Epiq logo Fair Work Commission logo

 

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009                                                    

 

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

 

AM2020/104

 

s.158 - Application to vary or revoke a modern award

 

Application by the Australian Workers' Union

(AM2020/104)

Horticulture Award 2020

 

Melbourne

 

9.30 AM, WEDNESDAY, 7 JULY 2021


PN1          

JUSTICE ROSS:  Good morning.  Can I go through the appearances that I have, and then if you can indicate if I've missed anyone.  I'll just go through the first appearance I have for each organisation, so I won't go through everyone else who might be on the line; I'm really interested in those who are going to be talking:  Mr Howe for the AWU; Ms Burke for the UWU; Mr Harrington for Ai Group, Mr Dalton for the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance; Mr Rogers for the NFF.  We were expecting a representative from 88 Days and Counting, but I don't think they have come online yet.  Have I missed any organisation?

PN2          

MR T DONAGHEY:  Not organisation, your Honour, but a change of appearance for the NFF.  I seek leave to appear.  My name is Donaghey, initial T.

PN3          

JUSTICE ROSS:  Thanks, Mr Donaghey.  There's no need to seek permission because this is an application to vary a modern award, so I think under the rules, you don't require it.

PN4          

MR DONAGHEY:  Force of habit, sir.

PN5          

JUSTICE ROSS:  No, no, that's fine.  It's better to be safe than sorry.  Let me just cover where I think we're up to and you can correct me if I'm wrong about that.  In response to the statement, we have received submissions from Ai Group, the NFF, AWU, UWU and the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance.  That statement called for short submissions in respect of a range of issues.  Let me go through where I think we're up to in relation to some of those.

PN6          

There were no objections filed in respect of the application for a confidentiality order.  I take it from that there are no objections and that the order can be issued in the terms sought?  Does anyone have any objection to that course?  No?

PN7          

The second suite of matters concern the notices to produce in respect of the range of employer witnesses.  There was no objection in principle to those applications.  The AFPA wanted to be heard about the impact on the process.  We will come to that.  The NFF wanted to make a submission about the timing and date for production.  Given you've had the notices for a while, what do you want to say about timing, Mr Donaghey?

PN8          

MR DONAGHEY:  Merely that the time we'd seek is likely to be, on current estimates, in the middle of the proposed hearing next week, and that may create issues for other parties.  We've certainly sought some documents from those growers who had the broadest notice to produce directed to them.  Not much has come back so far and we anticipate we'll need a week from today to seek further production, and that may impact others, as I think the AFPA said in its note to your Honour.

PN9          

JUSTICE ROSS:  Well, if that material is then all produced and provided to the two union parties by 9.30 am on Wednesday 14 July - don't worry, Ms Burke, I'll come to you in a moment; I've seen your reaction to the position that's been put - but that fits with what you have said, Mr Donaghey?

PN10        

MR DONAGHEY:  Yes, that would fit with our expectations.

PN11        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Anything you wanted to add to that, Mr Dalton?

PN12        

MR DALTON:  No, your Honour.

PN13        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Ms Burke, just before we settle on the time, in looking at the estimates for cross-examination and the availability issues, what I had in draft was on Tuesday the 13th, we would hear from the AWU lay witnesses, broadly speaking, in the morning from 9.30 to 11.15, we would have a short break between 11.15 and 11.30, then we would deal with Dr Underhill's evidence at 11.30.  I will be circulating a draft; I'm only raising it at the moment for the purpose of discussion and to deal with the notice to produce point.  And then Dr Howe and all of the UWU witnesses would be dealt with in the afternoon.  That all fits with the timing estimates for cross-examination.

PN14        

I was then proposing not to sit on the 14th to provide you with an opportunity to consider the notice to produce material because I anticipated that there would be some delay in the provision of that.  Then, on the Thursday - and I would probably start late on the Thursday - we would deal with the NFF witnesses.  We would start at a time that enables us, on the cross-examination estimates, which is about four and a-half hours, so we might start at 11 o'clock on that day, again to provide a bit more time on the notices to produce, and then on the Friday, we would deal with Dr Houston and Mr King, which I think fits their availability.  I think that accommodates the limited requests on availability and timing that we have received.

PN15        

Can I go, firstly, to Ms Burke and Mr Howell about whether you see that as a reasonable way of dealing with the issues.

PN16        

MS BURKE:  I might just say something briefly.  I know it's Mr Howell's application, but I'll get this out of the way because I think my witness is the one with the availability issue.  Dr Howe has still school holidays next week in South Australia and she has childcare responsibilities on Wednesday and Thursday, so she's just not available those days.  I have seen the Fresh Produce Alliance's requests that they not have to cross-examine Dr Howe until the end of next week.  Unfortunately, that's just simply not going to work, so that will need to be on Tuesday, and I am grateful to your Honour for that Tuesday afternoon indication; we can make that work.

PN17        

Your Honour's estimates are a little tighter than my calculations because I think the AWU's estimates for cross-examination of 20 minutes of 14 witnesses - - -

PN18        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, I doubt if it will take that long, Ms Burke.  I think what usually happens in these matters is the first lay witness takes that long.

PN19        

MS BURKE:  Yes.

PN20        

JUSTICE ROSS:  And the rest of them, you know, fall over like nine pins.

PN21        

MS BURKE:  I'm sure that's Mr Howell's goal.  Certainly it's no one's first rodeo, I understand that, but I just wanted to indicate that that estimate doesn't yet take into account any cross-examination that the UWU will do, but, of course, that will be constrained.  I will have discussions with Mr Howell about that.  There will be no duplication and, of course, I would expect that to be the case for the other parties as well.  So, yes, thank you very much, your Honour, those indications will work for the UWU.

PN22        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  I might pick up on your last point.  That will be - the same rules will apply to both sides.  I'm not having a witness cross-examined about the same issue by more than one party, so you need to sort out between yourselves which party is going to be cross-examining on which issues.  If there's a dispute between you about that, you need to bring it to me before the witness is sworn in.  All right, Mr Howell, can I go to you?

PN23        

MR HOWELL:  Your Honour, I was going to seek by close of business this coming Friday given the parties have had the notices to produce since 29 June, but, in light of what your Honour has said about not sitting on the 14th, if the documents are produced by 9.30 on the 14th, I think that would deal with, as best as I think we can, the practicalities of production, if I can put it that way.  I am instructed to seek Friday close of business, but I understand - - -

PN24        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, look, I think it's trying to - all of these issues involve degrees of compromise from various parties.  Just before I leave the two of you, I had in mind, and, look, I've not gone through the witness material at this stage, that was going to be some pleasure reading over the weekend, but, look, I anticipate that, you know, based on previous cases, often counsel is brought in after some of the statements are filed and I wanted to raise with you how you want to deal with objections.

PN25        

I will let you know what I had in mind:  that you can file all your objections by close of business Friday and we would have a short hearing at 4.30 on Monday and deal with all the objections.  You can take it that it will be what's good for the goose, et cetera, that if you want to object to hearsay, well, I'll be knocking it out in your statements as well.  The same with submissions.  That's often - the two issues that are often features here are either they are expressing an opinion and they're not an expert or they're making a submission about the case, which is a not uncommon feature, or they're hearsay.  So, you can discuss it amongst yourselves and come to a view about how you want to deal with it, or we can deal with it formally, have the hearing and we'll make the rulings.  I don't propose to do it before each witness.  I think it's better to do it in a block so everyone's clear that the same rules will apply consistently to all of your witnesses, whatever we end up coming up with.  I might come back to you, Ms Burke and Mr Howell, about that issue.  Have a think about that.  In the meantime, I will go to Mr Donaghey and Mr Dalton about the timing.

PN26        

MR DONAGHEY:  I'll go first, if your Honour pleases.  I don't have anything to say in respect of timing.  Our major concern was that we thought the notices to produce had the potential to delay or extend the time for hearing, but, on your Honour's proposal, that doesn't seem to be the case, so we're content to leave that as it is.

PN27        

Just a question about the objections that you have just raised.  When you say "file objections", you're anticipating that some of those objections will be in writing with grounds, as is traditionally the case, or are you seeking something less formal than that?

PN28        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Look, I don't think the grounds need to be - it's really you list the witnesses, you list the paragraphs you object to and you've got a one-word on why.

PN29        

MR DONAGHEY:  Understood.

PN30        

JUSTICE ROSS:  It's usually blindingly obvious that it's a submission, or – and it can be dealt with that way.  I'm content to deal with the objections issue in one of two ways.  I'm content to deal with it formally.  I'm not suggesting this is necessarily going to be the case in this case, but I would generally, if it's a formal objection process – in past cases, I've knocked out expressions of opinion by non-experts, hearsay, and submission evidence.

PN31        

But I've also, where parties have reached accommodations between themselves, I'm more than happy to proceed on that basis too.  That may mean that hearsay is admitted, but it's a matter of weight that parties can make a submission about, and that's sometimes an easier course.  Mostly, hearsay is plain, on its face.  I haven't had occasion to deal with any legal argument about whether it is or isn't hearsay, under one of the many exceptions.  So, does that answer your question, Mr Donaghey?

PN32        

MR DONAGHEY:  It does, your Honour.  And I think your second point, about agreement as to whether something should go in and be a matter of weight, was what I intended by the less formal method.  So I'll leave that where it is, but I have nothing else to say about the time.

PN33        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes.  I would suggest that you might have a discussion with Mr Dalton, Ms Burke and Mr Howell, and if that's the way that you collectively want to deal with it, well – speaking for myself, but I'm sure the Bench would be accommodating of that sort of approach.

PN34        

I'll wait and hear from – but I think we'll still have – we'll still look at the same process that, if you advise us by close of business on Friday, each of you, about – and if there's a collective view, then one of you can just drop my chambers a note, indicating that, here's the view, or you've agreed that the following objections will be upheld, or you'll remove – won't read those paragraphs.  But if we don't get to that point, you can take it we'll be having the hearing at 4.30 on Monday, to deal with any of the outstanding issues.  Mr Dalton.

PN35        

MR DALTON:  Thank you, your Honour.  Our issue is in relation to the timing for us to cross-examine the experts.

PN36        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Was it just Dr Howe?

PN37        

MR DALTON:  And Ms Underhill.  There's also the issue, your Honour, of the Costa reply affidavit, where he annexes a study, a joint study by Unions New South Wales and The Migrant Centre Victoria.  That study was published in June 2021, so it's the first we've seen of it, this reply statement.  So that was received on Friday.

PN38        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Was Costa – just remind me – an author of the study?

PN39        

MR DALTON:  It's a little bit unclear from his statement.  It seems, in his position as assistant secretary of Unions New South Wales, he has at least commissioned the report.  He may have had more of an involvement as well, in terms of authorship or oversight, but that's not clear from his affidavit.

PN40        

JUSTICE ROSS:  And who submitted the witness?

PN41        

MR DALTON:  The AWU, your Honour.

PN42        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, well, let's just go to that for the moment.  What can you tell me about Mr Costa – there's no – you can file – if Mr Costa is not the author, then you can file the published study, and people can say what they wish to say about it in closing submissions, a point I'll come to in a moment.  Can you tell us anything about what Mr Costa is going to add to – what his evidence is going to deal with in relation to the report?

PN43        

MR DALTON:  Your Honour, frankly, I cannot recall whether Mr Costa was an author or not.  I know my learned friend's client has sought the production of some documents associated with the creation of that report.

PN44        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes.

PN45        

MR DALTON:  I anticipate we should be in a position to provide those to my learned friend either this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning.  So they should have that well in time to (indistinct) to understand and cross-examine Mr Costa if necessary.  But to directly answer your Honour's question, I simply don't recall.

PN46        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Well, I think we'll deal with it this way.  If he's not an author, then you can tender the report separately from his evidence, and parties will have an opportunity to say what they want to say about that report.  But if he's not an author, I don't think attaching it to his statements particularly is the appropriate way to deal with it.

PN47        

That way, Mr Dalton, parties can make submissions about the report in due course, and you'll be given an opportunity to do that.  But it won't be necessary to – short of the – if he was the instructing – of course you can ask him questions about that, but the report itself, I don't think his evidence is going to be able to assist us if he wasn't the author.

PN48        

MR DALTON:  Yes, your Honour.  Mr Houston might give some evidence in relation to it.  We will confer with him during the course of next week.  So that wouldn't present a difficulty for us.  So, then, we're left Ms Underhill and Dr Howe, and our - - -

PN49        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Why is that a problem?  How long have you had their statements?

PN50        

MR DALTON:  The reply statements were filed on Friday, I believe.

PN51        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, but you've had their principal – how long - - -

PN52        

MR DALTON:  So Dr Howe's was filed on Monday this week.

PN53        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Well, you'll have had a week.  You've got senior and junior counsel involved.  You've got – it's not listed on the Monday.  And unless it's dealt with – one possibility would be, taking into account the – just to make sure we complete the evidence, we could – well, you've heard Dr Howe's availability, but we could look to deal with – so even dealing with Dr Underhill on the Thursday – you could deal with Dr Underhill on the Thursday at 11, then take the break and deal with the NFF witnesses on the Thursday afternoon, and over into the Friday.

PN54        

And because we've got space on the Friday for Dr Houston and Mr King, that would probably work, on a time frame proposal.  It doesn't change the time that would be available to Ms Burke and Mr Howell, before they have to cross-examine the NFF witnesses, because we would still start the proceedings at 11 am on the Thursday.  It would mean some of the NFF witnesses would go over into the Friday.  I think that's the best that can be done in the circumstances, Mr Dalton.  I don't want to lose the week.

PN55        

MR DALTON:  No.

PN56        

MR HOWELL:  Your Honour, that may not leave much time for closing submissions on the Friday.

PN57        

JUSTICE ROSS:  No, we're not going to have closing submissions on the Friday.  So I'll come back to that.

PN58        

MR HOWELL:  Thank you.

PN59        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Mr Dalton.

PN60        

MR DALTON:  We're content with that, your Honour.

PN61        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  I'll come up with a draft in any event, so you can – we can see if there are any issues, and if there are, let me know.  I'll come to the closing submission point, Mr Howell.  I think, because of the evidence, I don't think it's a sensible course to put parties – to be putting closing oral submissions on Friday afternoon, in circumstances where – we'll ask the transcript to be same-day, but you won't have the transcript from the morning.

PN62        

What I'm proposing is that we – and this also – I'll come to some other matters I wanted to raise as well in the course of this, but I was looking for closing oral argument, but to be preceded by short closing written submissions.  I'll come to the content of the written submissions in a moment, but I was looking at 30 July as a date for oral argument.  Prior to that I wasn't looking for closing submissions by the union parties, then replies by the employer; I was looking for one date on which you would all put in your closing submissions, which essentially would be directed at what findings you say should be made from the evidence and whatever comments you wanted to make about the evidence that was relied on by other parties.  And then the closing oral argument would be - that's your opportunity to reply, or to emphasise some points in your closing written submission, but to also respond to the other side's closing, and I would look to give you as much time as possible between 16 July and the 30th to put in that closing written, so you know, probably it would be in the week commencing the 26th, so the week of the oral hearing, probably early in the week so you've got an opportunity to look at what the others are saying, but that was what I had in mind.

PN63        

We may, depending on just timing, publish a draft summary of your submissions, and you can comment on that at the oral hearing as well, whether we've accurately captured what it is you've argued.  That won't touch on the evidence, because you'll be making closing submissions about that, probably the week following.  I should also indicate that the research area of the submission has two information notes, one broadly on the sector, and the other on piece work and some arbitrated decisions about that.  They will be published this week and you will have an opportunity to comment on those in your closing submissions as well.  I have also organised for an electronic court book to be prepared.  I just want to give it a trial myself before we send it to you, and to put the witnesses in the order that they're going to appear in the case, so it's easy to follow.  I just want to check its searchability function, because for some earlier versions of electronic court books that had been a bit messy.

PN64        

The last thing was, because of the various restrictions in different states, we were going to do the hearing by Teams, and we will send you a note about how witnesses can access that and everything else, and again if there are any issues about any of that - I note that one of the witnesses is coming in by telephone, because they're at sea I think, and one requires an interpreter - we'll make a notation on that.  So let's just go around each of you again about those range of issues, about the oral hearing on the 30th.  I imagine it would be half a day, no more and by filing of the closing submissions, let's say by 4 pm on Monday 26 July, and anything else that I've covered.  Ms Burke?

PN65        

MS BURKE:  Thank you, your Honour.  Can I start with 30 July suits the UWU, and just for what it's worth, I'm not available at all the following week, so that's a date that works.  Our witness who is only available by telephone because he's at sea, as I understand he's not required for cross‑examination.

PN66        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Okay.

PN67        

MS BURKE:  In the circumstances I would seek leave for me to tender his statement from the Bar table, because it is quite a palaver to arrange a telephone link from the ocean.

PN68        

JUSTICE ROSS:  I know it is.  Can you just remind me of the name of the witness?

PN69        

MS BURKE:  Can I just remind you of the name of the witness?

PN70        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Sorry, Ms Burke.  Look, I'll have it somewhere.  That's fine.

PN71        

MS BURKE:  No, I just have everything electronically in a state of disorder.  It's Niko - and his name has escaped me, but it starts with a K.

PN72        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Okay.  Yes.

PN73        

MS BURKE:  Thank you.  And I think 26 July for written closing submissions isn't so convenient.  Thank you.

PN74        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Mr Howell?

PN75        

MR HOWELL:  Your Honour, I can confirm senior counsel is available on 30 July.  It's convenient for my side in terms of for the oral hearing.  In terms of the note by 26 July, that will be do‑able.  The electronic court book would be appreciated, and we have no difficulty with the matter proceeding by Teams.  We'll endeavour to do what we can to make those few witnesses of ours who are required for cross‑examination available.  I think at this point it's only Mr Costa outside of Underhill, but I could be wrong on the notes that were lying around yesterday afternoon, and I think it's only Costa at this point who needs to be cross‑examined.

PN76        

JUSTICE ROSS:  And look - - -

PN77        

MR HOWELL:  No, I'm sorry, I beg your pardon - - -

PN78        

JUSTICE ROSS:  I'll provide you with the draft schedule, and I'd encourage you to have discussions between yourselves about it, but if you need to come back and have the matter listed for a short mention to resolve any of those issues we can do that.  I'd prefer to do that this week and sort out where we are on the objections and the witness schedule before we get into it next week.  I should have mentioned, Ms Burke, that yes, my availability is constrained after that though.  I was supposed to commence on leave on Tuesday 27 July.  Chad's case has made a meal of that and I'm on leave from 2 August, but you know, it's for a number of months and as each day passes I'm finding that's diminishing.  So I'd prefer not to go into the following week, but let's see how we go.

PN79        

MS BURKE:  Thank you.  If I can just indicate, it's Niko Karhu - K‑a‑r‑h‑u - is the UWU's witness, who is at sea.

PN80        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes, there's no - look, if it emerges that there are other witnesses that are not required for cross‑examination we'll adopt the same approach.  It can be tendered from the Bar table.

PN81        

MS BURKE:  Thank you.

PN82        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Mr Donaghey?

PN83        

MR DONAGHEY:  Your Honour, those two dates, 26 July and 30 July, are appropriate.  As to the other matters that you mentioned, I only had one observation to indicate.  Doing this by Teams is probably the only practical way given that many of the NFS lay witnesses are spread out throughout Australia, but at the same time, the internet infrastructure in many of those places is variable.  We have noted that during conducting witness discussions and examinations, and probably anticipating for getting the notices to produce finished as well, we have a series of internet drop‑outs in various places.  I think we've ironed out some of the problems we've had, but I'm flagging that, your Honour, because I anticipate we're going to face those again.  Therefore your calculations of the likely cross‑examination or the likely duration of evidence might have to be expanded somewhat, and it's unknowable as to how much they will be expanded when someone is suddenly unavailable or not able to be heard online.

PN84        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Yes.  I think what we'll do is as a fall‑back, and you might start preparing for this now, in relation to those witnesses will be telephone contacts.

PN85        

MR DONAGHEY:  I was going to raise that with the other parties as an alternative, but if your Honour is prepared to provide that as a back‑up, that has been the most reliable way to maintain contact with people, but of course then it raises issues with presentation and having documents tendered and provided, but I anticipate the court book will get over that difficulty in any event.  Other than that I don't have anything to raise with your Honour.

PN86        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Just in relation to - once you see the witness schedule, I want you to have the conversation amongst the four of you, or the four representatives, around the question of telephone.  I think it's preferable - if it's known that you're going to have an internet problem, it's preferable to sort out the telephone issue upfront and say that's how we'll deal with it.  In terms of those witnesses should have in front of them their statement and the notice to produce, and if there's anything else there to be taken to, I don't want to get in the way of any carefully laid bear trap that someone might have, that they want to provide it.  But you may need to let my chambers know what you want to provide, and we'll need to work through how we're going to do that.

PN87        

But I think, Mr Donaghey, it just makes more sense, if we're going to get to the phone.  Particularly in the current circumstances, it might be better to go there first.

PN88        

MR DONAGHEY:  I'll bear that in mind, and I'll raise it as you've suggested.  But I don't think there's – there's only a couple of instances where Internet has proven repeatedly unreliable, and I'll flag those.

PN89        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, thank you.  Mr Dalton.

PN90        

MR DONAGHEY:  Your Honour, we're comfortable with the program and the administrative matters that you've outlined.

PN91        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right, thank you.  I've neglected Mr Harrington, because I don't think Ai Group wanted to cross-examine any witnesses.  But let me come to you now, about anything that's been discussed, Mr Harrington.

PN92        

MR HARRINGTON:  Thank you, your Honour.  You are correct; we don't intend to cross-examine any of the witnesses.  In the course of the – we would perhaps be (indistinct) for some time during the closing submissions, but we'll be largely relying on our written submissions at this point in time.  But we would anticipate taking no longer than half an hour for that, if even that would be required.  But we're content with the course of action that's being proposed.

PN93        

JUSTICE ROSS:  All right.  Well, I'll do a short statement later in the morning or early afternoon, covering off on what we've discussed, and also attaching the draft witness schedule, and if you can advise by close of business Friday where you're going with the objections.  And also, if there are certain witnesses that it's more convenient to deal with by telephone, then let me know that as well.

PN94        

If there is any other change to the draft program, can I encourage you to engage with the other side, and see if you can sort it out between yourselves.  And only if you're not able to – you can take it that, if there's a consent arrangement about shuffling of a witness, that we're not going to be troubled by that.  Just let us know what it is, and only come back if there's a dispute between you that can't be resolved by direct contact.

PN95        

If anything else comes up or troubles you, then by all means contact my chambers, and we'll have a further mention of the matter.  Mr Howell.  You've the hand up function.  Well done, you.  I can never find it on mine, but there you go.

PN96        

MR HOWELL:  First time for everything, your Honour.  Your Honour, the only thing I was going to ask – and perhaps it's a case of wait and see – is whether or not you had in mind any brief opening statement from any party at the beginning.

PN97        

JUSTICE ROSS:  Probably not.  I think with – with written submissions, I think – and bearing in mind you'll have the opportunity to do the closing, and that'll cover off on what you say has flown from – come out of the evidence, what particular findings, and how it supports your position.  Ms Burke, you're just showing off now, using your hand up function as well.

PN98        

MS BURKE:  I'm showing unity among the unions, your Honour.  I've been reminded that I just wanted to note that for witness 1, who is the witness to be called by the UWU, who's the subject of a confidentiality order, we have this morning just requested if an interpreter could be available for that witness.

PN99        

JUSTICE ROSS:  That's in Malay, is that right?

PN100      

MS BURKE:  Malay.  This person obviously has prepared a statement that's in English, and is proficient in English, but there is a difference, of course, between having time to prepare a written statement and then being cross-examined in a second language.  So we just make that request, and I wanted to make sure that your Honour's chambers have received it.

PN101      

JUSTICE ROSS:  We have, and we'll make those arrangements for an interpreter.

PN102      

MS BURKE:  Thank you, your Honour.

PN103      

JUSTICE ROSS:  Any other final matters?  You can take your hand down now, Ms Burke.  I don't know how to do it either, which is why I don't use the function, but there you go.  Anyone else?  No?  All right.  Well, as I say, I'll put out the statement this afternoon.  If I've missed anything in it, please just contact my chambers if you want clarification about anything, and we'll keep in touch, and hopefully, although – I think we all have to be prepared for a bit of disruption with this many witnesses, and trying to utilise the technology.

PN104      

I will just sort of forewarn you that the witness scheduling, particularly of the lay witnesses, will be tighter than your estimates suggest.  That's so that we can minimise downtime.  So I'll tend to say 'not before' or something like that, and put them in blocks of time, so that we don't end up sort of sitting around for 10 minutes, waiting for the next witness to come in.

PN105      

We'll try and do it so that we block them together, and then there might be a break, and then we start another block.  So you can get – to the extent there is downtime, it'll be more productive for you, because you'll know when it's coming up.  All right, thanks very much.  If I don't hear from you beforehand, I'll see you next week.

PN106      

MR DALTON:  Thank you, your Honour.

ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED                                       [10.09 AM]