Polichronis v Teys Australia Food Solutions Pty Ltd
[2016] QDC 225
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Polichronis v Teys Australia Food Solutions Pty Ltd[2016] QDC 225
- Add to List
Polichronis v Teys Australia Food Solutions Pty Ltd[2016] QDC 225
Polichronis v Teys Australia Food Solutions Pty Ltd[2016] QDC 225
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Polichronis v Teys Australia Food Solutions Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 225 |
PARTIES: | TARRALYN JOY POLICHRONIS (plaintiff) v TEYS AUSTRALIA FOOD SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN: 116 237 757) (defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | BD 371/2014 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Trial |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 13 September 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 16 May 2016 to 19 May 2016 |
JUDGE: | Dick DCJ |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – whether it was foreseeable to the defendants that persons could suffer injuries if they were exposed to repeated episodes of sexual harassment EMPLOYMENT – LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW FOR INJURY AT WORK – CAUSATION AND FORESEEABILITY – FORESEEABILITY – whether it was foreseeable to the defendants that persons could suffer injuries if they were exposed to repeated episodes of sexual harassment Serrah v Couran Cove Management Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 130 |
COUNSEL: | Mr Eliadis for the plaintiff Mr O'Driscoll for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff B T Lawyers for the defendant |
The claim
- [1]At the relevant time the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s factory at Hemmant in Brisbane. The plaintiff’s case is that on 30 June 2010, she was sexually assaulted by a male co-worker at her workplace. As she was walking to the factory, the man suddenly grabbed her from behind, pulled her pants down and penetrated her in the vagina and anus with his fingers. She says that as a result she has suffered a psychiatric injury.
- [2]She alleges that the assault and the consequences were caused by the negligence of the defendant in that the employer knew or ought to have known that the co-worker, Graham Anderson, had a propensity to carry out a sexual assault on her. She alleges the defendant ought to have known because she complained of sexual harassment to her supervisor, Mr Neave, who failed to take proper, adequate and appropriate steps in response to her complaint. She also complains that the defendant failed to properly and adequately enforce a policy for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Employer’s duty of care
- [3]The legal principles in this case are not in dispute and accord with the statements of Douglas J in Serrah v Couran Cove Management Pty Ltd:[1]
…if an employer has reason to anticipate misconduct by an employee dangerous to other employees, the employer would be under a duty to the other employees to take reasonable steps to prevent harm arising from it and that if reprimands are disregarded the duty ultimately involves the dismissal of the vicious or mischievous. If however a workman for the first time indicates himself as possibly a potential danger an employer should not except in extraordinary circumstances be held responsible for subsequent injury to a fellow employee if he has not gone to the ultimate remedy immediately upon the first report. An isolated act would need to be extremely grave and of such a nature that repetition were a probability to justify an employer taking the extreme step of dismissal. This is particularly so under modern industrial conditions and highly unionised society where the old concepts of an employer’s right to hire and fire have been restricted by changing thoughts and attitudes and by practical considerations of an industrial character. More recent cases such as Gittani Stone Pty Ltd v Pavkovic[2] show how a plaintiff can succeed in such an action where there has been a significant history of misbehaviour by a fellow employee. In that case the misbehaviour included an assault on the plaintiff not dealt with properly by the defendant and where the rogue employee later shot the plaintiff when he was leaving work. As is often the case, much will depend on the factual circumstances. It is clear however that a duty of care arises. The other matters to consider are whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were foreseeable, whether there was a breach of duty by the defendant and whether any breach caused the injuries complained of.
Expert Opinion
- [4]Two experts have been called in the trial. The experts differ in their opinions both as to the plaintiff’s present condition and the reasons for her condition.
- [5]Put simply, Dr Nandam is of the view that the plaintiff has suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the assault.[3]He reasons that despite serious childhood sexual abuse, she had been functioning well in her family and work life before the assault.[4]He also attributes her Cannabis dependency on the assault.
- [6]Dr Kar is of the opinion that the plaintiff has a pre-existing personality disorder. He says this is a chronic condition associated with instability of behaviour and moods. He says her personality abnormalities have been exaggerated by severe Cannabis dependence.[5]He does not attribute any psychiatric condition to the assault nor does he believe her personality disorder has been aggravated by the assault.[6]
The plaintiff’s background
- [7]The plaintiff’s childhood background has therefore become relevant in the trial. This is a summary of her evidence and the history given to the medical experts.
- [8]
- [9]Upon returning to Australia she was sexually abused by another teacher. At 15 years of age she was raped at work by an army reserve soldier. She told Dr Nandam that at age 16 her own father began sexually abusing her and although she did not know at that time, she later learned her father was also sexually abusing her younger sister.[10]
- [10]Dr Kar has recorded the history differently. She did not tell Dr Kar about her father’s sexual abuse of her.
- [11]
- [12]She met her future husband, Andrew, in Brisbane when her first daughter was six months old.[14]They married and were together for eight years and two more children were born.[15]During the marriage she worked with Andrew and his father in the family hairdressing business. After Andrew’s father died the business was not able to continue. Her husband joined Teys but was not able to cope with the work and in March 2010 the plaintiff started work there.[16]
Before the assault
- [13]The plaintiff says that prior to the assault her co-employees, Graham Anderson, Scott Brooks and Cody Swan, committed indecent/sexual assaults on her on a regular basis, over a protracted period of time.
- [14]The plaintiff argues that the digital rape committed by Mr Anderson on 30 June 2010 was not an isolated assault of a sexual nature but rather an extension or continuation of behaviour that had started and continued to develop in the workplace. It was foreseeable in that “it was not a long step from the brazen conduct he had been engaged in from the outset”.[17]
The plaintiff’s evidence
- [15]The plaintiff’s evidence in relation to Mr Graham Anderson is that from 20 March 2010 his conduct every day included cupping her bottom with his hands, pinching, slapping, touching or rubbing her bottom, touching her hand, staring, winking and raising his eyes at her.[18]She alleges he rubbed his crotch against her back. She also alleges that he frequently made remarks of a blatantly sexual nature.[19]
- [16]If those allegations are true and the employer knew then it is clear that the employer should have known that a further sexual assault might occur.
- [17]
- [18]In relation to Mr Ryan, she said he regularly touched her bottom and said inappropriate things to her.[22]
Witnesses called by the plaintiff
- [19]The plaintiff called Margaret Mary Antonovich who, in 2010, was working for the defendant company in the meat processing plant at Hemmant. She knew the plaintiff and commenced work there before the plaintiff.[23]At the relevant time she was a meat packer and was working in the silverside room with the plaintiff.[24]She remembered Graham Anderson and said of him:
Quite often he’d come over to our side where Tarralyn and I were working and have a yarn with Tarralyn… [25]
She was asked whether she had noticed anything else about the interchange apart from the conversation and she said she had not. She said about a month before the assault Tarralyn had complained to her that she was “getting stressed that he was harassing her”.[26]When asked if the plaintiff ever gave details of what he was allegedly saying to her Mrs Antonovich replied only that he was passing dirty messages on to her.[27]Although she attempted to resile from it, she later agreed that on 1 July 2010 she gave a statement which said “in my opinion Tarralyn can be quite flirty”[28]and she eventually agreed that she and the plaintiff would tell dirty jokes between themselves.[29]Notably she did not say that she had witnessed any inappropriate touching by Graham Andersonor the other butchers or that the plaintiff had complained of such a thing.
- [20]The plaintiff also called Mr Shane Anderson. MrAnderson had a relationship with the plaintiff which began in 2011. They had a child together on 26 October 2012. He said he was still friends with the plaintiff. He said he had not noticed anything in particular about the behaviour of Graham Anderson in respect of the plaintiff. When asked if he ever observed Mr Anderson speaking or appeared to be speaking to the plaintiff he answered “when he spoke to her a fair bit… I did see that because he was working near her a lot”.[30]He said he had observed them speaking once or twice a day.[31]He said the plaintiff had not made any complaints to him about Mr Anderson’s conduct or physical behaviour.
The defendant’s witnesses
- [21]Mr Brooks gave evidence. He agreed that part of the culture at Teys was that rude jokes were told and that he may have told rude jokes to the plaintiff and she may have told rude jokes to him.[32]He denied touching her on the backside or cupping his hand around her backside. He said he may have touched her on the back to move past her but he had never deliberately touched her in a sexual way.[33]She had not complained or made any objection to him.[34]He was not able to recall whether he made comments about the plaintiff’s physical appearance but rejected the proposition he had made comments such as “you’ve got a nice ass” or “I like your ass”.[35]He said he considered the plaintiff to be a person of good character who would not be nasty to someone for the sake of it.[36]
- [22]Mr Cody Swan gave evidence. (He was referred to Cody Ryan in the amended Statement of Claim.) The plaintiff alleged that he regularly touched her bottom and said inappropriate things to her. He remembered the plaintiff and said that he and the plaintiff “flirted”.[37]He alleged that the plaintiff touched him on the penis on the outside of his clothing.[38]He was 17 years of age at the time. He said that as he walked out of the room after that incident, he did touch her on the bottom.[39]He could remember another incident in the washroom where he walked past her and brushed his chest against her back and then she moved in front of him and pushed her bottom into his groin.[40]He denied that he would touch her or slap her bottom or deliberately rub his crotch against her bottom.[41]He said he could have made and have listened to sexual comments in her presence but not made comments directed at her.[42]He was adamant he had not seen the physical contact described by the plaintiff from Mr Graham Anderson and that all he knew of the incident was that Graham Anderson had been sacked.[43]
Evidence that the plaintiff complained
- [23]The plaintiff gave evidence that she had made complaints to the supervisor, MrWarren Neave. Mrs Antonovich described Mr Neave as “a very stern boss”.[44]The plaintiff said the first time she complained would have been in about April in his office when she made a complaint about “one of the boys touching me, in a passing comment to him”.[45]
- [24]She also alleged later on in May she was in the smoker’s shed and crying. She said she told Mr Neave that she did not think she could cope anymore and the butchers had been rubbing up against her. She said Mr Neave had said that he would look after her, to keep it together, have another smoke and go in after that.[46]
- [25]She said complained on a third occasion when Mr Neave called her to come out to a break. The plaintiff said that she told Mr Neave “Keep him away from me he’s a disgusting arsehole”.[47]She said that Mr Neave made no further enquiry.[48]When asked if there had been any occasions when she had made any comments to Mr Neave about the butchers she replied “There were many a comment that I made, yes”.[49]She said MrNeave would tell Graham Anderson three or four times a day to leave her alone.[50]
- [26]The difficulty with her recollections is that the plaintiff told Krystle Stanley, the human resource co-ordinator with Teys Food Solutions, that the behaviour of Graham Anderson had only occurred for a week or two before the assaults and no-one else was involved. She signed a statement to that effect.[51]She was asked if she had spoken to anyone about this: family, friends, or co-workers. She replied, Margaret (Antonovich) and Shane Wenlock.[52]
- [27]If the allegations about continual physical sexual harassment are true it is difficult to understand why she did not nominate Mr Neave as a person she had spoken to about it when she said she had repeatedly done so.
Warren Neave
- [28]Mr Neave was adamant he would be alert to any sexual harassment. He denied the conversations alleged by the plaintiff.[53]He adamantly denied seeing any physical sexual interaction between any of the butchers and the plaintiff.[54]He could not remember an incident in late May when the plaintiff was crying in the smoker’s shed.[55]He said that if he had been told that the butchers had been rubbing up against her he would have reacted immediately by getting help from senior management.[56]He said he had worked with the plaintiff’s father for 20 years and respected him and he would hope he was still friends with him today.[57]Under cross-examination he said he was an active supervisor who liked to know how the room was running and liked to be walking around and seeing what was going on.[58]This echoes Mrs Antonovich’s evidence that he was “a stern boss”. To me he appeared to take pride in his role as a supervisor and I accept that the plaintiff did not make the complaints to him that she alleges.
Shane Wenlock
- [29]Mr Shane Wenlock, with whom the plaintiff was having a relationship at the time of the assault, said that while he knew that Mr Graham Anderson was bothering the plaintiff and harassing her at work it was just “in a verbal context, yes” (emphasis added).[59]He also said that he had offered to do something about it and “she said no, don’t worry about it. I’ll handle it” (emphasis added).[60]
Other matters as to the complainant’s credit
- [30]The plaintiff agreed she began an extra marital relationship with Mr Shane Wenlock approximately one month prior to the assault. She said that after the incident they abstained from sexual intimacy for at least a few weeks.[61]The relationship consisted mainly of a sexual relationship conducted in the car before and or after work.[62]During cross-examination she agreed that, prior to the trial being listed in May 2015, she had not disclosed the relationship to her legal team.
