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
Q. It is likely to be the same in respect of [ADD] and
[LAE], is it?
A. Yes.
Q. That we double the payment?
A. Yes. Well, in the case of [ADD], it's four times it,
isn't it?
Q. It is. You are right. It is double in relation to
[LAE]. Can you help us with whether the total payments in
table 1 take that into account?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. So it is not a straight question of addition; there
needs to be some multiplication in relation to those three?
A. In terms of the compensation payouts for Chute, it
would simply be an addition of that "Compensation" column.
Q. Legal expenses or costs were paid by the order in
respect of these matters in which the order engaged
lawyers; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the case, isn't it, in respect of Brother Chute,
that Carroll & O'Dea's professional costs and disbursements
amounted to $126,521?
A. Yes.
Q. And in respect of Brother Sutton, the amount of
Carroll & O'Dea's professional costs and disbursements was
nearly $78 ,000?
A. I believe so.
Q. In respect of the Marist College litigation, which is
litigation that involved both Brother Sutton and
Brother Chute, the legal fees were $238,728?
A. I'm not sure of what you are asking in the very last
one, please. I'm just looking for my notes on that.
Q. The reference I have is a separate reference to
Brothers Chute and Sutton, which I have taken you through.
A. Yes.
Q. And a third reference to the Marist College
litigation. Do you understand what that means?
A. Oh, that would be in relation to the matters before
.1/07/2014 (ACT36) ACT4020 J J CROWE (Ms Furness)
Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation