Oliver v Australian Capital Territory Justice and Community Safety Directorate

[2017] FCCA 1126

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OLIVER v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY DIRECTORATE [2017] FCCA 1126

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Claim for legal profession privilege – contention of “waiver” of legal professional privilege in relation to advice prepared by the ACT Government Solicitor which was directed to be set out in a Report provided to the Applicant – the legal advice was directed to be inserted into the Report at the specific direction of a member of the Appeals Panel who was also employed by the ACT Government – argument that ACT and the Appeals Panel are independent of each other and therefore the Appeals Panel was not able to “waive” privilege on the ACT’s behalf – waiver established.

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.118, 121, 122(2), (3) & (5)

Cases cited:

Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd (2006) 151 FCR 341
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303

Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1

J.D. Heydon, Cross on Evidence, (10th Edition) (Sydney: LexisNexis, Butterworth, 2016)
S. Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (12th Edition) (Sydney: Lawbook Company, 2016)

Applicant: ROSE OLIVER

Respondent: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY DIRECTORATE

File Number: CAG 74 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 21 March 2017

Date of Last Submission: 21 March 2017

Delivered at: Canberra

Oral Reasons delivered on:

Written Reasons provided on:

24 March 2017

31 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms P Bindon

Solicitors for the Applicant: Aulich Civil Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Buckland

Solicitors for the Respondent: ACT Government Solicitor

THE COURT DECLARES THAT

1. The Respondent’s claim for legal professional privilege in relation to the documents set out in a letter from the Applicant’s Solicitors to the Respondent’s Solicitors, dated 14^th March 2017, and more particularly in a “Schedule of Documents Subject of Objection to Subpoena” prepared by the Respondent (provided to but not formally filed with the Court: Annexure A to the reasons of the Court) is not made out.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The objection to Subpoena, filed 30^th January 2017, be dismissed.

2. Any costs application in relation to the current Application be dealt with at the substantive hearing.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAG 74 of 2016

ROSE OLIVER

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY DIRECTORATE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 21^st March 2017, the Court heard submissions in support of the Respondent’s Notice of Objection regarding legal professional privilege regarding certain documents and the Applicant’s claim that such privilege had been waived. Detailed oral reasons were provided on 24^th March 2017.  Some days later, a request was received to provide written reasons.  These are those reasons as revised from the transcript.

2. The Applicant has brought proceedings against the Respondent, inter alia, claiming certain breaches of, and relief under, the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (“the Act”).

3. In relation to those proceedings, which are scheduled to be heard in early June this year, on 22^nd December 2016, the Applicant’s solicitors issued a subpoena, directed to the Respondent to produce certain documents.  Among the classes of documents are those that relate to a Ms Paulsen, who was relevantly employed in the same unit (the Sheriff’s Office) at the Australian Capital Territory Law Courts as the Applicant.

4. By Notice of Objection, filed 30^th January 2017, the Respondent objected, on the ground of legal professional privilege, to the inspection of certain documents.  The documents that are the subject of the claim are referred to in a letter from the Applicant’s solicitors to the Respondent’s solicitors, dated 14th March 2017, and set out in a “Schedule of Documents Subject of Objection to Subpoena” prepared by the Respondent (provided to but not formally filed with the Court).  That document is attached to these reasons (Annexure A). 

5. Originally there were two categories of documents to which objection was taken.  Following discussion in Court on 21^st March, there now remains only one category of objection – namely those documents in relation to which legal professional privilege is claimed.  The challenge by the Applicant to this claim is that such privilege was waived by virtue of the Respondent’s conduct.

6. For the reasons that follow, waiver of legal professional privilege has been clearly made out.  The Respondent’s Notice of Objection must be dismissed.

Consideration & Disposition

1. For the purposes of these reasons, I note at the outset, which was also acknowledged by Counsel for both parties, that the relevant legal principles in relation to “waiver” are as set out in s.122 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and by the High Court in Mann v Carnell and Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited.[1]  Other relevant authorities include the Full Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd.[2] 

   [1] Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1; Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303. Other sections of the Evidence Act generally relevant to the immediate issues in dispute but not otherwise canvassed in submissions are ss.118 and 121.

   [2] Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd (2006) 151 FCR 341. More generally in relation to s.122, see also the detailed discussion in Odgers’ Uniform Evidence Law (12th Edition) (Sydney: Lawbook Company, 2016) p.958 ff, and the always magisterial Cross on Evidence (J.D. Heydon) (10th Edition) (Sydney: LexisNexis, Butterworth, 2016) at [25010] ff.

2. Two points may be made at the outset from these authorities. 

3. First, all claims for privilege and in particular the contention in relation to waiver are necessarily fact specific to the matter before the Court.  Secondly, as stated by the Full Court (Kenny, Stone & Edmonds JJ) in Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd at [52] and [61], the relevant principle is as follows:[3]

   [52] These authorities show that, where issue or implied waiver is made out, the privilege holder has expressly or impliedly made an assertion about the contents of an otherwise privileged communication for the purpose of mounting a case or substantiating a defence. Where the privilege holder has put the contents of the otherwise privileged communication in issue, such an act can be regarded as inconsistent with the confidentiality that would otherwise pertain to the communication.

   [61] Both before and after Mann, the governing principle required a fact-based inquiry as to whether, in effect, the privilege holder had directly or indirectly put the contents of an otherwise privileged communication in issue in litigation, either in making a claim or by way of defence. In DSE at 519 [58], Allsop J put the matter somewhat more descriptively, saying waiver arises when

   the party entitled to the privilege makes an assertion (express or implied), or brings a case, which is either about the contents of the confidential communication or which necessarily lays open the confidential communication to scrutiny and, by such conduct, an inconsistency arises between the act and the maintenance of the confidence, informed partly by the forensic unfairness of allowing the claim to proceed without disclosure of the communication. (emphasis in original).

   [3] See also the comments of the Full Court at [43] in Rio Tinto.

4. Their Honours stated further, at [68], that the issue was whether a party

   … made an assertion as part of his case that puts the contents of the privileged scheduled documents in issue, or necessarily lays them open to scrutiny, with the consequence that an inconsistency arises between the making of the assertion and the maintenance of the privilege.

5. More recently, in Expense Reduction v Armstrong Management at [30] - [32], the High Court said:

   [30] According to its strict legal connotation, waiver is an intentional act done with knowledge whereby a person abandons a right (or privilege) by acting in a manner inconsistent with that right (or privilege). It may be express or implied. In most cases concerning waiver, the area of dispute is whether it is to be implied. In some cases waiver will be imputed by the law with the consequence that a privilege is lost, even though that consequence was not intended by the party losing the privilege. The courts will impute an intention where the actions of a party are plainly inconsistent with the maintenance of the confidentiality which the privilege is intended to protect.

   [31] In Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd, it was explained that '[w]aiver' is a doctrine of some arbitrariness introduced by the law to prevent a man in certain circumstances from taking up two inconsistent positions ... It is a conclusion of law when the necessary facts are established. It looks, however, chiefly to the conduct and position of the person who is said to have waived, in order to see whether he has 'approbated' so as to prevent him from 'reprobating'. In Mann v Carnell, it was said that it is considerations of fairness which inform the court's view about an inconsistency which may be seen between the conduct of a party and the maintenance of confidentiality, though "not some overriding principle of fairness operating at large."

   [32] Those considerations, articulated in relation to waiver at common law, apply with equal force in relation to the statutory question posed by s 122(2) of the Evidence Act, and made applicable by s 131A of that Act to the determination of a question of waiver of client legal privilege arising in the context of pre-trial discovery. That question is whether the client or party concerned “has acted in a way that is inconsistent with the client or party objecting to” the production of a document.

6. The resolution of the current contest regarding “waiver” revolves around the Court’s consideration and determination of the import and effect of the Respondent’s conduct regarding the Report of an Appeals Panel.  That Report was provided to the Applicant under cover of a letter, on ACT Government letterhead, dated 19^th July 2016.  The letter was signed by Mr Noud, the Convenor of Appeal Panels.  Mr Noud, as stated in the signature block of that letter, is also the Director, Public Sector Workplace Relations: Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development.  That letter, with the Report, became Exhibit A.

