BrothelGate Day 7 PM

1 (Kaye J)
2UPON RESUMING AT 2.14 PM:
3HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson has not made it back to court yet.
4MR JOHNSON: Your Honour.
5HIS HONOUR: The witness box, thanks.
6<HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON, recalled:
7WITNESS: Your Honour, may I firstly explain why I am late to
8 court at this moment. I have organised for Mr Thompson
9 to file and for one of his people to serve Mr Wittekind
10 on the basis he is subpoenaed to attend Your Honour's
11 court at 9.30 tomorrow morning. I had unsealed copies of
12 those documents if Your Honour or my learned friends are
13 interested in a copy.
14HIS HONOUR: If you will just hold them there. You are at the
15 moment in cross-examination?---Yes, Your Honour, I have
16 not had time to eat other than a small piece of fruit and
17 I do need to visit the bathroom, Your Honour, I'm sorry.
18My staff contacted you about an hour ago about going to the
19 Registry to have the subpoena issued?---And it has taken
20 that long and I contacted your Tipstaff, Your Honour, and
21 said I could be five minutes late.
22My staff were told that the Registry had not sighted you here
23 at all?---I had to walk to Mr Thompson - - -
24You have five minutes. Stand the matter down for five minutes.
25<(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
26 (Short Adjournment)
27HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries?
28MR DEVRIES: May it please Your Honour. Mr - if Mr Johnson
29 could be shown this document, it's a redirection advice
30 for mail from 166 Queen Street. Is that in your
31 handwriting, Mr Johnson?---Yes, it is, Mr Devries?
1.LL:SK 10/12/08 FTR:28 73 JOHNSON XXN

2Cressy
1And it seeks to readdress mail for James Johnson and James
2 Sutton, amongst others, doesn't it?---It does. There's a
3 mistake with that last part, Mr Devries.
4It's in your handwriting, signed by you, and it seeks to
5 readdress - readdress mail for you from 166 Queen Street,
6 Altona, is that correct?---Yes, it does.
7What date did you seek to have the mail readdressed from?
8 ---This particular application is dated 25 September
9 2007.
10Yes?---No, sorry, it was signed by me on 19 September 2007.
11I tender it, Your Honour?---May I have a copy, please?
12HIS HONOUR: In due course. Exhibit O - - -?---Your Honour,
13 may - - -
14I'm describing an exhibit, Your Honour, you don't (indistinct).

15
16#EXHIBIT O - Application to redirect mail signed by
17 Harold Johnson dated 19/09/07.
18MR DEVRIES: Your Honour pleases?---Your Honour, might I be
19 excused from the box just to get my pad that I was
20 writing notes on?
21HIS HONOUR: Yes?---Thank you, Your Honour.
22MR DEVRIES: For Your Honour's assistance, I'm now turning to
23 Exhibit 47, this is the income tax return for Mr Johnson
24 for the financial year of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2008?
25 ---Forgive me, Your Honour, I'm still looking
26 (indistinct) notepad this morning. I've found it, Your
27 Honour. I do apologise to everyone.
28MR DEVRIES: Perhaps you can let us know when you're ready,
29 Mr Johnson?---I shall, Mr Devries, thank you.
30What are you writing down, Mr Johnson?---That there's an
31 exhibit, "O", mail redirection, Mr Devries. Thank you, I
32 apologise to my learned friend, I'm ready for more

2Cressy
1 questions.
2HIS HONOUR: Can I just ask you this, when you sign a tax
3 return, you're aware of your obligation to ensure that
4 every statement contained in it is true and correct, is
5 that right?---Yes, Your Honour.
6Yes, and that's not just simply statements relating to your
7 financial affairs, but everything that's contained in
8 your tax return has to be true and correct, doesn't it?
9 ---I believe so, Your Honour, yes.
10Yes?---Yes.
11And so when you signed your tax returns, you always sign them,
12 I take it, in the - doing your best to ensure that every
13 detail on them relating to you or your financial affairs
14 is true and correct?---Yes, my tax agent would prepare
15 them, print a copy for me, I would sign one or two pages,
16 and they would be submitted electronically.
17Yes?---Yes, Your Honour.
18(Indistinct) something with your individual tax return for the
19 year 2005, please, it's taken from Exhibit 5, that's a
20 copy of your tax return for that year?---Yes, Your
21 Honour.
22Yes, describes your home address at that time as 2 Dorrington
23 Street?---It does, Your Honour.
24Is that true?---It was the address of a home that I owned at
25 that time - - -
26No, that's not the question I asked you, was that true?---Was I
27 residing at that address?
28No?---When I signed - - -
29No, was your statement as to your home address there true?---I
30 was living at that address when I signed - - -
31You were living there?---I was not living at that address when

2Cressy
1 I signed this form.
2Was that untrue? Would you prefer not to answer that, would
3 you prefer not to answer that question?---I considered
4 this and the cautions you gave me yesterday - - -
5Yes, well, I won't - - -?---- - - irrelevance - - -
6I won't insist on an answer on the basis it may incriminate
7 you?---Also to relevance, Your Honour, I think - - -
8It is relevant, it's entirely relevant.
9MR DEVRIES: Could I have a look at it for a moment, please,
10 Your Honour? Sorry, has Your Honour completed your - - -
11HIS HONOUR: Yes?---Sorry, Your Honour, may I ask on what basis
12 Exhibit O was tendered?
13You identified it as your signature, Mr - - -?---Was it
14 tendered as to relevance?
15Yes?---Or as to credit - - -
16Relevance. I received it as to relevance?---I submit that
17 should have been tendered as part of the plaintiff's case
18 so that I could have the opportunity to cross-examine her
19 on that document.
20The plaintiff is entitled to enter documents through you?---I
21 believe I should be entitled to cross-examine the
22 plaintiff as to how she obtained the document, given that
23 it's dated 19 September 2000 and - - -
24Well, you can make a submission to that effect later?---Thank
25 you, Your Honour, that - - -
26You can make a submission to that effect later. At the moment,
27 you are being cross-examined by Mr Devries.
28(CNP Thank you, Your Honour. MR DEVRIES: Have you got a )
29 ?---Thank you, Your Honour.
30MR DEVRIES: Now, do you have a copy of your 2007/2008 income
31 tax return in front of you, Mr Johnson?---I do,

2Cressy
1 Mr Devries.
2I note that this document is not signed by you?---That is
3 correct; this copy is not signed, Mr Devries.
4Have you signed an identical version of that return?---As I
5 just explained to His Honour - - -
6No, no, just answer yes or no, Mr Johnson?---I will have signed
7 one or two pages for my tax agent, who has then lodged
8 this electronically.
9You're required to sign every page, aren't you?---I have never
10 – sometimes a bank will request that as part of due
11 diligence – no, I didn't – I've never signed every page.
12 The lodgements are electronic, I just sign the pages the
13 tax agent wants so that they're satisfied they've got all
14 the (indistinct) to lodge electronically. I might sign
15 two or three pages.
16So you've only signed two or three pages? Are you saying to
17 His Honour that every one of these pages of this document
18 is true and correct? It's your document, you should know
19 the answer to that question?---There is one – there is
20 one aspect that I realise now is not correct, so I do
21 need to file an amendment before April/May 2009.
22Which part is not correct, Mr Johnson?---I haven't brought into
23 account the disposal of the Lisa Court property, there
24 would be a small capital gain there. It's irrelevant to
25 the outcome because it would be offset against staggering
26 net tax losses.
27So apart from the absence of reference to Lisa Court being
28 sold, this Individual Tax Return, you say, is true and
29 correct in every respect?---Yes, it meets the
30 requirements of the income tax legislation.
31Are the contents of that document factually true and correct in

2Cressy
1 every respect, Mr Johnson?---Subject to the above two
2 answers, yes.
3You're not prepared to give me an unqualified answer to that
4 question?---Yes, except I haven't brought into account
5 the disposal of Lisa Court and capital gains implications
6 thereof.
7And that discloses, does it not, that your income from your
8 business was a minus figure?---For the tax year beginning
9 1 July 2007 and ending 30 June 2008, yes, that's right;
10 my business expenses exceeded my income from that
11 business by a significant amount.
12What were your business expenses for that year?---The usuals, I
13 was still locked in - - -
14No, just the amount, not - - - ?---May I read off the document?
15No, just give us the figure, please?---I can't without reading
16 off the document.
17HIS HONOUR: He may refer to the document.
18MR DEVRIES: You can look at the document, but just give us the
19 figure. I'm sorry, Your Honour, if I trespassed onto
20 Your Honour's territory.
21WITNESS: Total expenses are showing up at 110,265 for the
22 business.
23MR DEVRIES: So your gross income from your business was
24 190,000 for that year? No, sorry, 30,000?---No, it's at
25 the bottom of that page, Mr Devries - - -
26No, just – this is - - - ?---It's minus 82,000. Net income or
27 loss from business for this year, it's a loss of 82,286.
28So if your income from your business was 110,000 - - - ?
29 ---No, no.
30Your expenses were 110,000?---Yes.
31Of which - - -

2Cressy
1HIS HONOUR: Your business income was 28,250?---Yes, Your
2 Honour, that's correct.
3It's on Line J. It's the fourth page on the document. See
4 "Non primary production, 28,250".
5MR DEVRIES: I'm indebted to Your Honour.
6HIS HONOUR: "Total expenses, 110,265", that gives him a loss
7 of 82,286.
8MR DEVRIES: Your Honour, could I have a look at Exhibit N,
9 please? N for Nelly.
10HIS HONOUR: North.
11MR DEVRIES: Sorry, I refuse to be military. (To witness) How
12 do you equate 28,250, Mr Johnson, with 240,000 gross?
13 ---As I said, that 240,000 is a historical figure that
14 probably was out of the 2004 or 2005 tax return. It bore
15 no relevance – the banks always look at your last lodged
16 tax return, they like to see your bank statements - - -
17You're giving – at the moment - - - ?---I'll address it in
18 re-examination.
19At the moment you are giving hearsay evidence - - - ?---I can't
20 reconcile because - - -
21You can't reconcile it? Now, I presume, too, that as a result
22 of this tax return – Your Honour, the other tax return
23 will be returned in a (indistinct).
24HIS HONOUR: You want to hang on to that?
25MR DEVRIES: Just for a few moments, Your Honour.
26HIS HONOUR: That's all right, yes.
27MR DEVRIES: I presume as a result of that individual tax
28 return, Mr Johnson, you won't be paying my client any
29 child support for the foreseeable future?---Your Honour,
30 my legal child support obligations – Mr Devries, need to
31 be recalculated by the Child Support Agency based on my

2Cressy
1 current income. That is current income. It's not
2 historical (indistinct). I'm not aware of any recent
3 recalculation. I have never paid bare minimum legal
4 requirement. I will be asking, because this is the only
5 forum I can do it, for DNA paternity testing for Illyana
6 just so that I know - - -
7HIS HONOUR: Let's just stay away from that because that has
8 got nothing to do with the question you've just been
9 asked, and I consider your answer evasive?---Am I a
10 delinquent who won't pay his legal obligations of child
11 support - - -
12That wasn't the question either?---OK, but I will meet my
13 obligations.
14The question put to you is, will you be paying child support?
15 ---According to my legal obligations, yes, I will.
16You have the financial capacity to pay?---I have had no income.
17 I have no earnings since 1 July 2008, Your Honour. For
18 child support purposes I'm deemed to have an income equal
19 to the - - -
20I'm not interested in that question. I just asked you a very
21 short question and you - - -?---I think it's (indistinct)
22 the question.
23The question was will you be paying child support?---When I
24 have a legal obligation to do I shall, Your Honour.
25MR DEVRIES: Your expectation is that as a result of this
26 income – the lodgement of this income tax return your
27 child support will be reassessed back to zero for that
28 financial year and the current financial year isn't it?
29 ---I am horrified - - -
30Just answer the question, please?---I am horrified that I've
31 not been able to pay any child support to Julie Johnson

