, with an address in France, dated 18 August 2015. 5 The letter refers to Mr McDonald having treated Mr Farrell in 2008, (some seven years ago) for a period of several months. The letter is very brief and states:

“To Whom it May Concern:

My name is Christopher McDonald, and I work as a psychotherapist. In 2008 I treated Peter Farrell for several months. At that time, I diagnosed him as having Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. Such a disorder does affect social and occupational functioning.”

[8] In his evidence, Mr Farrell stated that the consultation or treatment which he received from Mr McDonald was done over the telephone 6 as Mr McDonald lives in France and that he sought treatment from him for religious reasons, amongst other reasons. Unfortunately, the letter7 does not make any reference to whether Mr Farrell's OCD has any relationship to the behaviour that led to his termination and further, the letter is of such a general nature that it is virtually of no assistance.

[9] No other evidence was produced by Mr Farrell regarding his illness, although I accept that he does have an illness as he was not cross-examined to the extent that this was contested and it appears to have been accepted by the previous employer. However, it is contrary to statements he has made to his employer previously when asked in respect to there being any reason for his behaviour, he has adamantly stated that he had no medical issues which were contributing to his behaviour that eventually led to his dismissal.

[10] In particular, these statements were made to management on 2 April 2015, during a warning he received regarding behaviour that concerned abusive language. There is no evidence provided by Mr Farrell that he is currently seeking any medical treatment or any treatment at all in respect to what he calls obsessive-compulsive disorder, in his written statement he describes himself as not having any further treatment, based on it being prohibitively expensive. 8 In cross-examination he was unable to explain why the treatment was so expensive under the Australian Medicare system.

[11] Mr Farrell has a work history of using expletive-filled language and had been spoken to on a number of occasions about that behaviour by the respondent. In his evidence, Mr Farrell stated that his behaviour is difficult to predict and he is prone to talking out loud. When taken to his past behaviour in respect to swearing at staff for which he was finally terminated, he denied that he had directly sworn at persons, certainly not in an aggressive fashion and submitted that his swearing was a matter of being frustrated, under stress and not directed to any particular staff member.

Warnings

[12] On 5 October 2011, Mr Farrell signed a record of interview which came about in respect to allegations of abusive language to other employees. He signed a record of interview and in his evidence now states that he was forced to do so 9.

[13] As a result of that interview, Mr Farrell was issued with a warning letter dated 10 October 2011. The warning letter was signed by the Human Resources Manager, Ms Rachael Britton, and the letter states:

“I am writing to you about your conduct during your employment with Holman Webb Lawyers.

On 5 October 2011 you met with me and at this meeting you were advised that your conduct had been unsatisfactory and that immediate improvement is required. In particular you were advised that swearing at your colleagues was unacceptable and is considered serious misconduct.

In the meeting you were asked if you had anything you wished to say or to respond to the situation and you said that the reason that this happened was a build-up of stress over the last 6 months and you understand this should not have occurred.

After considering the situation, it is expected that your conduct improves and specifically that you do not swear at colleagues again. 

This is your first warning letter. Your employment may be terminated if your conduct does not improve immediately.

I propose that we meet again on 19 October 2011 to review your progress. Please let me know if this time is convenient to you. If you wish to respond to this formal warning letter please do so by contacting me or by replying in writing.”

[14] In respect of the warning letter dated 10 October 2011, the conduct that initiated the warning letter is explained in two emails that were sent to the respondent. 10 The first one from a Clair Watkins dated 9 September 2011 where she sent an email to Ms Britton.11 The emails states:

“Hi Rachael

We seem to be having further problems with Peter in the Mailroom. Can you please clarify if he is to collect documents from the trays in our section and deliver them to the correct location, such as the internal Jenners tray and be taken to Reception? 

I have received the attached emails from him and have been called a “Stupid C**t” for placing documents in the Jenners tray. Either way it’s not acceptable and I wanted to bring same to your attention.

Thanks Clair.”

[15] The other complaint that resulted in the warning letter of 10 October was received from a Renee Brown. 12 In Ms Brown’s email of 29 September, she refers to being called a “f**king moron” by Mr Farrell and states "I do not appreciate being spoken to in this manner and that she would never speak to Mr Farrell like that and that she expects the same in return". Ms Brown’s email was directed to Mr Farrell himself.

[16] As a result of the emails from Ms Watkins and Ms Brown, the warning letter from the respondent was issued. The minutes of the meeting that was conducted with Mr Farrell which Mr Farrell stated he was forced to sign, are dated 10 October 2011 13 and signed by Ms Britton. Ms Britton in her minutes states that she explained to Mr Farrell that this serious misconduct resulted in a formal warning which would be issued and placed on his employee file.

