Shane Adams v Tasmanian Freight Services Pty Ltd

[2015] FWC 5997

[2015] FWC 5997 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2015/6223) was lodged against this decision.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shane Adams
v
Tasmanian Freight Services Pty Ltd
(U2015/7131)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT WELLS HOBART, 31 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Introduction

[1] Mr Shane Adams was employed as a truck driver by transport company Tasmanian Freight Services Pty Ltd (TasFreight) from 27 September 2010 until his termination on 13 April 2015. Mr Adams claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by TasFreight.

[2] TasFreight asserted Mr Adams was dismissed for serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal as he refused the instructions of his supervisor. At the time of lodging it’s response to the unfair dismissal application, TasFreight had 220 employees and therefore is not a small business.

[3] Both parties were unrepresented and were provided with considerable assistance from the Commission to present their cases.

The Meaning of Dismissed

[4] The meaning of dismissed is found at s.386(1) of the Fair Work Act2009 (the Act) and states:

(1) A person has been dismissed if:

(a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer’s initiative; or

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

[5] It is common ground between the parties that Mr Adams was terminated on the employer’s initiative.

The evidence

[6] Mr Adams gave evidence on his own behalf by way of a statement 1 and annexed list of documents. He was the subject of cross-examination. Mr Adams also adduced evidence from his wife Mrs Kristy-Lee Whitney and Mr Tim Smith, an employee of TasFreight, who was made available to give evidence due to TasFreight referring to Mr Smith in its witness evidence.

[7] Mrs Whitney provided a witness statement 2 and uncontested oral evidence which went largely to an illness suffered by Mr Adams from 9 to 11 April 2015. Mr Smith provided oral evidence relating only to events at work on 8 April 2015.

[8] TasFreight elicited evidence via written statements and oral testimony from the following employees:

● Mr Malcolm Robert Dart, Operations Manager at Devonport;  3

● Mr Adam Emery, Operations Supervisor;  4

● Mr Ben John Savage, Truck Driver; 5

● Mr Chris McKenna, Director; 6 and

● Mr Gavin John Wells, Rigid Truck Driver. 7

[9] There was considerable contest about what occurred in the workplace prior to Mr Adams’ dismissal. Accordingly I must consider the evidence about the relevant matters to be determined and where required, I have indicated which evidence I prefer.

Background matters

[10] Mr Adams is a truck driver and is married with four children. He worked for TasFreight for more than four and a half years.

[11] Mr Adams claimed he was not given a reason for his dismissal and accordingly was not afforded an opportunity to address any reason for his dismissal, prior to that event on 13 April 2015. TasFreight submitted that Mr Adams was terminated as he did not load freight when he was told to and he refused a lawful and reasonable instruction to make deliveries to the west coast of Tasmania when he did not present for work on 9 April 2015.

[12] During the term of his employment, Mr Adams was, on occasion, required to make deliveries to the west coast of Tasmania. This work included making deliveries to mine sites.

[13] In the week prior to Wednesday 8 April 2015, an employee of TasFreight made a delivery to the Henty Gold Mine on the west coast and returned a positive drug test. That employee was stood down pending the outcome of a “B” sample (confirmation sample), which also returned a positive result. That employee’s employment was terminated by TasFreight, although the date of that termination was not in evidence.

The supervisor’s instructions

[14] On Wednesday 8 April 2015 Mr Adams was advised by his operations supervisor, Mr Adam Emery, that he was required to make deliveries to the west coast on the following day. It was Mr Adams’ evidence that Mr Emery is responsible for loading freight and Mr Emery did not specifically instruct him to do so. TasFreight’s witnesses stated that drivers often loaded their own freight when Mr Emery was busy or not at the depot.

[15] Mr Emery’s evidence was that when he telephoned Mr Adams to tell him of his requirement to deliver to the west coast on 9 April 2015, Mr Adams questioned him on whether he would be required to deliver to the Henty Gold Mine. Mr Emery said when he advised Mr Adams that he would have to attend Henty Gold Mine, Mr Adams told to him that he would not go and that he had his reasons for not going. It was Mr Emery’s evidence that a second phone conversation occurred between him and Mr Adams, wherein he again told Mr Adams that he was required to deliver to the west coast. Mr Emery said that Mr Adams then confided in him that if he was drug tested he “…won’t have a job”. 8 Mr Emery said he told Mr Adams “not my problem”9 and told him to load his freight when he returned to the depot. Mr Emery said that every Wednesday he left work early to attend to other work and that that was why Mr Adams was told to load his own freight.