- [31]Mr Wenlock described the affair as being initiated by the plaintiff.[63]He said the relationship lasted about three or four months. He thought that probably about six months after the incident the relationship changed, in that the plaintiff would start to make excuses for not meeting him.[64]He thought that she had started another relationship with Mr Shane Anderson because he saw her leaving Mr Shane Anderson’s house.[65]It is likely that her relationship with Mr Shane Anderson overlapped with the relationship with Shane Wenlock.
Relationship with husband
- [32]She met her husband, Andrew Polichronis in 2002 when he worked at a hair salon behind a fruit ship where she worked.[66]She married Mr Polichronis on 10 May 2003 and they had two children together, born in 2004 and 2009 respectively.[67]After the birth of the first child she worked with him in his hairdressing salon but they realised they were not bringing in enough money for the family and he tried to get extra work through Teys. He was unable to cope with the work so the plaintiff decided to seek employment there instead of her husband.[68]
- [33]The plaintiff said that prior to this assault she had not engaged in sexual conduct with Mr Polichronis for about three or four months and did not resume sexual contact after the incident.[69]She told Dr Nandam that the assault was one of the reasons for the marriage breakdown[70]in that her husband had asked her “What did you do to bring this on?”[71]This sits poorly with medical notes from her GP made on 8 July 2010 where it is recorded “having trouble sleeping, partner supportive but stressed as well” (emphasis added).[72]
- [34]She says the relationship ended in November 2010. Under cross-examination she agreed that was because her husband had started to suspect an affair post incident.[73]She denied she started the relationship with Shane Anderson before ending the relationship with Mr Wenlock but I think it is likely that the relationships overlapped and it is likely that her husband took the step of packing her belongings and ejecting her from the home because he was aware of one or both affairs.
Summary
- [35]In summary I do not accept the plaintiff’s evidence as to the fact that the three butchers nominated physically assaulted her in the ways she has indicated, with the regularity she indicated. I am unable to accept her when there is not one person called for her or against her who corroborates her. Each witness was in a position to see such conduct. In addition, the conversation with Krystle Stanley on the day of the assault contains no corroboration for what she said.[74]I accept Mr Neave’s evidence that she did not complain to him especially as she did not nominate him to Krystle Stanley. Further, when Mr Wenlock offered to do something about her complaints she said she would handle it.[75]If she would not allow the person with whom she was having a relationship to do something for her I think it unlikely she mentioned it to Mr Neave and asked him to do something.
The defendant’s policies
- [36]The plaintiff criticises the defendant’s policies on sexual harassment. The defendant did not appoint a sexual harassment contact officer.[76]No written Grievance Procedure relating to complaints of a sexual nature was identified. The policies were rudimentary but the plaintiff confirmed that she knew that complaints of sexual harassment were to be reported to the supervisor Mr Neave.[77]I have found she did not report to Mr Neave. In a causal sense therefore, the rudimentary nature of the policies has not made a difference.
The experts
- [37]The opinion of the psychiatrist is of course based partly on the history and symptoms as given by the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff and what she relayed to the experts must be treated with considerable caution.
- [38]I am concerned about the history as given to Dr Nandam because he placed considerable emphasis on some of the matters about which I have doubt. For example, he seems to accept that her relationship with her husband was stable until the point of the assault.[78]The plaintiff was engaging in an affair at the time of the assault which continued after the assault. Dr Nandam seems to suggest that the breakup of the marriage was caused by the husband’s reaction to the assault. It is much more likely the breakup of the marriage with her husband kicking her out was because her husband became aware of at least one affair if not both. Her relationship with her mother broke down at the same time as the marriage relationship.
- [39]Dr Nandam worked on the basis that she had not returned to work when that is not correct. She did continue to work until she resigned over another issue some seven months later.[79]He commented that she was not functioning effectively at work and her capacity for work was deteriorating. During an interview dated 31 January 2011, in which the plaintiff and Shane Anderson were speaking to Andrew Ross and David Matthews, she makes the point that she had not performed badly in her employment during her time at Teys. She said “I’m not a terrible worker and I consistently abide by the rules and consistently do a consistent job of my work like all of the work is done properly”. During that interview she showed an interest in her claim and in obtaining documents in pursuit of her claim.[80]
- [40]
- [41]
- [42]By 2016 Dr Nadam was reporting:
The situation was further complicated by Ms Polichronis’ father starting to email her, which resulted in Ms Polichronis thinking more about her childhood abuse. Ms Polichronis felt obliged to respond to her father’s emails as her children wanted to see their grandparents and were too young to understand her reluctance.[85]
- [43]During 2016 she was admitted to detox from Red Bull, consuming up to two litres a day and smoking 10 to 15 cones of marijuana per day.[86]While it is noted by Dr Namdan that Ms Polichronis “has shown a deteriorating course since the sexual assault at Teys Meat Works”[87]there were other significant stressors operating on the plaintiff which could have resulted in the decompensation regardless of the assault.
- [44]Prior to the assault the relationship with her husband was not stable. The marriage was broken in November 2010 in a brutal way and affected the relationship with her mother. She then regained care of her young children and within a short time was pregnant with another child. She was extremely ambiguous about her feelings towards that pregnancy and the relationship with Shane Anderson, the father of the child, and the relationship terminated not long after.[88]She commenced abusing cannabis and Red Bull. She moved into a further relationship with Matthew Hunter and then had the care of eight small children.[89]There were problems particularly with her oldest child. There were problems at work unconnected to the assault in June 2010.
- [45]Dr Kar accepted that the plaintiff had suffered initial significant stress and emotional confusion but he believed the plaintiff had numerous other stressors. The plaintiff initially was not open with him about her use of alcohol and marijuana.[90]Dr Kar was of the view that the plaintiff had many pre-morbid risk factors for developing psychiatric or emotional symptoms.[91]This included the serious childhood sexual traumas. Childhood sexual trauma is known to give rise to adult personality pathology, especially borderline personality disorder in women.[92]Dr Kar was of the view that there was some evidence that she had been dysfunctional when young. She reported having been very promiscuous during her teenage years including working as a stripper.[93]He thought her heavy marijuana abuse was likely as a result of her dysfunctional personality characteristics. He noted her confusion and ambivalence about her own feelings in relation to various life matters including her feelings towards the child to Shane Anderson.[94]He said this is a trait of borderline personality disorder but he was not initially prepared to make that diagnosis.[95]He said however personality disorder and its traits are enduring by definition. Personality is pre-existing instability as a hallmark of borderline personality disorder. It means at times the person may appear more unwell and unstable than at other times.[96]Abuse of a substance of dependence can cause harm specific to that substance, including harm caused by dependence and by aggravation of pre-existing personality or psychiatric vulnerabilities.[97]It also causes secondary new psychiatric conditions. He said there was no reason why the single serious sexual assault at work would have a lasting psychiatric condition when the more severe childhood sexual traumas had not.[98]
- [46]Despite the plaintiff maintaining in the conversation in January 2011 that she was a good worker she has suggested in her evidence that she was required to shorten her hours because she was unable to cope following the assault.[99]She gave different reasons in her applications for time off.[100]It should be remembered that Mr Polichronis did not work whilst she was working at Teys and therefore was probably able to look after the children getting to and from school. By January 2011 this duty would have been the responsibility of the plaintiff. The shortening of hours sought is remarkably consistent with the time required to drop children to school and pick them up from school and the reasons enunciated in her applications were the real ones and not because of the effects of the assault.
- [47]Dr Kar is of the opinion that while the incident was stressful, she did not develop a psychiatric impairment from it. She was initially distressed.[101]Her initial behaviour and successful work did not indicate she had developed a permanent psychiatric impairment or a permanent psychiatric condition.[102]However, about six months later she ceased work and had added stressors due to the various factors which have been discussed.[103]He said currently her clinical presentation is due to her unstable personality, stress from other factors such as unresolved litigation/compensation issues and the aggravation of her personality by the cannabis dependence as well as cannabis induced secondary psychiatric side effects. He said that:
Many of the current problems are likely to resolve. If she is successfully able to abstain from cannabis her clinical outlook would become more stable. Further she is stressed by the unresolved litigation/compensation matters which increases focus on symptoms and reduces motivation to maximise functioning. In future once she resumes work her functioning will improve. Currently she has four children to look after and that is another factor why she may feel less motivated to go to work and more motivated to present disability.[104]
By the time he gave his report on 25 July 2014 Dr Kar said:
My opinion has not changed from my previous report that she had borderline personality traits but I have more information now from her history over the last few years and it suggests that she has sufficient traits to admit the full DSM criteria for a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.[105]
- [48]I have come to the conclusion that Dr Nadam’s report and opinion was based on a deal of incorrect information and I do not believe the plaintiff has been entirely open with him.