7. Also tendered was an email from Ms Maggie Drejer-White to Mr Stanley (who is from HBA Consulting Pty Ltd), dated 29^th June 2016 (Exhibit B). Ms Drejer-White was a member of the Appeals Panel. She is also the Deputy Director, Human Resources, of the ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services Directorate. That correspondence requested Mr Stanley to insert into the Appeal Panel’s Report the detail of advice given by the ACT Government Solicitor, dated 30^th June 2015, regarding the use of audio recordings of private conversations without the consent of the participants to those conversations.

8. For its part, summarily stated, the Respondent says there was never any waiver, inter alia because the Appeals Panel was set up, not as an arm or agency of the ACT Government but independently through HBA Consulting. As such, an independent body cannot (it was said) waive any relevant privilege on behalf of the Respondent. Further, various documents were provided to the Court, such as the retention of HBA Consulting, and the appointment of the Chair of the Appeals Panel, to show that the Appeals Panel was relevantly independent from the Respondent.

9. As noted earlier in these reasons, in Rio Tinto, at [67] – [68], the Full Court said:

   [67] … There would be no issue waiver because the decision-maker would not have done anything inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege. The situation might be otherwise if the decision-maker puts the contents of the legal advice in issue by specifically relying on the contents of the advice (and not merely the fact of the advice) to vindicate his claimed state of satisfaction or exercise of discretion.

   [68] In this case, everything turns on the particulars given by the Commissioner in response to Rio’s request. The question is whether, by his particulars, the Commissioner made an assertion as part of his case that puts the contents of the privileged scheduled documents in issue, or necessarily lays them open to scrutiny, with the consequence that an inconsistency arises between the making of the assertion and the maintenance of the privilege. To answer this, the relevant assertions must be considered in their proper context.

10. Having regard to the principles to which I have referred, the objection to the subpoena and the claim to legal professional privilege is not made out.  Further, the contention by the Applicant in relation to waiver, in my view, is relevantly made out. 

11. These conclusions are reached precisely because (a) the Appeal Panel’s decision, containing the relevant legal advice, was disclosed to the Applicant by a person who was authorised to do so by the Respondent; (b) the disclosure was on ACT Government letterhead by a person employed in a senior position by the Respondent; (c) the Appeals Panel was composed of two out of three members who were also employees of the Respondent, and (d) one of those ACT Government-employed Appeal Panel members specifically requested that the ACT Government Solicitor’s advice be inserted into the Report of that Panel.

12. It follows from these conclusions that I do not consider the establishment, constitution and conduct of the Appeals Panel to be sufficiently removed from the Respondent Directorate (or, for that matter, the ACT more generally) such as to enable the Respondent’s argument regarding “independence” to succeed. The Appeals Panel, in every relevant respect, was acting on behalf of the ACT Government, or at least on behalf of the Respondent Directorate.

13. It also follows from the matters I have outlined that in providing the advice of the ACT Government Solicitor to the Applicant, there is no ground of “compulsion” (pursuant to s.122(5)(iii) of the Evidence Act) upon which the Respondent can relevantly rely.

14. These actions, individually but especially collectively, in my view, all point to action taken that inevitably led to the legal advice being disclosed and thereby being open to scrutiny. Further, neither information barriers were put in place nor other action taken to quarantine the advice (so to speak), nor equally to support the independence from the ACT Government of the Appeals Panel that was propounded. The actions of the Respondent outlined here were inconsistent with maintaining its claim for privilege.

15. In short, exactly what was referred to by the Full Court in Rio Tinto, namely the disclosure of the contents of the advice, was laid bare and therefore open to scrutiny by the actions of persons who cannot reasonably or properly be distanced from the Respondent.  Such conduct was relevantly inconsistent with the Respondent maintaining its claim for privilege.

16. In view of such a finding, I need not consider any additional argument regarding “confidentiality” as advanced by the Respondent.  And in any event, such argument as there may be is somewhat moot not only for the same reason given in relation to the privilege argument but also because any such documents can only be used for the purposes of the current proceeding, in which case any materials would be subject to the relevant restrictions (express or implied) in relation to access to documents that are relevantly relied upon in proceedings before the Court.

17. As indicated earlier, the Applicant’s claim that there has been a relevant waiver of privilege, in my view, has been clearly established and the documents which have been sought, as set out in the Applicant’s letter to the Respondent of 14^th March are to be taken to be available for inspection by the Applicant.

18. Should any consequential orders be required, and or otherwise to deal with any other argument relating to the proceedings generally or in relation to the current Application in particular, the parties are to confer and forward a consent minute to my Chambers in 7 days.  Absent any Application being filed within the same period regarding costs, I would propose dealing with any question regarding costs in the substantive proceeding.

19. The Orders today therefore are: (a) the Respondent’s claim for privilege is not made out, (b) the objection to subpoena, filed 30th January 2017, be dismissed.

20. The request for written reasons was received via e-mail from the solicitor for the Respondent on 24^th March 2017. This correspondence read as follows:

    The Respondent hereby requests written reasons for his Honour’s judgment as the oral reasons did not appear to address the Respondent’s back-up position that, in the event of waiver, not all of the documents sought are covered by the scope of the privilege so waived and the related invitation by the Respondent for his Honour to inspect the documents sought to determine whether those documents were indeed covered by the waiver. It was not apparent from the oral reasons that his Honour considered this reserve position.

    The oral reasons also did not address the further documents produced to which the objection on irrelevance was pressed, being the documents described in the supplementary schedule provided on 21 March 2017. The Respondent understood it to be the position of the parties and the Court that a further order would be drafted regarding the scope of the relevant context of documents sought.

21. Having regard to the Orders and directions previously made regarding any further Application, in my view, the current reasons are sufficient to deal with the Application before the Court.  Given how relatively imminent is the trial, not to mention the volume of material involved, any other matters that arise can be dealt with during that hearing.  Moreover, questions of “relevance” of documents for which otherwise the claim for legal professional privilege has now been dealt with on the basis of there having been established a “waiver” of that privilege can also be addressed, to the degree relevant, at the final hearing.

I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Neville

Associate: 

Date:       31 May 2017

“EXHIBIT A”

IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF
AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

FILE NO: CAG74/2016

Rose Oliver
Applicant

Australian Capital Territory
Respondent

Schedule of Documents
Subject of Objection to Subpoena

A. Object on Grounds of Irrelevance

1. Email chain between Robert Fraser and Richard Pender re: Proposed return to work Cathy Paulsen - 3 August 2015

2. Email chain between Richard Pender and Cheryl Angel re: JMU -24 August 2015

3. Email chain between Richard Pender and Danny Peraic re: Cathy Paulsen - Personnel File - 27 August 2015

4. Email chain between Richard Pender, Danny Peraic and Rosemary Oliver attaching medical certificate of Cathy Paulsen re: Staff-In-Confidence: Mrs Cathy Paulsen - 16 June 2015

5. Email chain between Richard Pender and Robert Frazer re: Proposed return - Cathy Paulsen - 3 August 2015

6. Email chain between Richard Pender and Kathy Rothnie re: Proposed return - Cathy Paulsen - 5 August 2015

7. Email chain between Richard Pender and Robert Frazer re: Proposed return - Cathy Paulsen - 4 August 2015

8. Email from SheriWs Office to Robert Frazer re: Phone call from Kathy Rothnie – Undated

9. Email from Danny Peraic to Robert Frazer attaching medical certificate of Cathy Paulsen re: Cathy Paulsen – undated

10. Email chain between Robert Frazer, Rosemary Oliver and Cheryl Angel attaching ACTLCT Report and final cautionary letter to Cathy Paulsen re: Staff-In-Confidence complaint regarding Mrs Cathy Paulsen- I0 June 2015

1. Email chain between Richard Pender and Kathy Rothnie re: Cathy Paulsen - Medical Certificate - 16 June 2015

2. Email from Robert Frazer to Richard Pender re: Jury Officer - 26 June 2015

3. Email from Sheriff's Office to Robert Frazer re: Phone call from Kathy Rothnie - 31 July 2015

4. Email from Robert Frazer to Danny Peraic attaching Event Sequence Relating to Mrs Cathy Paulsen - 24 June 2015

5. Email from Nathan Carriage to Allison Kennedy attaching 2013 - 2015 Schedule of Matters relating to Mrs Cathy Paulsen re: Private & Confidential: Statement - Frazer Absence - 27 August 2015

6. Email from Allison Kennedy to Bradley Thomson attaching 2013 - 2015 Schedule of Matters relating to Mrs Cathy Paulsen re: Private & Confidential: Statement- Frazer Absence- 13 October 2015

7. Email from Allison Kennedy to Peter Major attaching 2013 - 2015 Schedule of Matters relating to Mrs Cathy Paulsen re: Private & Confidential: Statement - Frazer Absence – Undated

8. Email from Nathan Carriage to Allison Kennedy attaching 2013 - 2015 Schedule of Matters relating to Mrs Cathy Paulsen re: Private & Confidential: Statement- Frazer Absence- 27 August 2015

B. Claim for Legal Professional Privilege

1. Mediation Summary provided to Federal Circuit Court by ACTGS - 28 October 2016

2. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Rebekah Smith attaching draft mediation summary re: Correspondence - Delegated proposed decision - Tennination - 31 May 2016

3. Email chain between Liz Beattie and Daniel Ng attaching draft response to application re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim – 1 July 2016

4. Confidential Report provided to Federal Circuit Court by ACTGS - 31 October 2016

5. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Daniel Ng and Rebekah Smith re: Correspondence – Delegate proposed decision-Tennination - Peraic-24 June 2016

6. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Daniel Ng, Liz Beattie and Rebekah Smith re: Correspondence - Delegate proposed decision - Tennination - Peraic - 24 June 2016

7. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Service of Application - C2016/1463 - 24 June 2016

8. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Daniel Ng re: Service of Application - C2016/1463 - 24 June 2016

9. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Daniel Ng and Liz Beattie re: Service of Application - C2016/1463 -27 June 2016

10. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Daniel Ng re: Service of Application - C2016/1463 -27 June 2016

11. Email from Daniel Ng to Kathy Rothnie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 29 June 2016

12. Email chain between Daniel Ng to Kathy Rothnie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 29 June 2016

13. Email chain between Daniel Ng and Liz Beattie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim – 1 July 2016

14. Email chain between Daniel Ng and Liz Beattie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 1 July 2016

15. Email chain between Daniel Ng and Liz Beattie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 4 July 2016

16. Email chain between Daniel Ng, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 4 July 2016

17. Email from Liz Beattie to Daniel Ng and Kathy Rothnie re: Final misconduct decision and proposed sanction DP July 2016 - 15 July 2016

18. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Appeal report- Mrs Rosemary Oliver - 18 July 2016

19. 18          Email chain between Daniel Ng, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Final misconduct decision and proposed sanction DP July 2016 - 21 July 2016

20. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Appeal Ms Oliver- 1 August 2016

21. Email from Daniel Ng to Liz Beattie, Rebekah Smith and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v ACT Government - General protections application - 22 September 2016

22. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Donna Burns, Rebekah Smith and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v ACT Government- General protections application - 28 September 2016

23. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Daniel Ng re: Service of application- C2016/1463 - Oliver v Justice and Community Services - 27 June 2016

24. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Service of application - C2016/1463 - Oliver v Justice and Community Services - 24 June 2016

25. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Steven Miller re: Service of application - C2016/1463- Oliver v Justice and Community Services - 28 September 2016

26. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Daniel Ng re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 29 June 2016

27. 26     Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Appeal report - Mrs Rosemary Oliver – 18 July 2016

28. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Daniel Ng and Liz Beattie re: Draft response to Oliver adverse action claim - 4 July 2016

29. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Daniel Ng re: Appeal Ms Oliver - 1 August 2016

30. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Helen Sexton, Donna Burns and Rebekah Smith re: Rose Oliver v ACT Government - General protections application - 6 October 2016

31. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Helen Sexton and Donna Burns re: Rose Oliver v ACT Government- General protections application - 6 October 2016

32. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie attaching short minutes of order re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory- CAG74/2016- 13 October 2016

33. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory CAG74/2016 - 13 October 2016

34. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver  Australian Capital Territory -CAG74/2016 -13 October 2016

35. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory - CAG74/2016-13 October 2016

36. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory - CAG74/2016-14 October 2016

37. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory CAG74/2016 - 14 October 2016

38. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory CAG74/2016- 17 October 2016

39. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory - CAG74/2016- 17 October 2016

40. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Kathy Rothnie and Liz Beattie re: ACT ats Oliver – Draft response - 19 December 2016

41. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 7 November 2016

42. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law - 9 November 2016

43. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 9 November 2016

44. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 9 November 2016

45. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-28 November 2016

46. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie and Helen Sexton attaching short minutes of order re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-28 November 2016

47. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-28 November 2016

48. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 7 December 2016

49. Email chain between Philip Kellow, Liz Beattie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 7 December 2016

50. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Phillip Kellow, Helen Sexton and Ben Rogers re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-7 December 2016

51. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Phillip Kellow, Helen Sexton and Ben Rogers re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 7 December 2016

52. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and James Macken attaching amended short minutes oforder re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 5 December 2016

53. Email chain between Philip Kellow, Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 16 December 2016

54. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 16 December 2016

55. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton attaching finalised response re: ACT ats Oliver- Draft response - 16 December 2016

56. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 16 December 2016

57. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 16 December 2016

58. Email chain between James Macken, Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 19 December 2016

59. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie attaching draft response re: ACT ats Oliver - Draft response - 16 December 2016

60. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver- Draft response- 16 December 2016

61. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie attaching application of Rose Oliver re: Rose Oliver- FCC application - 16 December 2016

62. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver – Draft response - 16 December 2016

63. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver- Draft response - 19 December 2016

64. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: ACT ats Oliver – Draft response - 16 December 2016

65. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 7 November 2016

66. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie attaching letter from Aulich Civil Law re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law- 8 November 2016

67. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver- Instructions to brief counsel - 8 November 2016

68. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law- 8 November 2016

69. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie and Liz Beattie re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 7 November 2016

70. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law - 8 November 2016

71. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law - 8 November 2016

72. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law - 8 November 2016

73. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law-8 November 2016

74. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie re: Correspondence from Aulich Civil Law - 8 November 2016

75. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Rose Oliver - Instructions to brief counsel - 8 November 2016

76. Email from Liz Beattie to Kathy Rothnie attaching draft report and mediation summary re: Draft proposed disc and misconduct Sep 2016 - 31 October 2016

77. Email chain between Liz Beattie, Kathy Rothnie and Helen Sexton re: Oliver draft mediation summary - for review - 28 October 2016

78. Email from Liz Beattie to Helen Sexton re: Rose - 28 October 2016

79. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 31 October 2016

80. Email from Helen Sexton to Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of 2016)- 17 October 2016

81. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 27 October 2016

82. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: CAG74/2016 - Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory- 27 October 2016

83. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: CAG74/2016 - Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory - 27 October 2016

84. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-27 October 2016

85. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-27 October 2016

86. Email from Helen Sexton to Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 27 October 2016

87. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)- 28 October 2016

88. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-27 October 2016

89. Email chain between Helen Sexton and Kathy Rothnie re: Message from “MOOREB1203PO1” -28 October 2016

90. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Helen Sexton re: Message from "MOOREB1203P01" -28 October 2016

91. Email chain between Helen Sexton, Liz Beattie and Kathy Rothnie re: Rose Oliver v Australian Capital Territory (CAG 74 of2016)-28 October 2016

92. Email chain between Peter Garrisson, Renee Leon, Michael Johnson and Kerry Cargill re: Magistrates Court - 30 April 2007

93. Request for advice from Office of the Executive Director re: ACT Law Courts Investigation into Misuse of Parking Vouchers - 24 July 2007

94. Email chain between Peter Garrisson and Kathy Rothnie re: ACT parking voucher investigation - 27 August 2007

95. Email chain between Peter Garrisson and Kathy Rothnie re: ACT parking voucher investigation - 27 August 2007

96. Email from Renee Leon to Kathy Rothnie re: Letter re ACT Law Courts investigation - 3 May 2007

97. Email chain between Peter Garris son, Jim Venn and Kathy Rothnie re: Law Court investigation – 3 May 2007

98. Email from Renee Leon to Kathy Rothnie re: Direction - 2 May 2007

99. Email chain between Sky Sim, Renee Leon and Liz Beattie re: Misuse of parking vouchers by staff of ACT Courts - Additional information - 23 November 2007