2Cressy
1 since early June this year. I am horrified that the
2 Child Support Agency deems me to have an income of
3 $80,000.
4HIS HONOUR: Your emotions in relation to all that are
5 irrelevant. You have deliberately refused to answer
6 questions over the last five minutes. Now - - -?
7 ---The questions are making vile accusations as to my
8 character.
9Mr Johnson, you have an obligation to answer questions
10 directly. An evasive witness can be dealt with. I do
11 not wish to even make that threat at the moment, but
12 don't put me in a position where it's necessary for me to
13 do so in order to expedite this case?---I'll - - -
14Just behave yourself. You're an officer of this court you keep
15 reminding me. You're doing yourself no good and you're
16 not assisting your case at all with this behaviour. Now,
17 listen to the question and answer it. Mr Devries.
18MR DEVRIES: Your expectation, Mr Johnson, is that as a result
19 of the lodgement of this tax return you'll be assessed to
20 pay my client no child support for the financial year
21 covered by your tax return, and for the current financial
22 year isn't it?---No.
23Are you serious in that answer, Mr Johnson?
24HIS HONOUR: That's not a proper question.
25WITNESS: I would love the liberty to explain my answer but
26 I'll do that in re-examination.
27MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, when was the last time you paid my
28 client child support?---The last time I gave her cash
29 would've been in August 2007.
30Was that child support or support for her or was it overdue
31 wages? What was it characterised by you as?

2Cressy
1 ---Characterised by me as moneys that Ms Cressy would
2 have available to support the children together with any
3 financial benefit she was getting from the government,
4 together with living rent free in the house at Altona.
5 So that she had sufficient means as single mum, while we
6 sorted out this mess, to maintain the children without
7 having to resort to prostitution which to my knowledge
8 she - - -
9HIS HONOUR: How much did you pay to her at that time?---This
10 would've been a thousand dollars exactly, less the cost
11 of the mobile phone and the house phone at the Altona
12 property. They were phones of mine.
13How much cash did you hand to her?---Zero, Your Honour. I will
14 have deposited that into her bank account.
15How much did you deposit into her bank account?---It would've
16 been a thousand dollars less whatever the latest monthly
17 phone bills were for those two phones, so I'm guessing
18 somewhere - a bit more than $800, Your Honour.
19Sorry?---A bit more than $800 I guess.
20Until then had you been paying moneys to Ms Cressy for her
21 support and for the children?---Until then I'd been
22 giving Ms Cressy moneys since even before Illyana was
23 born.
24MR DEVRIES: This income of $28,000 is that commensurate with
25 your present level of income, or has your income gone up
26 or down since the end of the last financial year?---My
27 present – my present business income for this half
28 financial year 1 July 2008 to to date is zero. I have
29 some running down expenses I believe I'm entitled to
30 claim because I have an expectation of earning
31 (inaudible) due course, but the actual figure if I was to

2Cressy
1 prepare this return today as at 1 July 2008 to this
2 period ending today the figure in Item J would be zero.
3That's going to be the figure for the foreseeable future isn't
4 it, Mr Johnson?---No, Mr Devries. I'm hopeful early in
5 the New Year, and especially if His Honour gives a
6 judgment before Christmas I can get this monkey off my
7 back and I can start earning in the order of - - -
8HIS HONOUR: The chances of giving a judgment before Christmas
9 are receding every time you give an evasive answer - - -?
10 ---The quality - - -
11- - -just prolonging this case?---The quality of my earnings
12 from the start of next – the start of the next calendar
13 year will depend substantially upon whether I'm an
14 undischarged bankrupt or not. Provided I'm not an
15 undischarged bankrupt I will be commensurate with what I
16 was earning in my business, but obviously I'm starting
17 from zero. I've got to ramp up again. As an
18 undischarged bankrupt I understand I – my options are to
19 work as an employee so I will be earning a fraction of
20 what I could earn as a principal of a firm.
21MR DEVRIES: Sorry, as an undischarged bankrupt?---Yes,
22 Mr Devries.
23HIS HONOUR: I think you've missed about three quarters of his
24 answer, you heard a lot, but you missed about three
25 quarters.
26MR DEVRIES: Are you anticipating becoming an undischarged
27 bankrupt, are you?---I'm doing everything possible to
28 avoid that, Mr Devries, I should be patently aware from
29 the life of these proceedings - - -
30HIS HONOUR: The long and rambling answer, I think, is
31 foreshadowing what might happen if you become a bankrupt

2Cressy
1 and wasn't discharged.
2MR DEVRIES: And you're going to do that to try and frustrate
3 any judgment that my client gets in her favour from His
4 Honour? I say that with respect, Your Honour?---I think
5 they're vile accusations, Your Honour, not a question.
6Your Honour, I wouldn't have asked those questions, except for
7 a couple of things I've gleaned on a quick reading
8 of - - -
9HIS HONOUR: Yes, it's around about Paragraph 272 or something,
10 isn't it, Justice Neeve.
11MR DEVRIES: I think it might be around about p.120 or
12 thereabouts, Your Honour.
13HIS HONOUR: Yes, I saw it too. In other words, contrary to
14 the current flow of authority, the Court of Appeal now
15 say that what - post relationship contributions are
16 relevant.
17MR DEVRIES: Certainly in the context of (indistinct).
18HIS HONOUR: I understand that.
19MR DEVRIES: Yes, and on that basis, Your Honour, what I put to
20 Your Honour, and (indistinct) has now changed.
21HIS HONOUR: I follow that.
22MR DEVRIES: Yes, thank you.
23HIS HONOUR: Because I think the situation might be important.
24MR DEVRIES: Yes.
25HIS HONOUR: Whatever it was, but we have to cope with that,
26 but it seemed to me you probably already dealt with it.
27MR DEVRIES: Yes, yes.
28HIS HONOUR: Your client's got the children.
29MR DEVRIES: Yes. There is only one other matter that will
30 arise out of that, Your Honour, which - - -
31HIS HONOUR: Anyway, you're still cross-examining Mr Johnson.

2Cressy
1MR DEVRIES: Yes.
2HIS HONOUR: It's best we try and get that done.
3MR DEVRIES: I was going to say, I'm moving onto another
4 subject that arises out of that.
5HIS HONOUR: (Indistinct) Ms Sofroniou, if it did help you,
6 you're entitled to use the jury box if - - -
7MS SOFRONIOU: Your Honour.
8HIS HONOUR: - - - face that way, you're comfortable there?
9 For the transcript, Ms Sofroniou has been alternately
10 standing and sitting because she has a very bad back,
11 with which I sympathise.
12MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour. You recall that letter
13 that was tendered yesterday, which was the letter from
14 your employee, Exhibit J, Your Honour?---Yes, Mr Devries.
15Your tax return is not consistent with the contents of that
16 letter either, is it?---I will say that the tax return
17 was prepared a good six months after that letter was
18 prepared, and on grounds of relevance and also having
19 regard to the cautions His Honour spoke to me yesterday
20 afternoon, I declined - - -
21HIS HONOUR: It is relevant, but I will permit you to take the
22 privilege against self-crimination?---Except to the
23 extent I wish to come back with some comments in re-
24 examination, to the extent that I had already answered
25 that question to some degree yesterday afternoon.
26Well, to the extent that you answered, you may give evidence in
27 re-examination. If you go beyond that, then it opened -
28 you waived the privilege, and that opens cross-
29 examination, so you'll have to tread wearily?---I'm
30 indebted, Your Honour.
31Because it's a privilege for you to waive, so you'll need to

2Cressy
1 take care not to waive it. Bear in mind that I cannot
2 draw any adverse inference against a witness who takes
3 the privilege against self-incrimination, do you follow
4 that?---Thank you, I wasn't aware of that, Your Honour.
5And it's a principle of law?---Thank you.
6Because it's a basic common law right we (indistinct).
7MR DEVRIES: You are aware, aren't you, that pursuant to orders
8 of this honourable court, my client was given occupancy
9 of 166 Queen Street, Altona?---Not exactly, Mr Devries.
10No? OK, not exactly? I've mislaid some documents, Your
11 Honour. You consented, didn't you, to an order of the
12 Federal Magistrates Court made on 26 September 2007, to
13 the effect that my client and the children shall reside
14 at 166 Queen Street, Altona?---Not exactly, Mr Devries.
15Order 19 says, "The mother and the children shall reside at
16 166 Queen Street, Altona, do you agree that that's the
17 order, that's that order"? You don't need to write it
18 down to tell me whether you agree or not, Mr Johnson?
19 ---Yes, that's the order, Mr Devries.
20And those were consent orders?---Those were consent orders,
21 Mr Devries.
22And you had counsel appearing for you on that occasion?---Yes.
23And are you suggesting that Order 19 is not an order with which
24 you agree?---No, I'm saying two things, firstly that
25 there's an order that I sought in my application, I
26 sought that order, Ms Cressy consented to it. It's a bit
27 of a nonsense to say that I consented to an order I was
28 seeking in my own application, Mr O'Dwyer's jurisdiction,
29 and I say secondly, Ms Cressy did not gain occupancy of
30 the premises by virtue of my application or that order,
31 she had been in occupation since 2006, at my permission,

2Cressy
1 I granted her occupancy of the premises, not any court
2 process, Mr Devries.
3From 26 September 2007 she was supposed to have occupancy, with
4 the children, of 166 Queen Street, Altona, wasn't she?
5 ---That was the gist of my application - - -
6Yes, and thereafter you took every step you could to frustrate
7 that order and to force her and the children to have to
8 move from residence to residence, didn't you?---They are
9 vile statements and they are incorrect.
10Well, on 5 November 2007 you wrote to Mr Hanlon, didn't you,
11 and said, "I wish to assure Ms Lonergan, Miss Delanthy
12 and yourself in the clearest possible terms that I have
13 no desire or intention of commencing any steps to have my
14 daughter, Illyana, or her half-brothers, Skye and Treece,
15 or her mother, Pippin, evicted from the premises at 166
16 Queen Street, Altona. The suggestion is abhorrent"?---I
17 wrote two letters to Mr Hanlon on that date.
18Did you write those words, Mr Johnson?---I did write those
19 words and the word "conundrum" in the next paragraph.
20Thank you, you've answered my question now, Mr Johnson. I
21 tender that, Your Honour.