[17] The minutes in part state:

“….I explained to Peter this must not happen again and to please walk away if frustrated or come and talk to me as his supervisor to work out a solution to the problem, rather than acting inappropriately.  I reiterated that immediate improvement is required.

Peter understands and said that this will not happen again.

At the end of the meeting I said that we would meet in a few weeks to discuss how things were going.”

[18] In respect of the witness statements that were provided by the respondent, Mr Farrell took issue with having directly sworn at employees, in particular, Rachael Sutton whom he says he never actually said directly to her to 'f**k off', and in respect of Ms Natalie Browne he never swore directly at her, even though he did apologise to her on request. Mr Farrell conceded in his evidence that on the day of the incident that resulted in him swearing, even though not directly at these two employees, that he did hit or brush a partition at the same time 14.

[19] Mr Farrell acknowledged that when he was terminated, he stated to the Chief Executive Officer that he was expecting to be terminated 15. Mr Farrell in his evidence and submissions stated that persons generally swore in the office and that when he swore he did so in frustration as he was under stress, but did not swear directly or directly abuse any work colleagues.

[20] In support of his case, Mr Farrell requested an Order Requiring a Person to Attend the Fair Work Commission (F51). Ms Denae Davies, a legal secretary attended on this basis and gave evidence indicating that people did swear at times in the office if stressed. However, they would not either jokingly or seriously tell someone else to 'f**k off' 16. She had sworn and had used her middle finger as a gesture towards Mr Farrell. She advised that Mr Farrell had called her a c**t and told her to f**k off and no one else at Holman Webb Lawyers had ever said this to her.

[21] In concluding Mr Farrell's evidence he stated that his job at times is stressful, he swears out of frustration, but mainly to himself. However, Mr Farrell was not able to guarantee that he would not repeat this behaviour.

Respondent’s evidence and submissions

[22] In respect of the respondent's case, Holman Webb Lawyers provided an outline of submissions and called seven witnesses to support their case. The witnesses were:

1. Ms Amanda Marango, a former administrative assistant for the respondent;
2. Ms Rachael Britton, Human Resources Manager;
3. Mr Gregory Malakou, Chief Executive Officer;
4. Ms Jane Buckle, legal secretary;
5. Ms Kellie MacLennan, an administrative assistant,
6. Ms Natalie Browne, legal secretary; and
7. Ms Sutton Partner at Holman Webb Lawyers.

[23] Ms Mataere also tendered an offer of settlement 17 which was put to the applicant by the respondent and not accepted by Mr Farrell. The offer of settlement was tendered on the basis of the possibility of making a costs application at the conclusion of the hearing.

[24] Submissions of the respondent employer, Holman Webb Lawyers was that it was a mid-tier law firm and since 2011 the conduct of Mr Farrell has deteriorated to the extent that he has received a number of written warnings and verbal warnings about his language around the office.

[25] The employer referred to the written warning of 10 October 2011 signed by the Human Resources Manager as a result of the emails from Ms Watkins and Ms Brown, discussed above. Further in May 2013, Mr Farrell referred to another staff member in terms already discussed, that evidence went unchallenged.

[26] On 2 March 2015, Mr Farrell was spoken to by the Human Resources Manager, Ms Britton about a complaint from a tenant that resulted from an email which Ms Britton received from the Chief Executive Officer on 27 February 2015 18 which stated:

“Hi Rachael

JVP have come to see me saying that Peter was loudly using the 'C' word in the lift area - we then had a complaint from level 16 and this was followed up by a visit from security. 

Can you give him a formal warning please-  this is now becoming an embarrassment for the firm.”

[27] In addition to speaking to Mr Farrell on 2 March, Ms Britton also spoke to Mr Farrell later that month, which is discussed later in this decision. Ms Britton, in her evidence stated that she had spoken to Mr Farrell regarding the use of the 'C' word in the lift area, and relied on a hand written note that she had written on 2 March 2015 19, where it was confirmed that that the language used by Mr Farrell was unacceptable and inappropriate. The note also stated that she had told Mr Farrell that this behaviour was not to happen again and that it was affecting the reputation of the firm. The note stated that should that conduct be repeated it would lead to summary dismissal. Mr Farrell was asked whether everything was ‘okay’ with him and whether human resources could assist. A formal warning was issued.

[28] The note states that Mr Farrell’s response was that he did not remember the event. He was fine and understood that the behaviour was unacceptable and that a repeat of the behaviour may lead to his termination.

[29] As mentioned above, Ms Britton also referred to having to spoken to the applicant on 31 March 2015 about poor conduct, although unrelated to swearing 20. Ms Britton stated that on or about 31 March 2015, Ms Denae Davis, a secretary in the property banking and finance team came to her office and said words to the effect of “I just asked Peter to deliver something and he told me he couldn't. I have now come back and he is sitting at his desk watching a movie.” She states she then called Mr Farrell into her office and relayed what Ms Davies had told her and went on to tell Mr Farrell “You can't watch movies at work, you need to work. If you don't have enough, come and see me and I'll give you work.”21

[30] On 2 April 2015 a more serious event occurred. That event resulted in Mr Farrell telling Ms Britton to 'f**k off' and leaving an expletive ridden message on her telephone. Ms Britton explains the event in the following manner. She states that she was present when Ms Davies asked Mr Farrell to deliver something to the bank and Mr Farrell refused and turned and stormed off. Ms Britton then said to Mr Farrell, “Peter, please come back, you need to go to the bank.” Mr Farrell then turned around and told her to 'f**k off'. He a then stormed out of the office, and appeared quite aggressive. This was witnessed by Ms Davies.

[31] Shortly after this event, Ms Britton returned to her office and noticed that she had a voicemail message. The message was an expletive laden tirade from Mr Farrell which she says was clearly directed at her. The tirade is in the following form which was recorded on a voicemail message of Ms Britton:

“F**ng whore, I can scream all I like, What did you get out of that? Hello? 5 f***ing years, f***ing, f***ing, f***ing shit job shit job f***ing, f***ing.” 22

[32] As a result of receiving that voice message, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of Holman Webb met Mr Farrell on 2 April 2015 where he was told that such behaviour was unacceptable. Mr Farrell's immediate response was that he could not recall the conversation. However in Mr Farrell’s written submissions he states that he was swearing to himself and the phone in his pocket went off and left a message which was unintended. I am not prepared to accept this explanation from Mr Farrell regarding the accidental leaving of the abusive message.

[33] The notes of the meeting held on 2 April 2015 state clearly that he had been warned previously about his unacceptable language and the seriousness of it. His answer was other than not recalling leaving such a message, that he was frustrated with human resources and work deadlines. He was asked whether he had a medical condition that may be causing such behaviour and he replied absolutely not. Mr Farrell in his evidence in the witness box confirmed having said this.

[34] Following that meeting a final written warning was given to Mr Farrell on 2 April. The warning letter states:

"I am writing to you about your conduct during your employment with Holman Webb Lawyers.

On 2 March 2015 you attended a meeting with the Human Resources Manager, Rachael Britton. At this meeting you were told that your recent conduct was inappropriate, unacceptable and in breach of firm policy. You were given a verbal warning and told that repeated behaviour may lead to summary dismissal.

Specifically she raised with you a complaint that Management had received from a Partner of the firm. The complaint was made as the partner heard you loudly using the 'c**t' word in the lift area.” You were also told that following this complaint management received another complaint from a tenant in the building which was followed by a visit from security to ensure that we did not have a safety issue in the floor. You were also informed you that this behaviour had upset others, affects the reputation of the firm and it was requested that you consider this in the future.

On 31 March you attended a meeting with the Human Resources Manager, Rachael Britton. At this meeting you were advised of a complaint made against you by an employee of the firm.  The complaint was made as the employee felt frustrated that you had not completed a work task assigned by her and on the same day you had been seen watching movies on your computer.  You were asked to not watch movies at your desk and to speak to your manager if you required additional work tasks during the day.

Today at approximately 10.20 am you swore at Rachael Britton after she asked you to complete a work task. She asked you to please not swear again and to please attend to the work task. You swore again as you left the building.  This conduct is absolutely not acceptable.

Today at 10.41 am, you called Rachael Britton and left an unacceptable voicemail message on her phone.”

[35] The message is then quoted. The letter is signed by Mr Greg Malakou, the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent.

[36] Despite having received that written warning following the meeting on 2 April, further conduct involving the use of swear words occurred on 3 August 2015. Holman Webb submits that Mr Farrell yelled in an aggressive tone to both Ms Sutton and Ms Browne telling them to 'f**k off'.

[37] Ms Sutton a Partner in the respondent’s firm stated in her evidence and her witness statement 23 that on 3 August 2015 at around 2.45 pm, she was at her desk in her office. She was looking to the door of her office and she saw Ms Browne her secretary and Mr Farrell come into the area in front of the barrier in front of Ms Browne's desk. Ms Sutton heard a discussion between Ms Browne and Mr Farrell regarding an email for an urgent brief to be delivered. Mr Farrell was asking why it could not go in the DX (document exchange service) and he was advised by Ms Browne that it could not as the barrister was expecting it in the afternoon to read while he was in country New South Wales. Mr Farrell again asked why it could not go into the DX and was advised that it needed to be delivered that afternoon.

[38] Ms Sutton stated that she heard Mr Farrell hit the glass barrier with an open hand and then leave the area and then heard Ms Browne state 'I will have to take it'. After hearing and seeing this Ms Sutton left her office and told Ms Browne that she was not able to take the delivery as her ankle was injured. Ms Sutton then said to Mr Farrell “Peter can you please come back, we need you to take the brief up to chambers.”

[39] Mr Farrell then moved towards the photocopier and yelled at herself and Ms Browne telling them both to ‘f**k off’. A number of other staff were present and heard the comment being made.

[40] As a result of that swearing, she observed Mr Farrell looking very angry and pacing back and forth near the photocopier. She said to Mr Farrell to come back and apologise to Ms Browne for swearing which he eventually did and ultimately took the brief to chambers.

[41] As outlined above, Mr Farrell's explanation of the incident was that he did not swear directly at either Ms Browne or Ms Sutton but was swearing in frustration.

[42] Ms Browne's evidence supported the position of Ms Sutton. In recalling the incident, she states that after she asked Mr Farrell to take the brief to Henry Parkes Chambers, he smacked the partition or a cupboard located at the mail trays and asked why she could not take it.

[43] Mr Farrell later walked towards her desk and said words to the effect ‘f**k off I told you I can't take it’, aggressively snatching the brief out of her hands, at which point she became fearful of Mr Farrell. Ms Browne confirmed Ms Sutton's evidence that Ms Sutton asked Mr Farrell to calm down and apologise.

[44] Ms Browne's evidence was that she felt shocked and shaken up by what had happened. This was not challenged by Mr Farrell in cross examination.

[45] Following that incident on 4 August 2015, Ms Britton and Mr Malakou met with Mr Farrell first thing in the morning and advised him that he would be terminated. The notes of that meeting state, amongst other things, that it was explained to Mr Farrell that a decision had been made to terminate his employment due to serious misconduct and he was reminded of previous final warnings for misconduct, in particular the letter of 2 April 2015 to which Mr Farrell responded that he expected it. Then went on to ask whether he would be paid his leave and whether he could leave immediately.

[46] Ms Jane Buckle, a legal secretary for the respondent provided a witness statement 24 which referred to Mr Farrell calling Renee Brown a “fat bitch” and a “fat pig”. Ms Buckle was not cross-examined on this evidence and as such it must be taken as uncontested. This event, according to the evidence of Ms Buckle occurred some time ago and she did not report it to management at the time.

Consideration

[47] Mr Farrell claims he has been unfairly dismissed and seeks to be reinstated. In determining whether his application should be successful I am required under s.387 of the Act to have regard to a number of criteria which will assist me in determining whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and therefore unfair. The first being whether there was a valid reason for the termination.

s.387(a) – whether a valid reason existed

[48] I accept having heard the witnesses, that the final incident that led to the termination of Mr Farrell, being the verbal abuse of Ms Browne and Ms Sutton did occur and that he told both of them, one a partner of the law firm to ‘f**k off’. While I accept that general banter in the office can include swear words and all witnesses openly acknowledged that staff in the office on occasions swore and this was the main thrust of Mr Farrell's cross-examination to obtain admissions from witnesses that persons in the office did swear.

[49] The submissions of the respondent do not deny that people swear in the office, however no witness accepted, that employees verbally abused each other and certainly not in an aggressive fashion. Mr Farrell has attempted to categorise his swearing as not being directed to anyone in particular, but simply a result of being frustrated and under stress. 25

[50] While I accept that this may be the case in some occasions and for example, the use of the 'C' word in front of the lift, not necessarily directed to any persons in particular, I do not accept where it has been put in evidence by employees who were on the receiving end of his expletives that it was not directed to them.

[51] The witnesses were all clear that the verbal abuse they heard was directed at them and they did not accept, despite being put by Mr Farrell that such language was simply and only related to his frustration and not directed towards them. A number of employees expressed their concern for their personal welfare based on the unpredictable behaviour of Mr Farrell.