100. Email chain between Heidi Robinson and Kathy Rothnie re: Archondis matter - 18 December 2007

101. Draft letter from Brett Phillips to Anastasia Archondis – Undated

102. Draft letter from Brett Phillips to Anastasia Archondis - November 2007

103. Draft letter from Michael Lawrence to Anastasia Archondis re: Investigation into allegations of misconduct- November 2007

104. ACTGS advice to Justice & Community Safety re: Courts Investigation - 22 October 2007

105. Draft letter from Brett Phillips to Anastasia Archondis - October 2007

106. Email from Sky Sim to Phillip Joyce re: Engagement of Jim Venn - 31 October 2007

107. Email chain between Sky Sim and Phillip Joyce re: Engagement of Jim Venn - 1November2007

108. Email chain between Peter Garrisson and Renee Leon re: Magistrates Court- 30 April 2007

109. Email from Heidi Robinson to Kathy Rothnie re: Courts investigation - 23 November 2007

110. Email from Sky Sim to Renee Leon re: Misuse of parking vouchers by staff of ACT Courts Additional information - 23 November 2007

111. Email from Liz Beattie to Daniel Ng re: In court room recording - 17 June 2015

112. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Christina Muthurajah re: Staff-In-Confidence: Jury Management Unit - 16 June 2015

113. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie and Christina Muthurajah re: Staff-In-Confidence: Jury Management Unit- 16 June 2015

114. Photo of security notice signage from Supreme Court – Undated

115. Email chain between Alan Campbell, Rebekah Smith, Kathy Rothnie and Christina Muthurajah re: Recording- Courts - 16 June 2015

116. Email from Daniel Ng to Kathy Rothnie attaching ACTGS advice re: use of court recording in disciplinary proceedings - 30 June 2015

117. Email chain between Kathy Rothnie, Rebekah Smith and Daniel Ng re: CCTV advice - 29 July 2015

118. Email from Kathy Rothnie to Allison Kennedy re: CCTV advice - 30 July 2015

119. Email chain between Richard Pender, Liz Beattie and Daniel Ng re: Oliver v JACS and Ors – FWC conference 25 July 2016- 29 July 2016

120. Email from Allison Kennedy to Kathy Rothnie and Liz Beattie attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD- Investigation of Sheriff's Office employees – Undated

121. Email from Allison Kennedy to Daniel Ng attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD - Investigation of Sheriff's Office employees – Undated

122. Email from Allison Kennedy to Kathy Rothnie, Liz Bettie and Julie Thomson attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD- Investigation of Sheriff's Office employees – Undated

123. Email chain between Steve Donis, Allison Kennedy and Daniel Ng attaching ACTGS advice and interpretation of advice re: Advice: CMTEDD - Investigation of Sheriffs Office employees – 23 February 2016

124. Email from Julie Thomson to Allison Kennedy attaching ACTGS advice and interpretation of advice re: Advice: CMTEDD- Investigation of Sheriffs Office employees -24 November 2015

125. Email chain between Daniel Ng and Allison Kennedy attaching complaints and correspondence from Registrar to Danny Peraic re: Allegations - Mr Peraic - 5 November 2015

126. Email chain between Daniel Ng and Allison Kennedy attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD - Investigation of Sheriff's Office employees - 22 February 2016

127. Email from Melanie Macalister to Allison Kennedy attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD - Investigation of Sheriffs Office employees - 23 November 2015

128. Email from Allison Kennedy to Kathy Rothnie and Liz Beattie attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD- Investigation of Sheriffs Office employees - 23 November 2015

129. Email from Allison Kennedy to Julie Thomson attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD InvestigatioN of Sheriffs Office employees - 24 November 2015

130. Email from Allison Kennedy to Daniel Ng attaching ACTGS advice re: Advice: CMTEDD - Investigation of Sheriffs Office employees - 24 November 2015