[16] It was Mr Adams’ evidence that the only conversation he had with Mr Emery on 8 April 2015 relating to deliveries to the west coast was a face-to-face conversation at the depot and that he was never told by Mr Emery to load his own freight. Mr Adams said he did not refused to carry out the deliveries to the west coast and that he never questioned Mr Emery about whether he had to deliver to the Henty Gold Mine.

[17] Mr Smith’s evidence was that he had been informed by Mr Adams on 8 April 2015 that Mr Emery had told him he was required to do the west coast run the following day. Mr Smith said that he later questioned Mr Emery over his decision to send Mr Adams to the west coast stating “…do you think that’s a wise move to make?”  10 On cross examination, Mr Smith stated he only had one conversation with Mr Emery about this issue on 8 April 2015. He said he questioned Mr Emery’s decision because he had heard rumours in the yard about Mr Adams and possible drug use and the recent issue with the other employee’s drug test at Henty Gold Mine.

[18] Mr Wells’ evidence was that on the afternoon of 8 April 2015, Mr Adams approached him, said “Been nice working with you Gav, I’ve got to go down the west coast tomorrow” 11 and then continued walking to his truck. Mr Savage’s evidence was that on the afternoon of 8 April 2015, Mr Adams cleared his personal belongings out his truck and told him that if he was drug tested the next day while making deliveries to the west coast he would not pass the test as “he had smoked a joint on the weekend”.12

[19] It was Mr Dart’s evidence that on the afternoon of 8 April 2015 he found unloaded freight outside at the depot and rang Mr Emery (who had left work early that day) about the freight. Mr Emery advised Mr Dart that he had told Mr Adams to load the freight. Mr Dart made enquiries of Mr Adams’ whereabouts and was told by other employees that he had gone home.

[20] Mr Adams’ and Mrs Whitney’s evidence was that by the early hours of the morning of Thursday 9 April 2015, Mr Adams was unwell and vomiting. Mr Adams advised Mr Emery via a message that he was not fit for work. Mr Adams attended his General Practitioner at 2.45pm on 9 April 2015 and was provided with a medical certificate 13 certifying him unfit for work for 9 and 10 April 2015. Mr Adams advised Mr Emery via message that he would also not be at work on Friday 10 April 2015. The employer chose not to cross-examine Mr Adams and Mrs Whitney on these points.

The termination

[21] On 13 April 2015 Mr Adams attended work and provided his medical certificate to his employer. Both Mr Emery and the State Manager for TasFreight, Mr Kerry Gibson, were present at the depot. Mr Dart had not yet arrived at work. Mr Adams took possession of his truck and set off on local deliveries, returning to the depot at approximately 9.10am.

[22] It is common ground between the parties that Mr Dart and Mr Emery approached Mr Adams on his return to the depot and he was dismissed. This is supported by CCTV footage 14 provided by TasFreight.

[23] Mr Dart said that on approaching Mr Adams he told him he was fired for not doing his duties on Wednesday 8 April 2015 and that he then asked him for his work phone. On questioning by the Commission, Mr Dart confirmed he had not spoken to Mr Adams in between the afternoon of 8 April 2015 and his dismissal, but that Mr Adams could have raised any issues at the time he was terminated. Mr Dart stated that he had discussed Mr Adams’ termination with Mr Gibson, the State Manager, on the morning of 13 April 2015 after he got to work and that Mr Gibson had then decided to dismiss Mr Adams. On cross examination, Mr Dart clarified that Mr Adams was dismissed for failing to load freight on 8 April 2015 as directed and that the rumours of Mr Adams’ drug use had not been a factor in his dismissal.

[24] Mr Emery stated that Mr Adams had been terminated for his refusal to carry out the deliveries to the west coast when he did not show up for work on Thursday 9 April, together with not loading his freight on the afternoon of 8 April 2015. Mr Emery’s evidence supported the conversation as recounted by Mr Dart and Mr Adams, during which Mr Adams was terminated. Further, Mr Emery stated that on advising Mr Dart on 9 April 2015 that Mr Adams had called in sick, Mr Dart had said to him “we should sack him”  15 to which Mr Emery agreed.

[25] The letter of termination, dated 13 April 2015, but not received by Mr Adams until the following week, states: 16

Dear Shane,

On Wednesday 8th April, 2015 you refused an order to go on the West Coast run scheduled for the next day (9/4), on the basis that there was a delivery on board for Henty Gold Mine.

Your refusal to make a delivery as instructed leaves us no alternative but to dispense with your services. Our Employee Booklet, Driver Induction clearly states that refusal of duty is grounds for dismissal.

Termination of your employment is effective immediately.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Dart Adam Emery
OPERATIONS MANAGER SUPERVISOR

[26] The letter of termination clearly provides that Mr Adams was dismissed as he refused an order to attend to the west coast delivery on 9 April 2015. TasFreight’s evidence went to that matter and also, the further refusal of an instructionas alleged in relation to the failure to load the freight as directed.

Submissions

The applicant

[27] Mr Adams made submissions 17 in writing and verbally at hearing. He submitted that the evidence provided that he had not been directed to load his own freight for the west coast delivery and that even if he was mistaken about that, he was not contacted by TasFreight about his alleged failure to load freight.

[28] Mr Adams submitted his failure to attend for work on 9 April 2015 was due to illness which was covered by personal leave and he had provided a medical certificate from his doctor, who he had attended on 9 April 2015. He said it was incumbent on TasFreight to question his doctor to disprove the genuineness of his illness if they sought to rely on his non-attendance at work as being a refusal of an employment direction.

[29] Mr Adams stated that the TasFreight employment booklet relied on by TasFreight to affect an instant dismissal of his employment had not been provided to him and TasFreight had failed to provide evidence that he had ever received the employment booklet.

[30] It was submitted by Mr Adams that his dismissal was unfair as he had not refused a direction of TasFreight and he had not been given any warning of his employment being in jeopardy or given an opportunity to address any matters of concern. Mr Adams stated that if TasFreight had any basis for concern over rumours of drug use, then Mr Emery and Mr Gibson should not have allowed him to drive his truck on the morning of 13 April 2015, prior to Mr Dart dismissing him.

The respondent

[31] Mr Kerry Gibson, State Manager for TasFreight, submitted that Mr Adams had been terminated for not loading freight on 8 April and for not turning up to work on 9 April 2015. Mr Gibson submitted that the rumours with the workplace of possible drug use had not been a factor in the dismissal decision; however he conceded that he and Mr Dart had discussed the rumours on the morning of the dismissal. Mr Gibson contended that it was Mr Adams’ fear of possibly failing a drug test which had led him to not load the freight and to not present for work.

[32] Mr Gibson submitted that Mr Adams was paid an ex gratia payment on termination of 5 weeks of pay, likening it to a redundancy payment. This was subsequently refuted by Mr Adams when he submitted that the payment related to an Award entitlement of 3 weeks of pay in lieu of notice, a week of holiday pay and the previous week’s wages. It was submitted (and conceded by Mr Adams) that TasFreight had paid Mr Adams up until 17 April 2015, the date on the separation certificate.

[33] Mr Gibson submitted that Mr Adams had not proven any collusion of TasFreight’s evidence and that the summary dismissal was appropriate.

Consideration and application of unfair dismissal framework

[34] This unfair dismissal application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Act. Sections 385 and 387 are relevant in determining whether the dismissals were harsh, unjust or unreasonable (and therefore unfair).

Was there protection from unfair dismissal?

[35] An order for reinstatement or compensation can only be made if the Commission is satisfied Mr Adams was protected from unfair dismissal. The circumstance that must exist in order for an employee to be protected from unfair dismissal is set out in s.382:

382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) a modern award covers the person;

(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;

(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.

[36] It is common ground, and I am satisfied that Mr Adams was protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of s.382, as at the date of his dismissal.

Was the dismissal unfair?

[37] Mr Adams’ dismissal will have been unfair if the Commission is satisfied, on all of the evidence, that all circumstances as contained in s.385 of the Act were in existence. Section 385 states:

385 What is an unfair dismissal

A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

[38] It is common ground that Mr Adams was dismissed at TasFreight’s initiative pursuant to s.386 of the Act, that the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code does not apply and that the dismissal of Mr Adams was not a care of genuine redundancy and I am satisfied that is so.

[39] Accordingly, the relevant matters to be considered in this case are whether I am satisfied that Mr Adams’ dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Section 387 of the Act provides:

387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC 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 the FWC considers relevant.

[40] The scope of matters that may be considered ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ was explained in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 465 where McHugh and Gummow JJ found:

“…It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the misconduct on which the employer acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.”

[41] The substance of Mr Adams’ argument that his dismissal was unfair is as follows:

● he did not engage in the misconduct alleged by TasFreight and therefore there was no valid reason for his dismissal;

● he was absent due to illness on 9 and 10 April 2015 and therefore did not fail to present for work and refuse an instruction to make a delivery to the west coast;

● even if the conduct was misconduct, he should have been afforded an opportunity to rectify his failure to load the truck;

● the reasons relied upon by TasFreight were not conveyed to him at the time of his dismissal;

● that he was not afforded an opportunity to respond to any of the reasons for his dismissal; and

● that he was never provided with a copy of the TasFreight employment booklet and therefore was not aware that a refusal to carry out a supervisor’s direction could constitute a reason for dismissal.