22
23#EXHIBIT P - Letter from the defendant to
24 Mr David Hanlon of Harwood Andrews Pty
25 Ltd dated 05/11/07.
26MR DEVRIES: And then after that you proceeded to attempt to
27 see the property, didn't you?---I received no response
28 from David Hanlon to that letter and I entered into a
29 contract of sale of the property. Whether or not I was
30 going to be able to complete that sale, I had no idea at
31 that stage, but I set up that possibility.
32So notwithstanding the court order, that you said to His Honour
33 you proposed that you were in agreement with, the court

2Cressy
1 made at the end of September, 26 September 2007, and your
2 letter of November to Mr Hanlon assuring him and my
3 client that you would not do anything to have my client
4 moved from 166 Queen Street, Altona, you signed a
5 contract of sale of that property on or about 24 December
6 2007, didn't you?---Mr Devries, my evidence on this point
7 hasn't and can't change from when we discussed this
8 before Justice Cavanough in the Practice Court on 20
9 June.
10His Honour is not Mr Justice Cavanough - - - ?---And when
11 myself and Dr Ingleby it before Justice - - -
12HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson, your answer is unresponsive. The fact
13 is, as you've already tendered, you signed a contract of
14 sale on the property at 166 Queen Street, Altona on
15 24 December 2007, is that right?---Yes, sir.
16You've told me that settlement of that property was due in, I
17 think, February 2008, is that right?---Yes, Your Honour.
18I take it, it was a term of the contract of sale that you would
19 give vacant possession to the purchaser on that date?
20 ---And that the purchaser's caveats and the Harwood
21 Andrews – no, the purchaser's caveat would be removed,
22 there was - - -
23Do you agree with what I put to you?---Totally, Your Honour.
24MR DEVRIES: And as a result of correspondence from you to the
25 mortgagee, the mortgagee took possession of those
26 premises on or about 21 January this year. That's
27 correct, isn't it?---Totally incorrect.
28Well, as a result of your letter they sought possession, we had
29 proceedings in this honourable court, isn't that correct?
30 And my client was forced to move to another of your
31 properties, isn't that correct?---Your Honour, the

2Cressy
1 questions are skipping, I can't give - - -
2HIS HONOUR: There are some questions in that. Perhaps a more
3 important one is a factual question; I take it that in
4 January of 2008 the plaintiff was required to vacate
5 Queen Street?
6MR DEVRIES: She was given a notice to quit by the mortgagees
7 as a result of correspondence from Mr Johnson.
8HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, don't worry about the result - - -?
9 ---I am not aware of that document.
10Yes, but you understand that she left in January 2008?---I
11 understand that she didn't, and I believe that's not
12 contested.
13She did or did not?---She did not.
14MR DEVRIES: She left a bit later than that, Your Honour.
15HIS HONOUR: When did she leave?
16MR DEVRIES: About June 2007.
17HIS HONOUR: Eight?
18MR DEVRIES: 2008, I'm sorry, Your Honour.
19HIS HONOUR: Is that right?---A bit later, we're talking
20 January, Your Honour, now we're talking June, a bit
21 later.
22Yes, well I understand the difference between the two months.
23 Is it common ground that the plaintiff left the Queen
24 Street property in June 2008?---Yes, Your Honour.
25And that would be common ground that that was as a consequence
26 of action taken by the mortgagee?---No, Your Honour, that
27 was action taken by the plaintiff's application that was
28 heard before Justice Cavanough and the orders that
29 Mr Justice Cavanough made on or between 20 June this year
30 and 21 July this year.
31MR DEVRIES: That is not quite accurate, is it? The mortgagee

2Cressy
1 attended, the mortgagee had their own representation, the
2 mortgagee had their own representation and as a result of
3 the position the mortgagee was in, which emanated from
4 your letter, the mortgagee was given possession by His
5 Honour so it was given – orders giving the mortgagee
6 possession of those premises. Isn't that correct?---That
7 is something I didn't understand because the orders
8 Justice Cavanough made were orders against a non-party in
9 the proceedings and - - -
10HIS HONOUR: It doesn't matter whether you understand it or
11 not, were those orders made?---Yes, Your Honour.
12The orders are part of the record anyway, Mr Devries.
13MR DEVRIES: Yes.
14WITNESS: It's a possibility that Your Honour indicated on the
15 first day the trial was impossibility, I think.
16HIS HONOUR: Sorry?---I believe in – you said in the first day
17 of the trial that it's impossible to make orders against
18 a non party.
19I didn't say that?---My memory must be wrong Your Honour.
20Just stick to the point would you please.
21MR DEVRIES: As a result of that tune the children had to move
22 to Dorrington Street, that's correct isn't it?---Justice
23 Cavanough's fitted orders evicting me from Dorrington
24 Street, banning me from speaking or dealing with the
25 mortgagee.
26HIS HONOUR: Did you leave Dorrington Street at that point?---I
27 did but - - -
28Did the plaintiff move in?---Yes pursuant to the orders - - -
29Thank you, that’s all we need?--- - - - that Justice Cavanough
30 made.
31MR DEVRIES: Order 6, Your Honour, of the orders made by His

2Cressy
1 Honour on 20 June 2008.
2HIS HONOUR: Yes.
3MR DEVRIES: You are aware that my client has now located to
4 Dorrington Street with the children?---I became informed
5 of that fact when your client gave her evidence-in-chief.
6You're currently aware of that, aren't you?---I think I
7 answered that question, yes.
8HIS HONOUR: Remind me of the date of that again Mr Devries,
9 what date did your client leave?
10MR DEVRIES: It's within the last two weeks Your Honour.
11HIS HONOUR: That's right?---Excuse me, Mr Devries, the
12 plaintiff still has possession and keys and her things at
13 the house, so I believe in that sense she might not be
14 residing there but she still has possession of the
15 property based on her testimony, Your Honour.
16She and the children have vacated those premises, Mr Johnson,
17 haven't they?---I can only rely on your client's
18 evidence-in-chief, Mr Devries, that's the only
19 information I have on the point.
20When you refinanced Gibson Street, you refinanced from a
21 mortgage in which the liability was a little bit less
22 than $400,000 to a liability of approximately $507,000,
23 isn't that correct?---In the broad brush, yes, I don't
24 recall the exact amount of the loan but it would have
25 been 90 per cent of the valuation which I think was
26 600,000 in bank valuation so that would give it a 540,000
27 and presumably the other 30,000 was - if that figure is
28 correct - was the mortgage insurance capitalised in, so
29 the number sounds about right Mr Devries.
30You applied some of the proceeds to the purchase of a another
31 property, is that correct?---Yes.

2Cressy
1You pocketed some of the proceeds?---Mr Devries, I have given
2 you in the other jurisdiction a copy of my bank statement
3 showing the dispersal of those moneys out of my
4 Commonwealth Bank account where they were put, the
5 balance of the borrowings by the Commonwealth Bank early
6 in January this year. You have that information, sir, in
7 the other jurisdiction.
8His Honour doesn't have that information and I don't have that
9 information in this jurisdiction, Mr Johnson, so perhaps
10 you would like to answer the question?---You are entitled
11 to tender that information, Mr Devries.
12HIS HONOUR: Ask the question again, I'm sorry, I was
13 distracted.
14MR DEVRIES: How much money did you pocket as a result of the
15 refinancing of Gibson Street?---I won't take issue at the
16 word "pocket", I think after the two financings were done
17 there was a net figure of about 80,000 banked into my
18 Commonwealth Bank account.
19You used the rest of the money to either improve your equity in
20 the other property or - sorry, that was in Endeavour
21 Drive or to reduce other liabilities of yours, didn't
22 you?---I used the rest of the money for many things,
23 including to repay short term borrowings I borrowed over
24 the previous quarter, trying to keep up all of my
25 mortgage payments up to date, child support payments for
26 Mrs Johnson as well as covering expenses of Ms Cressy's
27 that I was still paying at that time.
28Breese Street, you say that you have an equity of $1000 in each
29 of those properties?---I said that on a principal - - -
30Is that right?---I said on a principal - I think I said Calder
31 or Mead, but they were economists - funny what the memory

2Cressy
1 does. What I meant to say was on the principal of
2 Lysaght v. Edwards 1867 - - -
3HIS HONOUR: We don't need the citation and you know that?
4 ---499 - when I signed those contracts and put down my
5 $1000 deposit on each, I had a secured enforceable right
6 to the contracts. I believe that opportunity has been
7 lost. I have had nothing touched, nothing heard, nothing
8 signed, nothing for those properties except a bit of
9 mucking around with deposit bonds.
10MR DEVRIES: You have had paid on your behalf a deposit of
11 $25,000 in respect of each of those two properties,
12 haven't you?---These are deposit bonds that the
13 Commonwealth Bank did.
14Would you like to answer my question Mr Johnson, you have had
15 paid on your behalf a deposit of $25,000 in respect of
16 each of those properties, that's correct isn't it?---No,
17 it's not correct Mr Devries.
18Or very close - or $23,250 for one property and $22,730 in
19 respect of the other property, that's correct then isn't
20 it?---That is not correct, Mr Devries, that is not how
21 deposit bonds worked.
22You have provided a guarantee of the deposit of $23,250 for one
23 property, Unit 27, and $22,730 in respect of Unit 6,
24 haven't you?---No, I've not provided any bank guarantee,
25 my bank provided the bank guarantee.
26HIS HONOUR: The bank guaranteed that deposit, do I take it,
27 and you purchased that guarantee from the bank?---And I
28 would have paid a fee of a few thousand dollars which
29 would have come out of that Commonwealth Bank global
30 financing, it was a $2 million financing, Your Honour,
31 over four properties. I was pre-approved for the two

2Cressy
1 units.
2I don't need the whole of the story, just answer the questions?
3 ---I'm doing my best, Your Honour.
4No, you're not.
5MR DEVRIES: Getting back to the refinancing of Gibson Street,
6 just in case there is any misapprehension, you refinanced
7 that to the figure of $577,309 didn't you, which includes
8 the insurance?---As I've - I believe that's correct but I
9 don't have the exact figure in my head, Mr Devries.
10Thank you. It's certainly a lot more than the $540 you
11 mentioned a few moments ago?---Did I say 540?
12Yes?---If I said $540 forgive me, Mr Devries. I clearly meant
13 $540,000.
14You in fact had about 120,000 available after refinancing for
15 your own purposes, not 80,000?---No, I don't think it was
16 that high. It was either just above or just below the
17 (inaudible). There were bank charges. There were the
18 deposit bond charges.
19Are we having a Dutch auction, Mr Johnson?---I can - - -
20HIS HONOUR: That's not necessary. (To witness) Are you saying
21 you had about a hundred thousand dollars available?
22 ---Your Honour, I'm happy to tell - - -
23Mr Johnson, just answer one question directly. You've just
24 said you had about a hundred thousand dollars available.
25 Is that what you said?---That's my recollection. I - - -
26Thank you?---I can tender my bank statements in evidence, Your
27 Honour. No hesitation. Mr Devries has already had
28 access to them.
29MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, you are the owner of a Land Rover
30 which you purchased for $54,572?---I was the owner of a
31 Land Rover that I purchased for approximately that amount

2Cressy
1 in 1999, Mr Devries.
2You were the owner as of 30 June 2008?---(No audible response.)
3HIS HONOUR: Did you still own it then? Mr Johnson, answer the
4 question?---No, I – no, I did not. I did not own it at
5 that date.
6For the purposes of the transcript Mr Johnson is writing down
7 questions and is delaying answering them, despite my
8 request and even direction that he not do so that we can
9 continue with this evidence without these constant
10 delays?---Your Honour, in my defence I need to keep a
11 note for re-examination because I won't have the
12 transcript - - -
13You do not have to note that question down. That simply – it
14 seems commonsense to suggest that. Now, let's continue
15 on and see if we can finish this shortly.
16MR DEVRIES: When did you dispose of that motor vehicle,
17 Mr Johnson, if you didn't own it at 30 June 2008?
18 ---That vehicle was disposed of in September 2007.
19Why does your tax return make a claim for that vehicle for the
20 whole of the financial year?---I don't think it does,
21 Mr Devries.
22"Claim details. Period start date 1 July 2007. Period end
23 date 30 June 2008"?---Can you direct me to the page,
24 please?
25HIS HONOUR: Is this Exhibit 45 is it?
26MR DEVRIES: It is, Your Honour. (To witness) My document has
27 no page numbers?---I've found it. I've found it, Your
28 Honour.
29That's what your tax return says, Mr Johnson, and which you
30 said was true and correct in every particular?---Just
31 like Lisa Court obviously I need to do an adjustment for

2Cressy
1 the fact that the vehicle was disposed of. Oh dear, oh
2 dear, the odometer – the odometer reading would've showed
3 that part period from 1 July 07 up until the disposal in
4 September 08.
5Mr Johnson - - -?---The business use you'll see are zero in any
6 case.
7Mr Johnson - - -?---I'll take that up - - -
8You've given evidence that you have a number of motor vehicles
9 and that you don't do a lot of driving. Anyway the next
10 vehicle, the Mazda QUD720, you still own that motor
11 vehicle don't you?---Yes, I do.
12What did you purchase that one for?---$2200.
13When did you purchase that?---1998.
14You also are the owner of a Ford vehicle NDJ067?---Yes.
15Also the owner of a vehicle, a Camaro vehicle?---Yes.
16Also the owner of a Ford Capri?---That's a second Ford Capri.
17 I'm no longer the owner of that one, Mr Devries.
18Again your tax return is incorrect when it says that the claim
19 is in respect to the whole of the financial year?---No,
20 because I disposed of that Ford Capri after 30 June - - -
21How much did you dispose of it for?---I disposed of it for the
22 repair costs. I needed a thousand dollars work done on
23 the engine and I couldn't afford to pay it, so I signed
24 the disposal notice over to the mechanic for the
25 registration period. It was only about a month to go on
26 the registration period as well.
27How much did you dispose of the Land Rover for?---The Land
28 Rover – I think the Land Rover was disposed of for about
29 $10,000. May I just ask for a relevance check, please,
30 Your Honour?
31HIS HONOUR: No. It goes to your financial position.

2Cressy
1MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, returning to the questions I was
2 asking you just before we had the lunch break?---Yes,
3 Mr Devries.
4Thank you. I put to you that throughout the period that my
5 client says she had a relationship with you. She was
6 earning between $2,000 and $3,000 as a prostitute and
7 that's the figures that you agreed to yesterday; do you
8 still agree with that figure?---I put to you that - - -
9Is the answer yes or no?
10HIS HONOUR: You don't put anything to the counsel?---Sorry,
11 it's hard for me because we're talking a long period. I
12 would like to talk about separate periods.
13It's not what you wish to talk about. What date do you put
14 this at?
15MR DEVRIES: From November 1998 to May 2007, Your Honour.
16HIS HONOUR: It's a long period.
17MR DEVRIES: It's a period of the relationship as certified by
18 my client.
19HIS HONOUR: So you're asking the witness to agree that your
20 client was earning $2,000 or $3,000 per week throughout
21 that period.
22MR DEVRIES: I will break it up, Your Honour, I think that
23 might be - - -
24HIS HONOUR: If this is relevant you will need to do that?---It
25 contradicts his client's evidence too, Your Honour
26 substantially.
27It is not a matter of you commenting, it is a matter of you
28 answering the questions?---Forgive me, Your Honour.
29I won't forgive you because you know that?---Sorry, Your
30 Honour.
31This is again some more time wasting. Now, Mr Devries.

2Cressy
1MR DEVRIES: You conceded yesterday in your evidence that you
2 had asserted on a number of occasions or on occasions in
3 this court that my client was deriving two to three
4 thousand dollars per week from her activities as a
5 prostitute, didn't you?---At times up to and while living
6 in South Yarra - - -
7Did you or did you not give that evidence, Mr Johnson, that you
8 agreed with that?---I gave evidence that she was working
9 as a prostitute from the night or the morning that I met
10 her, on - - -
11Mr Johnson, would you please answer - - -
12HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries, you are asking very general questions
13 on this topic. If you wish the witness to agree with you
14 then you can put the part of the transcript to him.
15MR DEVRIES: It will take me a few moments Your Honour, if you
16 would bear with me. Did you, Mr Johnson, do you recall
17 whether or not you agreed that you had said to this court
18 on at least two occasions that my client was earning two
19 to three thousand dollars as a prostitute?---I have given
20 evidence in two respects, the first is that to the best
21 of my knowledge and belief until I found out otherwise
22 late in 2007, to the best of my knowledge and belief
23 Ms Cressy had ceased earning any money as a prostitute
24 prior to her - us - moving out of the house at South
25 Yarra which was in March 2003. My knowledge and belief
26 until I found out otherwise late last year that from a
27 date - I'm a bit hazy - before Christmas 2002, ever since
28 that day she had given up the game for good. I was
29 horrified when I found out in August last year that she
30 was in fact back on the game and probably had been for
31 much of that time.

2Cressy
1You asserted - - - ?---Including when she was living at the
2 house at Point Cook.
3You asserted, didn't you, that she was earning two to three
4 thousand dollars a week while she was working as a
5 prostitute.
6HIS HONOUR: When you say he asserted this, in his evidence-in-
7 chief or that he put it as a proposition in cross-
8 examination?
9MR DEVRIES: Cross-examination Your Honour.
10HIS HONOUR: All right?---I put this in cross-examination in
11 respect of the period from August 2007 onwards Your
12 Honour and probably backwards to the extent that I had
13 suspicions, as borne out by Ms Cressy's diaries,
14 photocopies of which are in evidence, that appear to who
15 that she was doing that stuff back in February as well,
16 February '07. I have maintained at all times what I know
17 to be true that for the whole of her living at Point Cook
18 and for the last perhaps six months or so of her living
19 at South Yarra, she had given up the game for good, they
20 were the representations that Mr Devries client has
21 given.
22MR DEVRIES: Page 714 Your Honour. "You have alleged in
23 various court documents, have you, that my client makes
24 as much as two to three thousand dollars as a prostitute,
25 haven't you?" And you replied: "I believe that, yes, I
26 have and I believe it's demonstrated in the diary entries
27 that I've tendered in evidence."?---Makes - that's as in
28 this - in this time frame now.
29Yes, and also you said in the time frames covered by the
30 diaries and what time frame do you say is covered by the
31 diary?---I think there's notations in there covering

2Cressy
1 February '07 to August '07.
2You have also gone into chapter and verse in at least one of
3 your documents in this matter about how many clients she
4 sees and how much she gets per client, haven't you?
5 ---Mr Devries, that's distasteful and indelicate and I
6 certainly haven’t done a kiss and tell all into the
7 detail of all of the story of Ms Cressy had given me
8 during especially those early years when I met her and
9 her brothel activities. I've mentioned one example I
10 think from her intonation or at the time of the Sydney
11 Olympics, I don't think I've mentioned many more than
12 that.
13You made mention of the number of clients that my client was
14 allegedly servicing prior to the birth of Illyana, didn't
15 you?---Which correct me if I'm wrong but that would have
16 been late '99, first half of 2000.
17You're saying 20 clients a day - a week at about $120 a client.
18 Is that what you have asserted?---It's basic arithmetic
19 Mr Devries.
20Sorry?---It's basic arithmetic Mr Devries, if she's working two
21 or three or four days a week. You can take the four or
22 five per day that she was seeing during the period in her
23 diary which was last year, I don't know that market
24 conditions have changed, I'm not an economist specialised
25 in that industry, but presumably they're comparable, '99
26 to 2007.
27You're a participant in that industry yourself, Mr Johnson,
28 weren't you?---More vile accusations Mr Devries. I never
29 participated in the prostitution industry as a worker.
30You registered, you printed business cards with your
31 registration number, you created advertising, you created

2Cressy
1 a business, didn't you?---I attempted, as you full well
2 know, I attempted to play to Ms Cressy's jealous streak,
3 having exhausted all the carrots, I'd attempted a bit of
4 reverse psychology on two occasions. I find this has no
5 relevance whatsoever to any of the issues aimed at
6 Ms Cressy's claim under 275. I have answered this
7 already before Mr Justice Cavanough it is vile and
8 unbecoming of an officer of the court to continue to
9 throw these vile accusations against another - - -
10HIS HONOUR: Well, your commentary on the cross-examination is
11 uncalled for, but what is the relevance of this? You're
12 seeking to establish your client earned certain moneys in
13 that capacity, she's given evidence to that effect?
14 ---Yes, Your Honour - - -
15- - - in 2002, I think she was earning?---Two thousand and
16 five, her evidence was, Your Honour.
17Well, I think it was 2002, she was working part time?---And
18 2006.
19And 2006, full time, she's given the amounts.
20MR DEVRIES: Yes, Your Honour.
21HIS HONOUR: I don't know that's the purpose of it is - it
22 sounds to me that Mr Johnson's doing nothing more than
23 making the allegations, he wasn't there when she was
24 earning the moneys. Is that the purpose of the cross-
25 examination, or was there any some other purpose?
26MR DEVRIES: The purpose was to show that she was
27 bringing - - -
28HIS HONOUR: Bringing an income - - -
29MR DEVRIES: Income as to - - -
30HIS HONOUR: She's given evidence to that - - -
31MR DEVRIES: Yes. Would Your Honour just bear with me for a

2Cressy
1 moment?
2HIS HONOUR: Well, you better ask it directly, Mr Johnson, were
3 you aware at the time how much money Ms Cressy was
4 earning in her capacity as a prostitute in the years 1999
5 to 2007? As distinct from making a guess or an
6 assumption, are you in a position to give evidence to
7 that effect?---Your Honour, I was never aware at any time
8 of exactly what she was earning.
9All right?---She would tell me how many clients she'd seen, and
10 I was aware of what the pricelist was, so I could, on
11 that basis, do some reversing, any calculations - - -
12No, we don't want you to give calculations, you're simply being
13 asked to give evidence?---Thank you, Your Honour.
14I think it was in cross-examination.
15MR DEVRIES: Thank you, Your Honour. I put to you, Mr Johnson,
16 that were it not - were it not for my client bringing her
17 income into the relationship, the whole financial
18 structure would have collapsed far earlier than it did
19 upon your separation? Do you agree with that proposition
20 or do you disagree with that?---I am trying very hard not
21 to laugh, because this is a very serious matter, but that
22 is absurd - - -
23HIS HONOUR: Do you disagree with it, do you? That's all you
24 have to do?---Thank you, Your Honour, I totally disagree.
25MR DEVRIES: I suggest to you that the reason, the main reason
26 it all fell apart in - sorry, just after Easter 2007 was
27 because your relationship ended and my client ceased
28 making her contributions to your relationship, both
29 financial and as homemaker?---I repeat my previous answer
30 to the previous answer, it's just vile and disgraceful
31 and I totally disagree.

