downloadfile

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brother Crowe?
A. This is a letter from the lawyers of the insurance
company, and so, for them, the prior knowledge would have
meant that we would lose or compromise our indemnity with
respect to Brother Chute and to ourselves as the ones who
had taken out the insurance.
Q. So the insurance arrangement you had with CCI was
that, in general terms, they would indemnify you in respect
of any claim unless you had prior knowledge of the
propensity of the accused; is that right?
A. Unless the leadership group did, yes.
Q. And so in relation to Brother Chute, it was a real
issue as to whether or not the leadership group did have
that prior knowledge --
A. Yes.
Q. -- so as to mean that the Marist Brothers themselves
would have to pay for any claims, as opposed to the
insurer?
A. That's right.
Q. And that was a live issue in relation to Chute?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a live issue in relation to Sutton?
A. I believe so at one stage, yes.
Q. If we come down to paragraph 10, there is reference
there to the advice from the solicitors to CCI regarding
their prospects of success, in terms of relying on
Brother Chute, as a lot less than 50/50. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then noting that the Marist Brothers had proposed
that the indemnity issue be resolved between the Marist
Brothers and CCI on a 50/50 basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you involved in considering and ultimately
putting forward the 50/50 basis settlement with CCI?
A. I accepted the advice of my lawyer on that.
Q. Is it the case that by putting forward that proposal
and accepting that advice, you formed the view that the
Marist Brothers did have prior knowledge - that is, the
.1/07/2014 (ACT36) ACT4014 J J CROWE (Ms Furness)
Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation