Trevor Edwards v Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd T/A Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative

[2015] FWC 245

[2015] FWC 245

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Trevor Edwards
v
Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd T/A Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative
(U2014/10362)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - jurisdiction objection.

[1] Mr Trevor (Craig) Edwards (the Applicant), has made an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act (the Act), for an unfair dismissal remedy in relation to his alleged dismissal by the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd T/A Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative (the Respondent, the Co-operative). The application was made on 25 June 2014.

[2] The Co-operative, on 19 July 2014, raised a jurisdictional objection on the basis that Mr Edwards was not dismissed but rather, that he resigned. At the hearing on 10 November 2014, it was agreed that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) would determine the jurisdictional objection in the first instance. 1 If necessary, a further hearing date would then be set to deal with the merits of the application.

[3] This decision, therefore, concerns only the question of whether Mr Edwards was terminated at the initiative of the Co-operative or whether Mr Edwards resigned voluntarily.

[4] In relation to determining this question, the factual situation is reasonably discrete and is centred on a meeting which occurred on 4 June 2014 and the subsequent events. In attendance at the meeting was Mr Edwards, Ms Tracey Currie (CEO) and Mr Michael Eagles (Consultant). Each of these persons gave evidence.

1. Witness evidence

(a) Ms Currie

[5] Ms Currie gave evidence that:

• The first performance management meeting between Ms Currie and Mr Edwards, that Mr Eagles attended, was the meeting on 4 June 2014. The reason Mr Eagles was invited to that particular meeting was because there had been a lot of work done but hardly any progress and so she wanted to have both of them in the room to see why there wasn't any progress. Mr Eagles’ role was to be a support person for Mr Edwards during the meeting. 2



• On 4 June 2014, she left the meeting to clarify certain issues with Mr Meagher (Operations Manager/HR Manager). When she returned to the room, Mr Edwards was gone but Mr Eagles was still in the room. Mr Eagles told her that Mr Edwards had gone, resigned, that he could not do it anymore and that he did not want to speak to her anymore as he was very upset. 3



• She had straight away asked if they could go and get him and bring him back as she was aware that Mr Edwards was in another room. Mr Eagles had said that he did not think so. She was aware that Mr Edwards then left to collect his daughter. She did not get an opportunity to speak to Mr Edwards again after she had left the room to go and speak with Mr Meagher. 4



• During the conversation she had with Mr Eagles in the meeting room, there was discussion about a sweetener as Mr Edwards had worked for quite a number of years with the Co-operative. Mr Eagles had suggested to her that the Co-operative give Mr Edwards some money which was something that you do when people leave. Ms Currie had agreed to that and that was why a deed of release was written up. 5 It was recalled that Mr Eagles had suggested three months which she accepted. It was her understanding that Mr Edwards was told that there would be three months pay with his resignation. She thought Mr Meagher had probably told Mr Edwards that but was not 100% sure.6



• It was her understanding that, whilst she was out of the meeting room, Mr Eagles had a conversation with Mr Edwards which Mr Eagles told her about. 7 Mr Eagles had explained that he had told Mr Edwards that she was probably going to issue him with a second warning and that, if he did not improve, it was likely that she would terminate him in a few weeks. Mr Eagles had also said to Mr Edwards that he should do a deal and get some money rather than be sacked and had offered to approach her to see if he (Mr Eagles) could get Mr Edwards an extra months’ pay. Mr Edwards had then told Mr Eagles that, if he could get a deal for 3 months, he would take it.8



• Her understanding that Mr Edwards had resigned and that he did not want to speak to her came from both what Mr Eagles and also Mr Meagher had told her. Mr Meagher told her that he and Mr Edwards had had a conversation. Mr Meagher told her that Mr Edwards did not want to speak to her, that he was very upset with her and that he had resigned. She had then asked Mr Meagher to write up the deed of release (containing the 3 months’ pay) which had taken him a fair bit of time to do. Mr Meagher had then given the deed to Mr Edwards who said that he could not sign it then as he had to go and collect his daughter from Colac. 9



• Mr Meagher had then asked her if she could approve the contents of the deed in principle with Mr Edwards to sign it off at 9am the next morning. 10 She had asked Mr Meagher to ring Mr Edwards as he had resigned and there was a deal about the resignation which she had agreed to. She had stipulated that Mr Edwards was to sign off on the documentation by a certain time and that, if that did not happen, she would be taking the deal (deed of release/the agreement) off the table.11



• The next morning, she was told by Mr Meagher (as Mr Edwards did not want to speak to her at all) that Mr Edwards did not come in because he was sick and he did not sign the deed at that time. 12



• Following the events on 4 June 2014, Mr Edwards had come to a meeting that she was at but that was the only contact she had had with him since 4 June 2014. 13 She recalled that Mr Edwards had asked when the Co-operative was going to pay him his money and the Chairperson had replied that the Co-operative was not going to pay him anything because of the other issue.14



• The letter, dated 4 June 2014, acknowledging receipt of Mr Edwards’ verbal resignation, was written because that is how one does things formally. 15 Mr Edwards had responded to the letter through his lawyer.16

(b) Mr Eagles

[6] It was Mr Eagles’ evidence that:

• He was engaged by the Co-operative to mentor Mr Edwards and to try and help improve his skills and performance as a manager as he was struggling. He met with Mr Edwards several times and also had some phone conversations with him. 17



• He attended one of the performance management meetings - on 4 June 2014 at the request of Ms Currie. 18 He had attended in his capacity as support person for Mr Edwards.19 During the meeting, Ms Currie was frustrated and clearly agitated. However, she asked Mr Edwards direct questions without raising her voice or making any derogatory comments towards him. There was tension in the room. In terms of himself, he was frustrated with Mr Edwards and there was a level of agitation from himself as well as from Mr Edwards.20



• During the meeting, on 4 June 2014, Mr Edwards had become quite upset so he (Mr Eagles) had asked Ms Currie to leave the room. 21 He had then told Mr Edwards the way it was heading. Mr Edwards had agreed that he had not improved his performance and that it was highly likely that he would end up with another warning. He made it clear to Mr Edwards that if they could not turn his performance around, it could potentially lead to his termination.22



• Mr Edwards was angry, very upset, agitated and disappointed at the way he was being treated after all his years of service. He had then said that “it isn’t worth it and that he was going to tell them to stick the job and that he would stick it up her arse and that he will resign”. 23 He felt that that was silly, after Mr Edwards’ years of service, and asked him not to do that. He said that, if Mr Edwards was going to do that, he should get some money to leave. Mr Edwards had responded that he wanted six months’ pay. He told Mr Edwards that he was not going to get that much and that it would probably be a month’s pay. He (Mr Eagles) suggested to try for three months and see where that lands. Mr Edwards’ response was that, if you can get me three months, I will leave today.24 He also suggested that Mr Edwards get a deed of release and a positive reference from the HR manager (Mr Meagher). Mr Edwards then left the meeting room and went to the common room. He then went to talk to Ms Currie.25



• When Mr Edwards was saying to him that Ms Currie could “stick the job up her arse” and that he would resign, he believed that Mr Edwards clearly had the intent to resign. 26 It was maybe his mistake in not getting it in writing from Mr Edwards. He recalled telling Mr Edwards that he would need to fill in a resignation but not to do that until the deal was finalised.27 At some stage, Mr Meagher came and told him that Mr Edwards had said to him that he had resigned. Mr Edwards had, therefore, verbally resigned to both himself and to Mr Meagher. He recalled that Mr Edwards’ opening statement to him, during the break in the meeting, was ‘I will resign’ rather than ‘I’m resigning; I’ve had enough.’28



• In his mind, Mr Edwards was wheeling and dealing because he was leaving. Mr Edwards had made it clear to him that he would resign if he got that package in writing. So, to him, Mr Edwards had already made his decision to resign. He was then about how much he was going to get. It was Mr Eagles’ view that Mr Edwards was not going to stay there and Mr Meagher confirmed this when he came back in saying that Mr Edwards now wants the laptop and the phone. Therefore, it was a negotiation about what he was going to get. It was clear in Mr Eagles’ mind that, if he had not said that he would go and get a deal, Mr Edwards would have resigned and would, in fact, have walked out. 29