[42] TasFreight’s argument is summarised as:

● Mr Adams failed to follow a directive of his employer and therefore the reason for his dismissal was valid;

● the failure of Mr Adams was two fold in that he failed to load his truck with freight on 8 April and to present for work on 9 April 2015 to make deliveries to the west coast;

● Mr Adams had indicated to his co-workers that he was concerned about going to the west coast in case he was drug tested at the Henty Gold Mine site and this was his reason for not following the instruction of his supervisor; and

● the dismissal was fair as Mr Adams’ conduct warranted summary dismissal.

[43] I have considered the competing submissions and evidence and I now consider each of the criteria in s.387 of the Act.

s.387 (a) Was there a valid reason

[44] In Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 Northrop J found (at 373) that a valid reason is one that is “Sound, defensible or well founded”. Northrop J went on to say that “…the reason must be valid in the context of the employee’s capacity or conduct or based upon the operational requirements of the employer’s business”. Such a concept embodies the element of fairness in the sense that a valid reason must be defensible and well founded.

[45] In Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v McLaughlan (Q1625), albeit under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a Full Bench of the Commission relevantly concluded that:

“On the basis of the foregoing we are of the view that in determining a s.170CE(1)(a) application the Commission is bound to consider whether, on the evidence in the proceedings before it, the termination was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’, provided that the evidence concerns circumstances in existence when the decision to terminate the employment was made.

Facts which existed at the time of the dismissal but which only come to light after the dismissal might either:

● justify the dismissal when otherwise it would be harsh, unjust or unreasonable;

or

● render the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Findings made by an inquiry established by the employer will be relevant to the Commission’s determination of the issues before it provided it is established that:

the employer conducted a full and extensive investigation into all of the relevant matters as was reasonable in the circumstances;

the employer gave the employee every reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations; and

the findings were based upon reasonable grounds.

Whilst such findings are relevant they do not conclusively determine whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. That issue is to be decided by the Commission on the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient inquiry, that that employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.”

[46] Accordingly, in considering whether there was a valid reason for dismissal based on the misconduct of an employee, the Commission must firstly determine for itself on balance that the conduct occurred and then determine whether or not that misconduct constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

[47] It is a fact that Mr Adams was diagnosed by his doctor on 9 April 2015 with an illness that precluded him from attending for work for the days of 9 and 10 April 2015 as he was provided with a medical certificate stating he was not fit for work. TasFreight did not seek to interrogate Mr Adams’ doctor in relation to the diagnosis and regardless of their suspicions, they have failed to satisfy the Commission that Mr Adams’ non-attendance at work was a refusal of a lawful and reasonable instruction that was consistent with his contract of employment. Therefore this could not constitute a valid reason for dismissal.

[48] In relation to the second reason for dismissal, that being a refusal of Mr Adams to load freight, I prefer Mr Emery’s evidence to that of Mr Adams. I accept that Mr Adams did indicate to Mr Emery that he may fail a drug test if tested during deliveries to the west coast. Further, I accept that Mr Adams was advised by Mr Emery to load freight on 8 April 2015. Evidence given by a number of TasFreight employees stated that it was not unusual for drivers to load their own freight. Whilst no written contract of employment was tendered into evidence, I am satisfied on the evidence at hearing that the loading of freight was part of the employment of Mr Adams as a truck driver and that any instruction for him to do so would be lawful and reasonable.

[49] I have concluded that Mr Adams’ failure to load his truck on 8 April 2015 was, in all the circumstances, a refusal to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that was consistent with his employment and therefore constitutes serious misconduct. The definition of serious misconduct is contained in regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 and provides:

1.07 Meaning of serious misconduct

(1) For the definition of serious misconduct in section 12 of the Act, serious misconduct has its ordinary meaning.

(2) For subregulation (1), conduct that is serious misconduct includes both of the following:

(a) wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment;

(b) conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to:

(i) the health or safety of a person; or

(ii) the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business.

(3) For subregulation (1), conduct that is serious misconduct includes each of the following:

(a) the employee, in the course of the employee’s employment, engaging in:

(i) theft; or

(ii) fraud; or

(iii) assault;

(b) the employee being intoxicated at work;

(c) the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment.

(4) Subregulation (3) does not apply if the employee is able to show that, in the circumstances, the conduct engaged in by the employee was not conduct that made employment in the period of notice unreasonable.

[50] Mr Adams submitted that he had never been given a copy of TasFreight’s employee booklet and was not aware that refusal to follow a reasonable instruction was grounds for dismissal. I note that TasFreight did not present any evidence that the employee booklet had been received or sighted by Mr Adams. This however is irrelevant in light of the legislated definition of “serious misconduct” as stated above. The Act itself identifies actions which constitute serious misconduct and they are applicable in this matter.

s.387 (b) Notification of the valid reason

[51] I find as a matter of fact that TasFreight did not notify Mr Adams of the reason for the termination of his employment prior to the decision to dismiss him being taken.

s.387(c) Opportunity to respond to any reason

[52] It was said by both Mr Emery and Mr Dart that Mr Adams had an opportunity to dispute his termination at the time but that he did not do so. I accept Mr Dart’s evidence that he advised Mr Adams he was being dismissed due to his failure to carry out duties on 8 April 2015. It is a fact that the discussion during which Mr Adams was terminated was a brief one, which is evidenced by the CCTV footage. 18 I am prepared to accept on that evidence that there was an opportunity during that conversation for Mr Adams to respond to the reason for his termination at that time and, subject to that response, for the decision perhaps to have been changed.

s.387(d) Unreasonable refusal to allow a support person

[53] This criterion is often confused with an obligation for the employer to offer for a support person to be present. Mr Adams did not ask for a support person to be present (albeit because he was not aware he was about to be terminated). In any event, TasFreight did not refuse to allow a support person to be present as Mr Adams did not make such a request.

s.387(e) Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance

[54] This criterion has no relevance in this matter as Mr Adams was not dismissed for unsatisfactory performance.

s.387(f) Impact of the size of TasFreight on procedures followed

[55] TasFreight is a large business with in excess of 200 employees, with 110 of those employees being located in Tasmania. Mr Gibson submitted that the size of TasFreight’s business did not affect the procedures followed.

s.387(g) Absence of dedicated human resources management expertise on procedures followed

[56] Mr Gibson submitted that TasFreight did not have a dedicated department which deals with human resource and procedural issues, although he was unsure whether this affected the procedures followed in this dismissal.

s.387(h) other relevant matters

[57] The personal impacts of most terminations of employment are significant. Mr Adams is a married man with four children and was the only income earner for his family. I note here that Mr Adams, in his own submissions, confirmed that he received three weeks of pay in lieu of notice from TasFreight. On the basis of the termination being a summary dismissal, this is a payment TasFreight did not have to make.

Conclusion

[58] It is a fact that the requirements of procedural fairness as they pertain to Mr Adams’ dismissal were discharged in less than an exemplary manner by TasFreight. The procedural criteria provided in s.387 of the Act to establish a fair dismissal are not to be set aside lightly. It is a fine balance on all the circumstances of this case, that I have formed the view that such procedural deficiencies are insufficient in and of themselves to render the termination of Mr Adams’s employment harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[59] One further matter included submissions from Mr Adams as to allegations of unpaid allowances for handling dangerous goods. No evidence was presented of an unpaid entitlement. Mr Gibson submitted that there were no time sheets presented by Mr Adams which indicated an outstanding entitlement and that any dangerous goods allowances due to Mr Adams had been paid. I am unable to make any findings in relation to this matter due to the lack of evidence. However I note that should Mr Adams be able to provide evidence as to an outstanding entitlement, he may be able to establish a remedy in another jurisdiction other than the Fair Work Commission.

[60] I have determined that Mr Adams’ conduct on 8 April 2015 of not loading his truck with freight as serious misconduct justifying a valid reason for dismissal which, after considering all the circumstances, was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[61] Mr Adams’ application for unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr S Adams, the Applicant

Mr K Gibson,for the Respondent

Hearing details:

Launceston

2015

3 August

 1   Exhibit A1 – Witness statement of Shane Adams dated 16 June 2015

 2   Exhibit A2 – Witness statement of Kristy-Lee Whitney dated 16 June 2015

 3   Exhibit R4 – Witness statement of Malcolm Dart undated

 4   Exhibit R5 – Witness statement of Adam Emery undated

 5   Exhibit R3 – Witness statement of Ben Savage undated

 6   Exhibit R1 – Witness statement of Chris McKenna dated 15 July 2015

 7   Exhibit R2 – Witness statement of Gavin Wells undated

 8   Exhibit R5

 9   Exhibit R5

 10   Transcript – Mr Tim Smith, PN192

 11   Exhibit R2

 12   Exhibit R3

 13   Exhibit A3 – Applicant’s submissions, Applicant’s document list – Item 1

 14   Exhibit R7 – CCTV footage

 15   Transcript – Mr Adam Emery, PN563

 16   Exhibit A3 – Applicant’s document list – Item 3

 17   Exhibit A3

 18   Exhibit R7

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR571373>