- [49]Dr Kar on the other hand has queried some of that information. His argument concerning the possibility of borderline personality disorder being a result of her childhood is persuasive and his argument that some months after the assault the plaintiff was faced with a large number of other stressors which may have led to her decompensation is also persuasive. I prefer the evidence of Dr Kar as to the effect the assault has had on the plaintiff.
Summary
- [50]The plaintiff has not proven any breach of the duty of care owed to her by the defendant.
Order
- [51]I order judgment for the defendant.
- [52]No order as to costs.
Footnotes
[1] [2012] QSC 130 at [91].
[2] [2007] NWCA 355.
[3] Exhibit 2.
[4] Exhibit 2.
[5] Exhibit 7.
[6] Exhibit 7.
[7] T1-22.
[8] T1-24; T1-25.
[9] T1-26.
[10] Exhibit 2.
[11] T-28.
[12] T1-29; T1-31.
[13] T1-33.
[14] T1-35.
[15] T1-36.
[16] T1-37 line 15.
[17] Plaintiff’s submission paragraph 51.
[18] T1-50 lines 35 - 40.
[19] T1-51 line 20.
[20] T1-53 line 40.
[21] T1-53; T1-54 line 10.
[22] T1-55 lines 5 - 10.
[23] T3-7 line 25.
[24] T3-8 line 20.
[25] T3-12 line 25.
[26] T3-14 line 35.
[27] T3-14 lines 44 - 45.
[28] T3-20 line 25.
[29] T3-22 lines 1 - 5.
[30] T3-28 line 5.
[31] T3-28 line 18.
[32] T3-39 line 45 – T3-40 line 5.
[33] T3-40 lines 15 - 20.
[34] T3-40 line 5.
[35] T3-41 line 40 – T3-42 line 5.
[36] T3-54 line 5.
[37] T4-4 line 45.
[38] T4-5 line 5.
[39] T4-15 line 22.
[40] T4-17 lines 10 - 25.
[41] T4-15 lines 10 - 25.
[42] T4-16 line 2.
[43] T4-19 lines 40 - 46.
[44] T3-12 line 7.
[45] T1-58 lines 9 - 10.
[46] T1-59 lines 1 - 5.
[47] T1-59 lines 47 - 48.
[48] T1-60 line 3.
[49] T1-61 line 7.
[50] T1-62 line 43.
[51] Exhibit 5.
[52] Exhibit 5.
[53] T4-44 line 30.
[54] T4-45 lines 4 - 5.
[55] T4-45 lines 19 - 20.
[56] T4-45 lines 26 - 27.
[57] T4-46 line 6.
[58] T4-47 line 5.
[59] T3-97 line 47.
[60] T3-98 line 35.
[61] T2-22 lines 5 – 10.
[62] T2-21 line 45.
[63] T3-90 lines 15 - 30.
[64] T3-95 line 23.
[65] T3-95 line 30.
[66] T1-35.
[67] T1-36.
[68] T1-37 line 15.
[69] T1-77 lines 28 - 32.
[70] Exhibit 7 page 6.
[71] Exhibit 2 page 7.
[72] Exhibit 2 page 5.
[73] T1-102.
[74] Exhibit 5.
[75] T3-98 line 35.
[76] T4-55 line 14.
[77] T3-11, lines 15 - 20.
[78] Exhibit 2 page 7.
[79] Exhibit 8 page 4.
[80] Exhibit 3.
[81] Exhibit 2 page 7.
[82] Exhibit 2 page 5.
[83] Exhibit 2 pages 7 – 8.
[84] Exhibit 9 page 140.
[85] Exhibit 2 page 68.
[86] Exhibit 2 page 68.
[87] Exhibit 2 page 74.
[88] Exhibit 7 page 16.
[89] T1-88 line 5.
[90] Exhibit 7 page 15.
[91] Exhibit 7 page 15.
[92] Exhibit 7 page 19.
[93] Exhibit 7 page 15.
[94] Exhibit 7 page 8.
[95] Exhibit 7 page 20.
[96] Exhibit 8 page 28.
[97] T4-65 line 35.
[98] Exhibit 7 page 16.
[99] Exhibit 3.
[100] T3-63 line 40 – T3-64 line 10.
[101] Exhibit 8 page 29.
[102] Exhibit 7 page 21.
[103] Exhibit 7 page 21.
[104] Exhibit 7.
[105] Exhibit 8 page 30.