• Ms Currie had then returned to the meeting room and he told Ms Currie that he had asked Mr Edwards to go down to the common room. He said that Mr Edwards was prepared to resign and that he required a payment of 3 months and a deed of release. Negotiations then took place between Ms Currie and himself about what that should look like. 30 He had recommended to Ms Currie that she give Mr Edwards 3 months and he will resign and be gone. Ms Currie’s response was that she would not give Mr Edwards 3 months’ pay. Ms Currie eventually agreed to the 3 months as long as Mr Edwards signed a deed of release with a non disparagement clause. She asked Mr Meagher to prepare the deed of release.31



• There were discussions with Mr Meagher who was in contact with Mr Edwards. It was recalled that Mr Meagher confirmed that Mr Edwards would resign if he got the package, plus the phone and the laptop. Mr Meagher had asked for his advice about what should be in the deed of release. He and Ms Currie were then told that Mr Edwards had left and gone to pick up his daughter. 32



• After Ms Currie had initially stepped out of the meeting room, there were no further direct conversations between Ms Currie and Mr Edwards. 33

(c) Mr Edwards

[7] It was Mr Edwards’ evidence that:

• On 4 June 2014, when Ms Currie was not in the room, he had a conversation with Mr Eagles. It was heated and, prior to Ms Currie leaving the room, Mr Eagles was pretty aggressive. Mr Eagles had then called him a liar and told him what was going to happen. Mr Eagles then said that he either resign today as he was going to get a warning today and in two weeks time, he would most likely get sacked and that he (Mr Eagles) would get him a deal. He had said to Mr Eagles to show him what he wanted to put on the table and that he would have a look at it. Mr Eagles had then told him to leave it to him and that he would negotiate with Ms Currie. 34



• He had gone into community room with the understanding that his employment was probably going to be finished with as a package was being put together through Mr Eagles’ negotiations. Mr Eagles came in shortly after and said that Ms Currie was only offering a month but to leave it to him and that he would get him three months. 35 He had responded that Mr Eagles should put it on the table and that he would have a look at it. Mr Eagles then came back and said that he had got him three months. He had responded by saying that it needed to be put in writing and that he would have a look at it.36 He said that he had not resigned and that he had never said once that he had resigned. He said there were heated discussions ongoing but he never once resigned or signed a document to say he had resigned.37



• It had been put to him by Mr Eagles that he would get him the three months but he never once said that he would accept it. Rather, he said to put it on the table and he would look at it. Then, after realising the amount of time that he had worked in the community and with the Co-operative, he felt that that amount was not what he was expecting. He then needed to leave and picked up his daughter - which he did. 38



• At this point in time, nothing had been finalised. He had left the workplace for the day to go and collect his daughter on the understanding that he would be back at the workplace tomorrow because he was still employed and had not resigned. 39



• Whilst in the car, he received a telephone call from Mr Meagher who advised him that he had the deed of release and that he needed to come back and sign it by 4pm that afternoon otherwise the deal was off the table. He had responded that he was on the way to pick up his daughter and that he would not be coming back to do that. Mr Meagher then rang him back and told him that Ms Currie had informed him that, if Mr Edwards was not back by nine o’clock the next morning with the deed signed, the deal would be off the table and that he would be sacked. 40



• On 5 June 2014, he attended work to hand in the sick certificate. He believed that he was still employed at that point. 41



• At the same time, Mr Meagher gave him a letter from Ms Currie, dated 4 June 2014, which was attached to a deed of release. 42 Mr Meagher told him that if he signed the deed of release he would be all right. He responded that he would not sign anything and that he was not going anywhere. Mr Meagher then told him that Ms Currie had informed him that if he did not sign this now, then he was gone, he was sacked. He responded that he would not be signing anything. Mr Meagher then left and went back to the office.43



• He subsequently received a telephone call from Mr Meagher who told him that he was terminated. 44