[52] It is clear that Mr Farrell has received numerous warnings, some which have been recorded in writing. It is clear that the employer must provide a safe working place for its employees and where it is brought to their attention that people are shocked and concerned with Mr Farrell's unpredictable behaviour, they must act. On that basis, I have no hesitation concluding that a valid reason existed for the termination of Mr Farrell.

s.387(b) – Whether the person was notified of the reason

[53] In respect of whether Mr Farrell was notified of the reason for his dismissal, he was spoken to on 4 August 2015, first thing in the morning and advised as to the reasons for his dismissal.

s.387 (c) – opportunity to respond

[54] Although Mr Farrell did not make anything of this point, it is clear that the employer had determined the day before that he would be summarily terminated. Mr Farrell’s termination letter was dated 3 August 2015 and he was advised on 4 August 2015 at a meeting that he was to be terminated, irrespective of his response. However, having heard the evidence of all the witnesses and having heard of the various warnings and the explanations previously provided by Mr Farrell and his previous undertakings not to conduct himself in the same manner, I see little utility had Mr Farrell been given an opportunity to respond to what was put against him in respect of the abuse of two work colleagues. On the day Mr Farrell stated that he was expecting to be terminated.

s.387 (d) – support person

[55] Mr Farrell relied on the fact that he was not provided with a support person in arguing that his dismissal was unfair. However he misunderstands the requirement under the Act, being that there should not be any unreasonable refusal to have a support person. Although it is fair to say that the opportunity to have a support person at the meeting on 4 August 2015 did not really arise, it cannot be said it was refused upon request.

s.387(e) – if dismissal was related to unsatisfactory performance, whether the person has previously been warned about the unsatisfactory performance

[56] In respect to whether Mr Farrell had been warned previously about his conduct, it goes without saying that he was on notice that his conduct was unsatisfactory and that a repeat would lead to his immediate termination.

s.387(f) and (g) – size of the employer’s enterprise and dedicated human resource management

[57] The employer's enterprise is a large mid-level law firm and they have adequate human resource management. I do not believe that this was an issue that I should accept as being a reason for the employer not to have provided all necessary human resource support. On that basis, it would have been best practice had Mr Farrell on the day, been given a support person and/or given an opportunity to respond to the reasons for his dismissal. However, that did not occur.

s.387(h) – any other matters that the FWC considers relevant

[58] Mr Farrell in his evidence and in his cross-examination attempted to make light of the use of the ‘f’ word as being one that was not intended to cause offence, but clearly it did. I consider relevant and do take into consideration the fact that Mr Farrell has generally been a good worker. Nobody pointed to other than some minor blemishes, the fact that he was not performing his work satisfactorily. The only real complaint relates to his verbal abuse of colleagues. In my observation, the incident on 2 April 2015 where he left the message for the Human Resources Manager could have been justification for his immediate termination of employment, having already been warned on a number of occasions about his language. In my view, he was fortunate to remain in employment after that event.

[59] However, and quite understandably, the more recent conduct following the final written warnings has led the employer to determine that it no longer wished to retain Mr Farrell as an employee and that he needed to be summarily terminated. Although having said that he was summarily terminated, I do note that he did receive three days' pay for work he was not required to undertake, plus a $2,000 ex gratia payment which I have taken into consideration.

[60] I also accept that Mr Farrell has had difficulties in finding alternative employment and accept that he has made a genuine effort to find alternative work; however he has been to date, unsuccessful. The fact that he has been unsuccessful, however, does not make his termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[61] For all the reasons discussed, I do not find that the applicant's dismissal was unfair and on that basis the application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr P. Farrell, Applicant on his own behalf

Ms A Mataere, Solicitor on behalf of the respondent

Hearing details:

Sydney

2015

4 December

 1   Statement of Service from Holman and Webb Lawyers dated 7 August 2015

 2   Attachment E to Exhibit R6

 3   Exhibit A2, PN69

 4   Exhibit A3, PN70

 5   Exhibit A4

 6   PN138-PN139

 7   Exhibit A4 – letter from Mr McDonald

 8   PN1525

 9   PN1527

 10   Attachment RB9 to Exhibit R5

 11   Attachment RB7 to Exhibit R5

 12   Attachment RB8 to Exhibit R5

 13   Attachment RB9 to Exhibit R5

 14   PN533

 15   PN631

 16   PN919 to PN925

 17   Exhibit R2

 18   Attachment RB10 of Exhibit R5

 19   Attachment RB10 of Exhibit R5

 20   At paragraph 15 of Exhibit R5

 21   Ibid

 22   PN355

 23   Exhibit R4

 24   Exhibit R7

 25   Mr Farrell conducted his case without resorting to the use of foul language

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR575049>