• He did not respond to Ms Currie’s letter of 4 June 2014 which acknowledged receipt of his verbal resignation. 45



• Following the meeting on 4 June 2014, he still considered himself to be employed by the Co-operative. He denied that he had ever resigned his employment. 46



• He was not sure whether he was still employed but had lodged a sick certificate, and then a further two certificates, on the basis of advice he had received to continue seeing the doctor. 47 During this period, his representative was negotiating with the Co-operative about an amount of money to be paid to him.48



• His solicitor filed an unfair dismissal application on his behalf on 25 June 2014 in accordance with his instructions. He had considered that his employment was as an end at that point. 49



• When he had instructed his solicitor to file the unfair dismissal application, no agreement had been reached and so he lodged the application. He had not signed the deed of release that had been handed to him. This was because he felt that he had invested a lot of years working in his community and he felt he deserved more than that. 50

2. Submissions

(a) Respondent

[8] On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted by Ms Knowles that there are two issues requiring examination. The first one was said to be whether or not there was a resignation and, if so, was it forced? The second issue was described as whether there was any act on behalf of the respondent which terminated Mr Edwards’ employment, at its initiative. 51

[9] It was stated that the Co-operative did not terminate Mr Edwards’ employment during the meeting on 4 June 2014. The meeting was said to have been a continuation of the performance management process which had started in February 2014. It was contended that Ms Currie intended to provide Mr Edwards with further opportunities to improve his performance. 52 Further, it was submitted that it could not be said that there was any action taken by Ms Currie which brought about the cessation of Mr Edwards’ employment. This was because Ms Currie was not in the room when Mr Edwards resigned.53

[10] With respect to the issue of whether or not there was a resignation, it was argued that Mr Edwards does not have to submit a form or write a resignation or use precise words such as “I tender my resignation”. The respondent submitted that the comments that Mr Edwards made to Mr Eagles “that Ms Currie could take her job and stick it up her arse” and that he resigns, was a resignation, together with his actions on the day. These were said to have been leaving his place of employment and no longer participating in the performance management meeting. 54

[11] The respondent submitted that Mr Edwards’ statements and his conduct on the day amounted to a resignation irrespective of the fact that he obviously wanted to secure a financial payment as well. The question of whether or not a deal was reached, in relation to any financial payout that Mr Edwards may receive, as a consequence of the resignation, was stated to be a separate matter. 55 It was argued that, on the day his employment came to an end, it was Mr Edwards’ conduct that brought it to an end. It was stated that Mr Edwards effectively said that he did not want the job anymore and that he had had enough and he was leaving. Mr Eagles was described as having been left in no doubt that Mr Edwards was leaving. The only issue in doubt was said to be whether he was going to get some money and how much.56

[12] It was contended that there was nothing that the respondent did to force Mr Edwards’ resignation. Mr Edwards may not have liked the fact that he was being performance managed and he had disagreed with what was put to him during the meeting. However, the respondent argued that the evidence suggests that, whilst the participants became frustrated, the conduct of Ms Currie and Mr Eagles remained professional and they did nothing to force Mr Edwards to leave. 57

[13] In the alternative, the respondent argued that, even if the Commission is not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Edwards amounted to a resignation, it is still necessary to identify an action of the respondent which brought the employment to an end at its initiative. It was stated that there is nothing that Mr Edwards has pointed to whereby the respondent brought the employment to an end. 58 It was recalled that Mr Edwards’ evidence was that, because he did not resign, he still considered himself employed after that and he lodged three medical certificates saying that he was unfit to work. This was said to be consistent with Mr Edwards considering that the respondent had not done something which had brought his employment to an end. It was stated that, what was going on during this time, were negotiations over the quantum of the payment. The fact that Mr Edwards wanted more money and could not reach a resolution with the respondent was said to not mean that the respondent brought his employment to an end.59

[14] Mr Edwards was said to have conceded that, when the unfair dismissal application was lodged on 25 June 2014, he considered his employment at an end. The respondent noted that, for the previous three business days, Mr Edwards had not lodged a medical certificate that covered that period. Therefore, it was argued that Mr Edwards’ own evidence and his behaviour is consistent with him considering, at that point, that his employment was at an end. This was to be compared to his post 4 June 2014 conduct when Mr Edwards lodged the three certificates. The respondent stated that there is nothing that the employer has done, during that period, to bring the employment to an end. 60 It was recounted that, the day after Mr Edwards lodged his unfair dismissal application, wherein he says that he was dismissed, the Co-operative paid out his accrued annual leave.61

[15] The respondent argued that for the Co-operative to bring the employment to an end, it has to be the one who initiated this cessation of employment. It was submitted that the whole context of the discussions was that Mr Edwards could not handle the performance management meeting and he had stomped out and then wanted to negotiate a deal. The subsequent conversations were said to have been along the lines of - you can have some money but you’ve got to sign the deed or come back to work. It was stated that it was not the employer saying that they wanted to terminate his employment. Rather, this was all described as the result of Mr Edwards’ conduct by leaving the meeting or refusing to participate any further in the meeting on that day by leaving the premises. 62

[16] Mr Eagles’ evidence was recalled to be that he was in no doubt that, if he had not tried to facilitate Mr Edwards staying or getting a deal, Mr Edwards was gone, he was leaving, he had had enough. The initiating action was therefore said to have been Mr Edwards saying basically that he had had enough. It was not the employer saying that we want to bring your employment to an end. 63

[17] It was submitted that it was Mr Edwards’ actions on being unable to cope with a reasonable performance management meeting that triggered off everything that happened subsequently. The fact that the employer was trying to, or did try and negotiate but those negotiations fell through, was stated to be a separate issue to who initiated the cessation of employment. The respondent submitted that it did not initiate or start terminating Mr Edwards’ employment. Rather, it was ended with Mr Edwards lodging the unfair dismissal application because the negotiations had not concluded in a manner that he considered satisfactory. 64

[18] There was said to be nothing that the employer did on 4 June 2014 to bring the employment to an end. The critical moment was described as being during the break in the meeting when Mr Edwards basically said that he couldn't deal with this anymore. It was stated that Mr Edwards would not submit to the process and that that was his choice and that he was the one who introduced the concept of a negotiated financial outcome. This was argued to be separate to the fact that Mr Edwards had reached the point of not being able to deal with it any longer. 65

[19] In a constructive dismissal type argument, it was contended by the respondent, that the employer’s conduct has to be at a level that is inconsistent with the employment relationship being maintained. This was said to not be a case where the employee has no real choice but to resign. Although Mr Eagles had raised the possibility that Mr Edwards may be terminated if his performance did not improve, the respondent contended that that was Mr Eagles’ opinion and that Mr Eagles had not been engaged to act on behalf of the Co-operative at that meeting. Rather, it was argued that it was Mr Edwards’ behaviour that was inconsistent with the employment relationship being maintained and that he left the employment relationship voluntarily. 66

[20] Further, the respondent contended that this is not a situation where the employee resigned in the heat of the moment. Rather, it was said that Mr Edwards’ resignation was intentional in that it was designed to bring about an end to the employment relationship. 67 Even it is accepted that Mr Edwards resigned in the heat of the moment, the respondent argued that Mr Edwards’ subsequent actions did not suggest that his decision to resign was not genuine or involuntary.68

(b) Applicant

[21] Ms Johnson, on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that Mr Edwards believed that he was terminated from 5 June 2014 as the result of the conversation with Mr Meagher on that day. It was stated that, during that conversation, Mr Meagher had told Mr Edwards that he was sacked. Therefore, it was contended that Mr Edwards was dismissed at the initiative of the employer. 69

[22] It was argued that, during the meeting on 4 June 2014, the most that could be said about Mr Edwards’ intentions was that he was contemplating leaving. It was submitted that Mr Edwards had said to Mr Eagles that he would resign but not that he will resign or that he had resigned or that he wanted to resign immediately. Rather, Mr Edwards was said to be contemplating leaving. Mr Eagles had then told Mr Edwards that he would see if he could do a deal and so Mr Edwards had gone into the community room. It was recounted that there was some backwards and forwards and then Mr Edwards left work to go and collect his daughter from Colac. 70

[23] Ms Johnson recounted that, whilst Mr Edwards was in the car, Mr Meagher called him and told him that he needed to be back at the workplace by 4pm to sign off the agreement. Mr Edwards had declined to do that and so there was a further call from Mr Meagher. During this call, Mr Meagher was said to have told Mr Edwards that he needed to be at work at 9.00 am the next morning to sign the agreement. It was stated that, the following morning, Mr Edwards went to the doctor and then to work to hand in a medical certificate. There was then said to have been a personal conversation between Mr Edwards and Mr Meagher during which Mr Meagher told the Applicant that he really needed to sign the deed or it is off the table and he was sacked. Mr Edwards declined again to sign the deed and left the premises. This was said to have been followed later by a further call from Mr Meagher during which he told Mr Edwards that he had not signed the deed and so was sacked. 71

[24] The Applicant contended that, from that time on, he believed that his employment had been terminated by the Co-operative. It was argued that Mr Edwards had continued to lodge medical certificates on advice but not on the basis that he understood that his employment was continuing. Finally, it was stated that Mr Edwards’ leave entitlements were paid out which was described as being consistent with the termination of his employment. 72

3. Considerations and Conclusions

[25] In deciding whether Mr Edwards was terminated at the initiative of the employer or whether he voluntarily resigned, the Commission is required to make finding of facts concerning the events of 4 and 5 June 2014.

[26] It is common ground that there was a performance management meeting on 4 June 2014 involving Ms Currie, Mr Edwards and Mr Eagles and that it had got heated during the meeting. At one point, Ms Currie left the meeting to clarify some matters with Mr Meagher. Whilst Ms Currie was out of the room, there was a conversation between Mr Edwards and Mr Eagles. It is also common ground between the parties that Mr Eagles had started the conversation with Mr Edwards by telling him what was likely to happen next - a warning that day and dismissal in two weeks’ time if his performance did not improve. It is also clear from the evidence that Mr Eagles initiated the idea of Mr Edwards getting a deal with Ms Currie.

[27] Having carefully considered the evidence, I find that it is most likely that Mr Edwards expressed an intention to resign to Mr Eagles during their conversation in the break in the meeting on 4 June 2014, following Mr Eagles’ advice as to his likely future prospects. I accept Mr Edwards’ evidence that he was prepared to have a look at what Mr Eagles negotiated on his behalf including, subsequently, an amount of three months’ pay. However, there is no evidence before me that Mr Edwards actually resigned on 4 June 2014. Rather, at the point in time when he left work to go and collect his daughter, matters had not crystallised so that it could be said that Mr Edwards had resigned.

[28] What followed then were a couple of conversations between Mr Meagher and Mr Edwards about Mr Edwards signing the agreement. It is alleged by Mr Edwards that, on the morning of 5 June 2014, when he met with Mr Meagher and told him that he was not going to sign the agreement, Mr Meagher told him that if he did not sign it, he would be sacked. It was also Mr Edwards’ evidence that, later that morning, he received a telephone call from Mr Meagher telling him that he was sacked. Mr Meagher did not give evidence in this matter. Therefore, the only direct evidence before me, in relation to these conversations, is that of the Applicant. In the absence of Mr Meagher’s evidence and in the absence of anything to the contrary, there is no reason not to accept Mr Edwards’ account of these conversations.

[29] Following the last conversation with Mr Meagher, Mr Edwards provided the Co-operative with a further two medical certificates. Mr Edwards’ evidence was that he was doing this on the basis of advice he had been given. It was clear that Mr Edwards did not know why he was providing the certificates. Therefore, it is my view that nothing turns on this.

[30] Therefore, taking all of this into account, although Mr Edwards expressed an intention to resign to Mr Eagles, on 4 June 2014, he did not actually do so before his employment was terminated by the Co-operative on 5 June 2014. Accordingly, I find that Mr Edwards did not resign and that his employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer.

[31] The Co-operative’s jurisdictional objection is dismissed. The matter will be set down for determination of the substantive application, on a date to be advised.

Appearances:

Ms J Johnson of Drew Gleeson Legal for the Applicant

Ms F Knowles of Counsel for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2014.

Melbourne:

November 10.

 1   Transcript PN 55 - 58

 2   Ibid PN 144 - 147

 3   Ibid PN 76 - 79, 82 - 84, 95 - 97 and 115 - 116 and Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 22 - 23

 4   Ibid PN 82 - 86 and 97 - 98

 5   Ibid PN 117 - 118 and 121 - 122

 6   Ibid PN 123 - 127

 7   Ibid PN 119

 8   Exhibit R1 at paragraph 24

 9   Ibid at paragraphs 25 - 27 and Transcript PN 99 - 105, 128 – 130 and 156

 10   Ibid at paragraph 26 and ibid PN 106

 11   Ibid PN 89 - 92 and 157 - 158

 12   Ibid PN 106 - 111 and Exhibit R1 at paragraphs 26 - 27

 13   Ibid PN 93

 14   Ibid PN 160 - 161

 15   Ibid PN 151

 16   Ibid PN 159

 17   Ibid PN 195 - 197 and Exhibit R3 at paragraphs 2-5

 18   Ibid PN 203 - 205

 19   Exhibit R3 at paragraph 6

 20   Transcript PN 235 - 238

 21   Exhibit R3 at paragraph 8 and Transcript PN 207 and 238

 22   Ibid and ibid PN 207 - 208

 23   Ibid and ibid PN 209 and 219 - 220

 24   Ibid and ibid PN 209

 25   Ibid at paragraph 9 and ibid PN 210 - 212

 26   Ibid PN 220 - 221

 27   Ibid PN 222

 28   Ibid PN 223 - 226

 29   Ibid PN 227

 30   Ibid PN 228 and Exhibit R3 at paragraph 9

 31   Ibid at paragraph 9

 32   Ibid at paragraph 10 and Transcript PN 212 - 214

 33   Ibid PN 215 - 216

 34   Ibid PN 320 - 321 and Exhibit A1 at paragraph 16

 35   Ibid PN 321 and 332 - 333

 36   Ibid PN 321

 37   Ibid PN 319 and 322

 38   Ibid PN 323

 39   Ibid PN 335 - 337

 40   Ibid PN 328 - 329 and 343 - 344 and Exhibit A1 at paragraph 17

 41   Ibid PN 337 and ibid at paragraph 18

 42   Ibid PN 273 - 281 and ibid

 43   Ibid PN 326

 44   Ibid PN 326 - 327 and Exhibit A1 at paragraph 19

 45   Ibid PN 282

 46   Ibid PN 283 and 316 and Exhibit A1 at paragraph 21

 47   Ibid PN 284 - 288 and ibid at paragraphs 19 - 20

 48   Ibid PN 289 - 290

 49   Ibid PN 291 - 294 and 317 - 318

 50   Ibid PN 310 - 314

 51   Ibid PN 365 and Exhibit R5 at paragraphs 1 and 8

 52   Ibid at paragraphs 5 and 20

 53   Ibid at paragraphs 12 - 13 and 20

 54   Transcript PN 366

 55   Ibid PN 367

 56   Ibid PN 368

 57   Ibid PN 369

 58   Ibid PN 370

 59   Ibid PN 371 - 372

 60   Ibid PN 373

 61   Ibid PN 374 and Exhibit R4

 62   Ibid PN 390 and 392 and Exhibit R5 at paragraph 14

 63   Ibid PN 392 and 397

 64   Ibid PN 393 - 395

 65   Ibid PN 396

 66   Ibid PN 399 and Exhibit R5 at paragraphs 17 - 19

 67   Ibid at paragraph 15

 68   Exhibit R2 at paragraph 16

 69   Transcript PN 419 and Exhibit A2 at paragraphs 5 - 6

 70   Ibid PN 416

 71   Ibid PN 417 - 418 and Exhibit A2 at paragraphs 3 - 5

 72   Ibid PN 418-419 and ibid at paragraph 6

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR559939>