2Cressy
1HIS HONOUR: You do not have to make commentary, you simply can
2 deny it.
3MR DEVRIES: I want to suggest to you - - -?---Your Honour, as
4 it's the defence counsel for interrupting, but, Your
5 Honour, I believe that the plaintiff's (indistinct)
6 running dangerously close to asserting the defendant has
7 to disprove the plaintiff's claim, rather - - -
8HIS HONOUR: You're out of order, you simply answer the
9 questions.
10MR DEVRIES: I put to you that my client's contributions to the
11 financial aspect of your relationship were so valuable
12 that without them, from April, you say, May, she says
13 2007, that that's what precipitated the collapse of what
14 I describe before lunch as the house of cards that you'd
15 erected with your property purchasers?---For the third
16 time to the same question you've put three ways, I
17 totally disagree, and it's vile and absurd, it's contrary
18 to the flow of all the evidence, including the piles of
19 exhibits.
20MR DEVRIES: Now - - -
21HIS HONOUR: - - - Mr Devries, the evidence given by your
22 client as to the income in that capacity is at p.120 of
23 the transcript, 2002, part time, $40,000 per annum.
24MR DEVRIES: Yes.
25HIS HONOUR: The 2006 (indistinct) said she completed studies
26 full time, 70 to 100,000.
27MR DEVRIES: Yes?---Thank you, Your Honour. What was that page
28 reference?
29HIS HONOUR: One hundred and 20?---I'm indebted to Your Honour.
30MR DEVRIES: I'm indebted to Your Honour. I was just going to
31 move on to one other very small point, Your Honour. In

2Cressy
1 your counterclaim, Mr Johnson, you assert that my client
2 - so you base your claim on the fact that my client had
3 no right to have lodged on the title of any of your
4 properties a caveat, is that correct?---Absolutely.
5And you would agree with me that - sorry, I'll withdraw that,
6 Your Honour, and it's your case that that - because,
7 according to you, she made no contributions whatsoever in
8 any capacity whatsoever to the relationship that you may
9 or may not have had with her?---Your Honour, I'm almost
10 (indistinct) I don't understand that question.
11I'll rephrase the question. You say that you never had a
12 domestic relationship, that's correct, isn't it?---Yes,
13 subject to what I said yesterday about the period we were
14 living under the same roof at South Yarra, in particular,
15 and I am open to - I expect that reasonable people might,
16 with different sets of information, draw different
17 conclusions.
18And even in that period of time you'd have to concede that she
19 made some contributions to the household during that
20 time?---That's drawing a long bow, Mr Devries. No, Your
21 Honour.
22And you dispute that she hasn't even got an arguable case for
23 the proposition that you had a domestic relationship from
24 1998 to 2007?---I've said what I've said about the period
25 at South Yarra, and I've said what I said about the first
26 few months at Point Cook. And, subject to that, and
27 notwithstanding that, yes, I dispute that she has an
28 arguable case. I think it's contrary to all of her
29 evidence, it's contrary to the provable truth and it's
30 contrary to the truth as well that (indistinct).
31And you're aware she's also arguing a constructive trust?

2Cressy
1 ---Yes, I'm aware that she's arguing a constructive
2 trust.
3Now, you gave a lot of evidence – or made a lot of references
4 to the Donald Trump Apprentice program, didn't you?---And
5 Poppy King, too, yes, Mr Devries.
6And Poppy King. You were trying to involve and develop my
7 client, according to you, in your property ventures,
8 weren't you?---I was trying to help Miss Cressy
9 (indistinct) develop over the - - -
10An you were trying to do this from time to time as a joint
11 venture between you and her, weren't you?---Mr Devries,
12 that's drawing a long bow, that's my area of law, I
13 submit, not yours.
14I'm talking about a joint venture in the property development
15 arm of your enterprises, Mr Johnson?---I repeat my
16 previous answer, that's almost funny, Mr Devries.
17Almost? Sorry, I didn't hear the word?---I repeat my previous
18 answer, that's almost funny, Mr Devries. That's almost
19 funny in these serious circumstances.
20Thankfully, Your Honour, my cross-examination has finished.
21HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Now, has your solicitor, or you,
22 returned that part of the exhibit?
23MR DEVRIES: Sorry, I was going to ask - - -
24HIS HONOUR: Yes, you may.
25MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour. No, I think I might leave
26 it, Your Honour. Discretion being the better part of
27 valour at this stage.
28HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, Ms Sofroniou, do you wish to cross-
29 examine?
30MS SOFRONIOU: Your Honour, may I answer that with one
31 reservation; I don't wish to cross-examine, I want to

2Cressy
1 foreshadow that at the close of the plaintiff's case I
2 will wish to make an application in – in the defendant's
3 case – I will wish to make an application instead. My
4 apprehension is that of course should that application
5 fail my options to put Browne v. Dunn questions to him
6 now may have been lost. What I propose to do though is
7 to nonetheless not cross-examine at this time and it may
8 be that I will not have to make any application before
9 Your Honour to, as it were, reopen the defendant's case
10 to cross-examine. I understand that I may be having to
11 do that at my risk in any event.
12HIS HONOUR: I think you may be having to do that at your own
13 risk.
14MS SOFRONIOU: Certainly. My reasoning being that were I to
15 put documents of course, as I understand s.36 of the
16 Evidence Act here, I may in fact be required to go into
17 evidence, which is something that I'd rather not do.
18HIS HONOUR: I don't know that it's right, is it?
19MS SOFRONIOU: If I put evidence of a prior inconsistent
20 statement the court has the discretion to require tender,
21 and even to require tender at my initiation, and I don't
22 wish to take that risk.
23HIS HONOUR: I take it you're foreshadowing a no case
24 submission?
25MS SOFRONIOU: Indeed, Your Honour.
26HIS HONOUR: And I've never understood the case to be that a
27 party is shut out from making a no case submission
28 because documents have been tendered during cross-
29 examination on behalf of that client. But is that - - -
30MS SOFRONIOU: Where I was coming from was from a sort of a
31 strict common law position, in Queen's case one of the

2Cressy
1 risks that was always involved in that procedure was
2 described as the defendant being put into – the cross-
3 examiner having to go into evidence by virtue of that,
4 and that's the apprehension that I have raised. Having
5 said that, the - - -
6HIS HONOUR: I must say, my experience of the practice here is
7 that a party is not shut out from making a no case
8 submission because that party has cross-examined and in
9 doing so has tendered through a witness on behalf of the
10 plaintiff, but similarly a defendant making these
11 submissions - - -
12MS SOFRONIOU: Yes.
13HIS HONOUR: - - - tendered documents. The usual practice in
14 Victoria is to put the party making their submission to
15 their election, but that election really is only in
16 futuro.
17MS SOFRONIOU: Indeed. And in due course I, of course, would
18 be arguing that this case might fall within the
19 discretion not to elect, but - - -
20HIS HONOUR: Because of the nature of the allegations made?
21MS SOFRONIOU: The nature of the allegations and the nature of
22 my argument, which is not going to involve detailed, as
23 it were, trial within a trial submissions. I'm comforted
24 by that, Your Honour, and I'm happy to proceed on that
25 basis.
26HIS HONOUR: Yes. I haven't heard any submission to the
27 contrary.
28MS SOFRONIOU: Thank you, Your Honour.
29HIS HONOUR: I'm just speaking from my practice both at the Bar
30 and having heard this year a no case submission.
31MS SOFRONIOU: I'm aware of it, Your Honour has very usefully,

2Cressy
1 if I may say so, gathered the authorities to use as a
2 starting point. As it happens one comfort that I can
3 take, which I make by way of submission, is that even if
4 the documents were tendered then the court can require
5 it, it doesn't have to be at my instigation, so that
6 would be another way of getting it in.
7HIS HONOUR: I can require what, the tender?
8MS SOFRONIOU: The tender, but that doesn't have to be my
9 tender as it were.
10HIS HONOUR: I'm not sure that's right, but as I say my
11 experience of the practice is that parties are not shut
12 out from making the no case on the basis that they have
13 already tendered documents.
14MS SOFRONIOU: I am comforted by that, Your Honour, because I
15 have short questions to put to the witness.
16HIS HONOUR: Yes.
17<CROSS-EXAMINED BY MS SOFRONIOU:
18Mr Johnson, you wrote a letter to Mr Richard Anderson at
19 Harwood Andrews around 17 March 2008, would you have any
20 reason to recall that letter?---I wrote a few letters to
21 Richard around about that date. Could I have a look at
22 that one?
23My one is marked. I wonder whether you a have a copy of a
24 17 March 2008?---Was it attached to an exhibit prepared
25 by Mr (Indistinct)?
26No, as I understand it and if you can't put your finger on it
27 very easily then I will seek leave to approach, Your
28 Honour, if I may, for the purpose of showing the letter
29 and asking questions.
30HIS HONOUR: My Tipstaff can hand the letter to him.
31MS SOFRONIOU: I am just going to be reading from it while I

2Cressy
1 ask the questions, it's my one copy, Your Honour, that’s
2 my difficulty?---That works for me Your Honour.
3HIS HONOUR: Would you like Mr Richards to run a copy off for
4 you?
5MS SOFRONIOU: Yes, Your Honour, that's certainly - I'd be very
6 grateful if he does.
7HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Richards.
8MS SOFRONIOU: While he is doing that I will ask you to look at
9 this letter please, Mr Johnson, which is one of
10 15 January 2008. Could you look at that please and read
11 it?---Thank you.
12Let me know when you've read it?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou. May
13 I have a copy?
14Yes, we will make sure that you can have a copy.
15HIS HONOUR: That's a letter from whom to whom?
16MS SOFRONIOU: That is a letter from Harwood Andrews to
17 Mr Johnson dated 15 January 2008. Do you agree with me
18 that you were being informed by Harwood Andrews by that
19 letter that before they would provide you with
20 withdrawals of any caveats on properties at that time
21 they required you to agree that net proceeds of sale of
22 the properties were to be held in trust?---They informed
23 me that that was one of their conditions, a negotiating
24 point, yes, it's in the second paragraph.
25You agree also that any notion of meeting with you, as you had
26 requested, to negotiate required your provision of all
27 extant contracts of sale and information concerning
28 outstanding arrears and mortgage commitment?---I'm aware
29 that that is a condition that is expressed in that
30 letter, yes.
31My suggestion to you is that you didn't provide any such

2Cressy
1 information of mortgage statements detailing outstanding
2 arrears and mortgage commitment at around that time,
3 would you agree?---I would say that I had been trying to
4 organize a meeting with Mr Hanlon since July 2007.
5 Things got waylaid, attention was directed to the
6 children rather than the property situation.
7For any reason that there might be - I haven't asked you why, I
8 am asking you to agree - - -
9HIS HONOUR: Ms Sofroniou is not asking you the reason, do you
10 agree that you did not provide the information referred
11 to in that letter to Harwood Andrews?---My recollection
12 is that apart from the specific information for Gibson
13 Street which I had given in November - I hadn't provided
14 that level of information to Harwood Andrews.
15MS SOFRONIOU: Thank you, I tender the letter.
16HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Sofroniou, is there any need for me to
17 distinguish between which hat you're wearing - which
18 client on whose behalf this letter is tendered?
19MS SOFRONIOU: For both, Your Honour.
20HIS HONOUR: Right.

21
22#EXHIBIT 1 - Copy letter Harwood Andrews Lawyers to
23 the defendant, dated 15/01/08.
24MS SOFRONIOU: Can I please show you this letter, Mr Johnson.
25 Could you have a peruse of that, you can disregard the
26 grey shading which was my marking and which in fact isn't
27 relevant to the questions I am asking you. So I don't
28 mean to throw you, so have a look through that and let me
29 know?---Thank you, Ms Sofroniou.
30You have had the chance to have a look at that?---No, I'm still
31 halfway through the first page.
32Right?---17 March 2008, It is a good letter, Ms Sofroniou.

2Cressy
1Could you just have regard, please, to the numbered paragraphs
2 that you see and in particular do you see at numbered
3 Paragraph 2B words to the effect, "I must say that I was
4 shocked to see that Hanlon was present at court on
5 12 March 2008, and purporting to be instructing solicitor
6 for Ms Cressy's counsel". Do you see those words?---I
7 see a lot of words including those ones, Ms Sofroniou.
8 Yes, I do.
9Thank you?---Sorry, may I take you back? There were some
10 attachments to this letter - - -
11I don't require you to look at those. I'm interested in the
12 wording that I'm drawing to your attention. I've drawn
13 your attention to the first sentence in 2B. Do you
14 understand?---I do. I'm just concerned. This was a 26
15 page communication and it's only the - - -
16I acknowledge that, Mr Johnson. Could you now have a look at
17 Paragraph Numbered 7, which is on the third page of the
18 letter? And I want to draw your attention to these
19 words. "I note that Harwood Andrews are it seems
20 pigheadedly continuing to purport to represent Ms Cressy,
21 notwithstanding the mounting illegalities of this. (A)
22 For the record I inform you again that I do not approve
23 of this". You see those words?---Yes, clearly,
24 Ms Sofroniou.
25You see further down in that same numbered paragraph,
26 Subparagraph (d) the words, "You cannot seriously lead
27 Hanlon as purporting to be Ms Cressy's instructing
28 solicitor. (i) Should you continue to do so I shall
29 have no choice but to make a complaint". Interpolating
30 there I'm presuming you mean a legal complaint. "About
31 you, Richard Peter Anderson, which even at this stage in

2Cressy
1 these pitiful proceedings is something that I do not wish
2 to do". Do you see those words, Mr Johnson?---I do and I
3 also see the words in Paragraphs B and C which - - -
4You can come back to those in re-examination?---There's no need
5 to interpolate, Ms Sofroniou. It's clear.
6Could you please have regard to Paragraph 10 which is on the
7 final page of the letter, and could I draw your attention
8 to the words, "I am not alone in my condemnation of
9 Harwood Andrews for acting and acting so unethically and
10 incompetently. Do not be surprised by the consequences
11 of this, which is likely to be a substantial hit to your
12 firm's bottom line". Do you see those words, Mr Johnson?
13 ---I'm indebted to you for pointing them out,
14 Ms Sofroniou. Thank you.
15You signed the letter, "Best wishes, James"?---That is simply
16 my signature, Ms Sofroniou.
17I think you had invoked in the penultimate sentence which
18 appears in Paragraph 12, "Basic etiquette between legal
19 practitioners". Do you see those words?---Yes. We've
20 had those discussions a number of times in the
21 proceedings. Do you – I'm not sure if you were present
22 at those times.
23My suggestion to you having drawn those extracts from the
24 letter to your notice, is to suggest to you that the
25 purpose of this letter was an attempt to intimidate
26 Ms Cressy's lawyers into ceasing to act for her. What do
27 you say about that?---Not at all. That's not correct.
28You had certainly indicated that you did not approve of their
29 continuing representation of her. Do you agree with
30 that?---I was shocked that my external legal counsel in
31 Geelong were taking up her claims and that they seemed to

2Cressy
1 not only have the telescope - - -
2Sorry, you might be confusing - - -
3HIS HONOUR: Just answer the question. Do you agree with
4 Ms Sofroniou's proposition that you did not agree with
5 the fact that they were continuing to act for her? It's
6 a simple yes or no?---Yes, yes, Your Honour. I'm
7 indebted, Your Honour. Thank you.
8MS SOFRONIOU: Given that disapproval I suggest to you that
9 your meaning by the words in Paragraph 10 that I read to
10 you earlier, "Don't be surprised by the consequences of
11 this". Your use of the word, "Consequences", amounted to
12 a threat. Do you agree with that?---Ah threat is a very
13 strong word, Ms Sofroniou. I was attempting to achieve
14 what one of my mentors, a partner in Johnson & ,
15 (inaudible). I was hoping to open their eyes to the
16 stupidity of the situation that they were in. They were
17 being conned by a pro just as I had been.
18The subject of the threat or the gist of the threat was that
19 you were saying that you would take action that would
20 affect the firm's bottom line, which has resulted in your
21 joinder of them as parties to these proceedings. Do you
22 agree with that?---No, I don't. No, that's – that's –
23 that's a totally incorrect linkage, Ms Sofroniou.
24Could I draw your attention, please, to Paragraph 5 of the
25 letter where – that's on p.2. Where you extract under
26 Subparagraph (a), "Please advise whether Harwood Andrews
27 now or at any time claims any interest as mortgage or
28 otherwise in any of my properties"? Do you see that?
29 ---Yes, Ms Sofroniou.
30That was a request that you were making for Harwood Andrews to
31 explain the basis of the caveat that they had lodged,

2Cressy
1 wasn't it?---Not – not just the caveat over the Altona
2 property but its removal as well. I couldn't
3 understand - - -
4Thank you. I tender the letter, Your Honour, which is from
5 Mr Johnson to Richard Anderson at Harwood Andrews dated
6 17 March 2008 and dated if it please the court.

7
8#EXHIBIT H2 - Copy letter from the defendant to Mr
9 Richard Anderson at Harwood Andrews dated
10 17/03/08.
11WITNESS: Your Honour, it's just my usual request that that's
12 four pages out of I think a 26 page - - -
13HIS HONOUR: If you say there's something that gives those
14 comments context, you're entitled to tender the balance
15 of it in your own re-examination?---Thank you Your
16 Honour.
17MS SOFRONIOU: Mr Johnson, in relation to that last request I
18 drew to your attention, I want to suggest that Harwood
19 Andrews by their then lawyers by this time, Lander &
20 Rogers, wrote to you explaining that Harwood Andrews
21 claimed no interest as mortgagee in any of your
22 properties. Do you recall that?---I don't specifically
23 Ms Sofroniou.
24To see if it jogs your memory, my suggestion to you is that at
25 that time, I'm talking about 20 March of this year,
26 Harwood Andrews told you that any interest they claimed,
27 was as chargee pursuant to a non-registered instrument of
28 charge that Ms Cressy had given to Harwood Andrews. Do
29 you recall being informed of that?---I don't specifically
30 recall being informed. If you have a letter there, I'd
31 be happy to - - -
32I'm happy to show it to you?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou.
33To see if - - -?---I've not looked at this part of the case for
2Cressy
1 such a long time.
2Please read it and then let me know if you agree with the
3 proposition I've just put to you that you were so
4 informed?---I recognise the letter and the gist of the
5 contents.
6No reason to suggest to the court that you wouldn't have
7 received it around the time it was sent?---There may have
8 been a hiatus of a week or two or more before I actually
9 received it so it may have sat unopened for a long time
10 or sat in a mail box but I did receive it by the second
11 week of April. I was probably aware of the contents.
12Thank you.
13I tender the letter

14
15#EXHIBIT H3 - Letter from Lander & Rogers to the
16 defendant dated 20/03/08.
17Your Honour, may I please have access to Exhibit 38 I believe
18 it is. It should be the letter that Mr Johnson wrote to
19 Gadens Lawyers. Mr Johnson, I have in my hand Exhibit 38
20 which is a document that I understand you tendered, a
21 letter of 11 August 2008 to Ms Sharon Saife at Gadens
22 Lawyers?---I'm just looking for that attachment now.
23If you have a copy of it - - -?---11 August 2008.
24That's correct?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou.
25In it you make and I'm reading from the caption "Urgent demand
26 for settlement calculations", there's various requests
27 that you make of Ms Saife in that letter?---Yes, thank
28 you.
29And I want to draw your attention to p.3 which should begin
30 with a paragraph numbered six, do we have the same page?
31 ---Yes, Ms Sofroniou.
32Now in it as I read it, you have said to the recipient of the

2Cressy
1 letter, "I'm sorry but if your clients dare to enter into
2 any arrangements with Ms Cressy with respect to either of
3 my properties, notably 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook as
4 this is the one she is next moving against, I am sorry
5 but if your clients are foolish enough to agree to any
6 proposal put forward by this woman, I will not hesitate
7 to join your clients as additional defendants in these
8 proceedings (breach of mortgagee's duties and as
9 participants in outright fraud).) Do you see those
10 words?---I do Ms Sofroniou, yes.
11In Paragraph 7, could I draw your attention to the words,
12 "Again I am sorry but if your clients do not provide me
13 with 100 per cent cooperation in getting my sale of these
14 two properties to settlement e.g. by providing me with
15 the financial information I have requested by close of
16 business today, I reserve all of my rights as regards
17 your clients including - possibly including your clients
18 as additional defendants in these proceedings." Do you
19 see those words Mr Johnson?---I do indeed Ms Sofroniou,
20 thank you.
21They were part of the letter which you caused to be sent to
22 Ms Saife? I ask because I don't have a signed copy?
23 ---Nor do I. This was sent by my South Yarra office
24 people on my instructions. I don't think I've ever
25 signed a copy that's here.
26On the assumption that it was sent on your instructions, my
27 suggestion to you is that here is another instance
28 whereby in order to achieve a result for which you were
29 contending, you were threatening the joinder of the
30 recipient of the letter as a party to these proceedings.
31 Do you agree with that?---No, I don't.

2Cressy
1I suggest to you that in fact your words "I will not hesitate
2 to join your clients including as participants in
3 outright fraud" is an instance whereby you are
4 threatening the recipient of the letter with an action in
5 fraud in these proceedings. Do you agree with that?---I
6 think I'd have to say yes to that question in that way
7 Ms Sofroniou and I'll explain in re-examination.
8Your prerogative Mr Johnson. And what I further suggest to you
9 is that you have made both Harwood Andrews and Mr Hanlon
10 parties to these proceedings not because you believe
11 yourself to have a real claim against them, but in an
12 attempt to get them to negotiate with you or do your will
13 with regards to Ms Cressy in these proceedings. Do you
14 agree with that?---I disagree strongly with every prong
15 of that question Ms Sofroniou.
16All right, I suggest to you further that the reason that you
17 had even issued the cross claim against Harwood Andrews
18 and Mr Hanlon in these proceedings was because Harwood
19 Andrews and Mr Hanlon's refusal to negotiate or to
20 discuss this matter with you had prompted you to join
21 them in these proceedings. Do you agree with that?---I
22 joined the 2nd and 3rd defendant by counterclaim for many
23 reasons, clearly the need to join them for any
24 proceedings would have been obviated if we could have had
25 some gentlemanly discussions.
26Well, pausing there, that's because you wanted to have those
27 discussions gentlemanly or otherwise, not because you
28 felt that you had a real claim of fraud against them, do
29 you agree with that?---I'm indebted for the question, I
30 totally disagree with that.
31All right. Could the witness please be shown - it's the

2Cressy
1 exhibit of six - the letter of 6 March 2008. I'm sorry,
2 Your Honour, I'll just look for a number - - -
3HIS HONOUR: Yes, whose letter is it?
4MS SOFRONIOU: It should be, I think - - -
5HIS HONOUR: Sorry?
6MS SOFRONIOU: - - - of Mr Johnson - - -
7HIS HONOUR: Mr Richards says it's Exhibit 36, is that the one?
8MS SOFRONIOU: I thank Mr - - -
9HIS HONOUR: That's the letter of the defendants and
10 Mr Anderson, 6 March, with the attached facsimile of
11 the - - -
12MS SOFRONIOU: Thank you, Your Honour, that's - it is
13 Exhibit 36. Could that please be shown to the witness?
14 Mr Johnson, could you please look at Paragraph 2 of that
15 letter, it's the letter that should begin, "You use the
16 word 'choice' a lot in your facsimile", do you see that?
17 ---Yes, I do.
18Well, you said in that paragraph, "I issued proceedings against
19 Hanlon and Harwood Andrews on 18 February 2008 by way of
20 cross claims in Supreme Court proceedings no. 9665 at
21 2007, in which I am defendant by original proceedings. I
22 did so in desperation due to Ms Cressy's, Hanlon's, and
23 Harwood Andrew's refusal to negotiate, discuss the
24 situations as sensible adults, and to clarify your claim
25 against one or two of my properties, do you see those
26 words?---Yes, I do.
27I suggest that they convey the truth of the matter, which is
28 that you're - joining them to these proceedings has just
29 been the result of your frustration in their continuing
30 to represent Ms Cressy, do you agree with that?---Partly,
31 partly. I say that the words expressed the truth of the

2Cressy
1 matter, which is consistent to my answers to your
2 previous three or four questions.
3Well, I will make it then explicit and say that those words
4 negative any intention of your part to bring an action
5 for fraud in any good faith, and that entirely the
6 pursuit of your attempts to intimidate Harwood Andrews
7 and Mr Hanlon from continuing to represent Ms Cressy, do
8 you agree with that?---That's the part that I totally
9 disagree with, Ms Sofroniou.
10Thank you, may it please the court.
11HIS HONOUR: Ms Sofroniou. That completes cross-examination,
12 you can now give evidence by re-examination, bearing in
13 mind that it's not a repeat of your evidence-in-chief,
14 it's just to clarify the answers that you gave in cross-
15 examination, do you follow, and it's to be given by way
16 of admissible evidence, not commentary.
17<RE-EXAMINED BY MR JOHNSON:
18I'll attempt to do so by reference to pages in the transcript,
19 if that would assist the court, Your Honour.
20HIS HONOUR: Yes.
21MR JOHNSON: Thank you. Beginning at p.675 of the transcript.
22 Sorry - yes, this starts at page 675 of the transcript,
23 Mr Devries was asking me questions about the contracts of
24 sale of the off the plan apartment at Breese Street. I
25 believe I clarified those contracts which proceeded
26 nowhere except in carrying a little bit of expense in
27 cross-examination.
28HIS HONOUR: You've already said that?---Thank you, Your
29 Honour. The reference to Caldor v. Meade, with apologies
30 to those gentlemen economists, Messrs Lysaght and Edwards
31 1876 Chancellery case (indistinct).

2Cressy
1Mr Johnson, if you misbehave I will simply terminate your re-
2 examination on the basis that you are abusing your right.
3 Now, make sure that you simply give evidence to explain
4 your answers, not to waste deliberately this court's
5 time?---A lot of these are issues I will come back to in
6 submissions because they're a bit speechified, so I will
7 move on and page 678. I do wish to speak a little bit
8 about my comments there that I hold Magistrate O'Dwyer in
9 high regard, this harks back to my comments about we all
10 do the best we can within our abilities given the
11 materials available and the constraints that we are
12 operating under.
13It has simply been put to you that that is contrary to other
14 times when you have used adjectives that are quite
15 derogatory of him to describe him. This is a matter put
16 going to your credit, how do you reconcile the two
17 answers?---That's how I want to address it. Now, I could
18 talk for half an hour - - -
19No, I would have thought - - - ?---I don't want to Your Honour.
20- - - any re-examination on that issue should take two
21 minutes?---OK.
22How do you reconcile the two positions?---I was horrified with
23 the outcome of a hearing before Federal Magistrate
24 O'Dwyer in the last couple of days of May 2005 when he
25 refused to hold a hearing on a controversial application
26 I brought that the plaintiff was not complying with the
27 orders of that court with respect to time with and live
28 with orders that that court had made in those
29 proceedings. I was most uncomfortable with the fact that
30 he simply wouldn't hear it and dismissed witnesses, it
31 caused me trouble. The first practical opportunity I got

2Cressy
1 to raise those concerns with him was in mid-August I
2 think 2008, this year. I raised with Federal Magistrate
3 O'Dwyer the possibility of having the matter referred
4 either to another magistrate or to the Family Court
5 proper where it should have been because it was not a
6 matter that could be expected to be trialled within two
7 days, we have demonstrated the truth of that. The
8 independent children's lawyer had put that submission to
9 him on 1 May.
10This does not seem to me to be addressing the issue?---I am
11 coming to the point, Your Honour.
12Yes, well come directly to it?---Thank you. I said to Federal
13 Magistrate O'Dwyer at that hearing in mid-August:
14 "Mr O'Dwyer I do not know how to take you, I appreciate
15 the constraints you are working on but I have concerns
16 about perceived if not actual bias as do Your Honour the
17 two witnesses you dismissed without hearing," at that
18 late May hearing. On that occasion Mr Devries raised, I
19 believe for the first time, the question of whether I
20 required a litigation guardian in those proceedings.
21This is becoming irrelevant. The only issue raised, and it
22 seems to me to be a peripheral issue at best, is that it
23 has been put that you have been inconsistent in
24 maintaining to me that you hold Magistrate O'Dwyer in
25 high regard when in other circumstances you have
26 described him as corrupt and incompetent. I would have
27 thought that if there is an explanation what seems to be
28 an inconsistency you could give it in about one sentence?
29 ---I can bring this around I think in two sentences. On
30 that suggestion by Mr Devries Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer
31 said: "Mr Devries, it could be said, and no doubt

2Cressy
1
2 Mr Johnson would say this, that you are asking me to
3 participate in a process already underway to undermine
4 Mr Johnson's position." And Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer
5 point blank refused to hear any further submission as to
6 whether I needed the litigation guardian. He dealt with
7 it in a couple of minutes. That was the first point. I
8 appreciated his regard there. His refusal to transfer
9 the matter, he made clear on that occasion and again when
10 I put the application fully on 8 September this year, was
11 because of his case load, the case load for - - -
12You are not addressing the point raised in cross-examination?
13 ---I will move on Your Honour.
14You will move on?---At page 686 of the transcript, it was about
15 this time an old driver's licence of mine was produced.
16 I understand it was produced as regards a question of
17 credit of me as a witness.
18I think it was produced because of the address it has on the
19 back of it, Illouera Avenue, Grovedale?---Yes, which
20 caught me totally by surprise, it was not within my
21 recollection. Firstly I submit that that piece of
22 plastic could have no relevance to my credit, separate
23 from information - - -
24It's not a matter of credit, it's a question as to - it has
25 been put that that is inconsistent with your claim that
26 you have never resided at Illouera Avenue, Grovedale?---
27MR JOHNSON: I say it – it - it may raise questions in Your
28 Honour's mind as to my credit. It also may raise
29 questions in Your Honour's mind - - -
30MR DEVRIES: This is a submission, Your Honour. Not a - - -
31MR JOHNSON: I realise it. I can't – at my level of experience

2Cressy
1 in a litigation process which is nil before – virtually
2 before this - - -
3HIS HONOUR: You keep saying that but it seems to me that
4 really when it suits you you show surprising familiarity
5 with a number of rules, and with particulars skills as an
6 advocate but when it suits you you deliberately profess
7 ignorance and try to take a liberty with this court. My
8 view of your conduct is it is you who has constantly
9 sought to wrest control of this court from me, and I
10 warned you that others who are far better than you have
11 tried and failed both when I was an advocate and now.
12 All is that is occurring is your credit is coming off
13 second best as a result of that dismal attempt. If you
14 wish to assist yourself on this topic you can explain to
15 me why it is, or how it is, that a driver's licence in
16 your name appears to have an endorsement on it of an
17 address of 5 Illouera Avenue, Grovedale?
18MR JOHNSON: Your Honour, I think my memory is playing tricks
19 on me. My memory is that I did not live at any time at
20 lllouera Avenue, Grovedale. My memory is that over the
21 Christmas, New Year 1998/99 I split my time kind of
22 between – still sleeping occasionally up at Belgrave.
23 Sleeping occasionally on the floor of my office in the
24 Rialto, and sleeping occasionally at Ms Cressy's rented
25 property at (inaudible) near Grovedale. I thought that I
26 very quickly – either the second or third week of January
27 signed that lease for Gheringhap Street and moved in
28 there. But it may be that that was a longer period. I
29 can't – I just can't remember. I may have been – it's
30 suggested to me that there was a reason that I needed to
31 change my licensed address from Belgrave to somewhere

2Cressy
1 else, and I had no other address to use. That's what it
2 suggests, Your Honour.
3HIS HONOUR: That's your explanation anyway is it?
4MR JOHNSON: It's a – it's a memory – it's a memory thing. If
5 that licence had been disclosed to me as I – it's a
6 submission point. I would've - - -
7HIS HONOUR: It's a submission. Move on.
8MR JOHNSON: I would've gone to the trouble of locating a copy
9 of that lease for that premises, even though it's a long
10 time ago, and that might've shed some light on this.
11 Thank you. I'll move on, Your Honour. I think that's a
12 submission. The AMP loan application – and I'm looking
13 at p.688 of the transcript at about p.27 – now one of
14 those documents had as my previous address that lllouera
15 Avenue address. Now, that would've been done because of
16 the need for consistency because the bank would ask for
17 the licence for ID purposes, so that's another additional
18 information. The loan applications follow - - -
19HIS HONOUR: The licence - - -
20MR JOHNSON: - - -Endeavour Drive documents. Now, my
21 motorcycle learner's permit, I would like to tender that
22 as an exhibit?
23HIS HONOUR: Yes.
24MR JOHNSON: That was one of the documents. I don't think that
25 went in to the – did they? My recollection is Mr Devries
26 withdrew that suggestion.
27HIS HONOUR: Exhibit K.
28MR JOHNSON: That is Exhibit K - - -
29HIS HONOUR: Just a moment. Yes, your learner's permit went in
30 as Exhibit K.
31MR JOHNSON: Yes. I will be looking tonight for my current

2Cressy
1 driver's licence. I'll be checking several addresses in
2 the Geelong region.
3HIS HONOUR: Now, let's move on with the - - -
4MR JOHNSON: Thank you, and I have to bring that in tomorrow
5 morning. Thank you, Your Honour. I do have some other
6 documents of that ilk that I would like to tender as
7 exhibits.
8HIS HONOUR: Provided it's legitimate re-examination you can at
9 least seek to do that. We'll see where it goes. Move on
10 with your re-examination now.
11MR JOHNSON: May I - - -
12HIS HONOUR: You wish to tender them now?
13MR JOHNSON: Yes, yes, Your Honour. I'll just do these two.
14HIS HONOUR: What do you produce there? Show them.
15MR JOHNSON: The first is a Medicare card which is obviously
16 worn and it's not dated. It's valid to January 2012. I
17 can make enquires whether that gives us an issue date,
18 that - - -
19HIS HONOUR: You wish to tender that as an exhibit do you?
20MR JOHNSON: Yes, I do. It lists all of the - - -
21HIS HONOUR: Is that your current Medicare card?
22MR JOHNSON: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
23HIS HONOUR: I'll have a look at it but might I suggest that
24 you have copies made of it. You might need this. If
25 this becomes tendered in the court?
26MR JOHNSON: I thought it's old and worn. I might get another
27 issued in any case. I realise what will happen to the
28 card if it's tendered, Your Honour.
29MR DEVRIES: The same should happen with his motorcycle
30 licence. I was going to raise that.
31HIS HONOUR: Would you - - -

2Cressy
1MR JOHNSON: That was – yes, yes.
2HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Devries. We'll have a copy of your
3 motorcycle licence made overnight, return to you the
4 licence and I'll substitute the photocopy of it for it.
5MR JOHNSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
6HIS HONOUR: You're content for this - - -
7MR JOHNSON: Yes, and you can see that it's an old, old card.
8 It lists all the members of my household for quite a
9 number of years.
10HIS HONOUR: It lists one - - -
11MR JOHNSON: Yes, a household of one, Your Honour. That's
12 exactly the point.
13HIS HONOUR: Exhibit 46 I think it is, will be the defendant's
14 Medicare - - -
15MR DEVRIES: Forty eight I think, Your Honour.
16HIS HONOUR: Forty six.
17MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

18
19#EXHIBIT 46 - Defendant, Harold James Johnson's,
20 Medicare card No.3402234931 valid to
21 January 2012.
22HIS HONOUR: Do you want to tender something else too?
23MR JOHNSON: Yes, I did. This is my business card for my legal
24 practice. Not the incorporated legal practice that
25 (inaudible) my own operating up to when I closed the
26 doors in June this year, which is Johnson Legal.
27HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

28
29#EXHIBIT 47 - Defendant's business card for Johnson
30 Legal Australian Corporate Lawyers.
31MR JOHNSON: By way of explanation that card would have been
32 printed June'ish 2006. Probably a little bit later as
33 (indistinct) do these things recording a change of -
34 during 2006 when my legal practice which titled Sutton

2Cressy
1 Johnson - titled James Johnson, I just spoke as Johnsons
2 and rebranded as Johnson.
3HIS HONOUR: All right.
4MR JOHNSON: Thank you Your Honour. And it has two work
5 addresses on the date. They're both serviced offices,
6 140 William Street and the other one is Chifley Tower in
7 Sydney. The next document that was tendered, again I
8 wish I'd had the opportunity to ask Ms Cressy questions
9 about it as indeed with my old expired drivers licence,
10 was a valentine's card of February 2000. It was quite a
11 lengthy letter I wrote around that card. And I did say
12 to Your Honour I was happy for the contents to be taken
13 as evidence of proof - of credit. There's a funny little
14 amendment in there where I said to her words to the
15 effect that I wish she would come back to Gheringhap
16 Street.
17HIS HONOUR: Yes.
18MR JOHNSON: There's also comments in there that I'm working I
19 think 20 hours a day (indistinct) and water. Something
20 like that. And I'm not using the house anyway. What I
21 say that - having looked at that card and thought about
22 it overnight, what I was really doing there was offering
23 my generosity to house Ms Cressy and her two boys and her
24 unborn child. This was in the period in which I had no
25 contact with her so I must have sent those roses - I'm
26 assuming roses - the card attached to the flowers. The
27 reference to come back to Gheringhap Street, that is
28 where she would visit me given that she had broken up
29 contact. There's a message in there that I wouldn't be
30 going around to Illouera Avenue and knocking on the door
31 or anything crazy like that. And I think that that's as

2Cressy
1 much as can be taken there. If you want to contact me,
2 you have to come to Gheringhap Street. I won't be coming
3 to Illouera Avenue. Definitely wouldn't be going to
4 Lorraine Starr. I'd ask Your Honour to consider that
5 interpretation as well as the suggestion that it says
6 Ms Cressy had moved out and Ms Cressy was moving back.
7HIS HONOUR: That's your explanation.
8MR JOHNSON: And I will come back to them in submissions Your
9 Honour because it's - - -
10HIS HONOUR: All right.
11MR JOHNSON: - - - about that date.
12HIS HONOUR: Now I see the time. How much longer have you got
13 in re-examination? I would not expect you to take long.
14MR JOHNSON: I - a lot of these points are submission points I
15 think Your Honour but - - -
16HIS HONOUR: Don't make submissions from there.
17MR JOHNSON: Exactly and I'm trying not to. I've got 60 pages
18 of transcript from yesterday afternoon.
19HIS HONOUR: I'm sorry I asked the question. We will adjourn
20 and - - -
21MR JOHNSON: I can't estimate - - -
22HIS HONOUR: No, you can't - you're wasting my time.
23MR DEVRIES: Can I just clarify one matter Your Honour.
24HIS HONOUR: Yes.
25MR DEVRIES: I presume tomorrow when and if we get to addresses
26 that Mr Johnson will go first in the normal course of
27 events.
28HIS HONOUR: I think we have foreshadowed firstly a no case
29 submission.
30MS SOFRONIOU: That's so Your Honour.
31MR DEVRIES: I did say when we get to addresses Your Honour.

2Cressy
1HIS HONOUR: There was a matter I was going to raise - you may
2 vacate to the Bar Table if you like.
3 (Witness excused.)
4<(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
5It's a matter I was going to raise with counsel. Can we take
6 first - I'm losing my voice. First thing's first. You
7 will be making a no case submission, is that - - -
8MS SOFRONIOU: That is correct.
9HIS HONOUR: You will be foreshadowing that now. What was the
10 name of that case I had - - -
11MS SOFRONIOU: I can hand up a copy to Your Honour. Oakley v.
12 Insurance - - -
13HIS HONOUR: Do you have a copy for Mr Johnson?
14MS SOFRONIOU: I have copies for everyone.
15HIS HONOUR: Thank you. That's a case in which I gave a ruling
16 as to the principles of no case submissions as I
17 understood them. Thanks. Thank you for that. Now how
18 long do you think that submission will take?
19MS SOFRONIOU: Three-quarters of an hour, half an hour Your
20 Honour.
21HIS HONOUR: Yes, I follow.
22MS SOFRONIOU: It's a short length.
23HIS HONOUR: Yes and I'll need to rule on it.
24MS SOFRONIOU: That's certainly so Your Honour. I hadn't
25 factored that in. I didn't want to presume to factor how
26 long Your Honour would need.
27HIS HONOUR: No, it's just a question of where we're going.
28MR JOHNSON: Excuse me Your Honour.
29HIS HONOUR: Yes.
30MR JOHNSON: There's Mr Wittekind and Mr Cockram's evidence as
31 well Your Honour.

2Cressy
1HIS HONOUR: I understand that.
2MR JOHNSON: Thank you Your Honour.
3HIS HONOUR: I'll have to see what happens there.
4MS SOFRONIOU: Yes, Your Honour.
5HIS HONOUR: Just - now the other matter is if and when we get
6 to final address, thanks Ms Sofroniou, I'm content to
7 hear from Mr Johnson first. I'm wondering whether it
8 might assist more if the usual order is reversed and the
9 defendants go - you go first to outline your case.
10MR DEVRIES: I feared - - -
11HIS HONOUR: I would invite you to do it and give you a right
12 of reply. But in fairness to you since Mr Johnson's gone
13 into address - into evidence, you're entitled to have him
14 go first in final address.
15MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour informs me that you're assisted by
16 me going first, obviously I'll do that Your Honour.
17HIS HONOUR: I think it would, at least, in relation to your
18 Part 9 application and your constructive trust
19 application, it seems to me that needs to be given some
20 sort of shape as to what your claiming over what
21 properties you're claiming them before Mr Johnson can
22 respond to them.
23MR DEVRIES: I'm hoping, Your Honour, that when I have a chance
24 to properly read Gilda v. Procopets, that will confine
25 the amount of - the number of authorities that I have to
26 take Your Honour to.
27HIS HONOUR: Yes, I'm hoping the same. It's - I - comparing
28 facts of different cases with the current case, it seems
29 to me a bit like, in another jurisdiction, comparing
30 facts of quite different criminal cases in - when I come
31 to submissions on sentence, it's - they're all so

2Cressy
1 different and varied it doesn't really help, it's more
2 the principles that I'd be assisted with.
3MR DEVRIES: Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it all comes
4 down to judicial discretion, Your Honour.
5HIS HONOUR: Well, I follow that, but there are - all judicial
6 discretions are exercised according to established
7 principles, and I would be assisted with the principles.
8 It's a matter for you, Mr Devries, and I would be
9 inviting you to go first, at least on the Part 9, give
10 you a right of reply on that, and - but not force you to
11 go first in relation to the counterclaim issues.
12MR DEVRIES: All right, I'm more than happy to do that, I just
13 rose to - because I suspect that that might be the case,
14 and I thought I'd better be prepared overnight for - - -
15HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, that would assist, but - - -
16MR DEVRIES: I'll do that.
17HIS HONOUR: But Mr Johnson hasn't closed his case yet, as he
18 points out, he's still hoping to be in a position to
19 called Mr Cockram.
20MR DEVRIES: Well, certainly, I don't see how Mr Cockram's
21 evidence is going to (indistinct) my learned friend's
22 application anyway.
23HIS HONOUR: No, I - - -
24MR DEVRIES: If it turns out that he's not here in the morning.
25HIS HONOUR: No, I follow that, then we may be able to deal
26 with it that way around.
27MR JOHNSON: Excuse me, Your Honour, Mr Cockram won't be here
28 in the morning, it will be the process of the
29 recalcitrant chap, who - - -
30HIS HONOUR: Which will mean - - -
31MR JOHNSON: - - - had the affidavits - - -

2Cressy
1HIS HONOUR: - - - if I am satisfied as to the prerequisites,
2 you'll be asking me to issue a warrant for the arrest of
3 Mr Cockram.
4MR JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honour, that's right, so we could have
5 another day or so. Reading time for Procopets, if that's
6 applicable.
7HIS HONOUR: I'm sorry?
8MR JOHNSON: Reading time for Procopets, if that's applicable,
9 Your Honour.
10HIS HONOUR: Yes. We'll resume at 9.30 tomorrow. I will be
11 asking, at some stage, I understand Mr Johnson says he
12 had no part in this, but how on earth the listing master
13 came to be told this is a two day case - - -
14MR DEVRIES: I wasn't involved in that - - -
15HIS HONOUR: I understand that. It requires explanation, and I
16 must say, these misestimates, false estimates, are
17 causing enormous difficulty for this court. It's not the
18 first time it's happened to me or to other judges, and
19 it's quite unacceptable. Now, I will be - I assume it
20 was your side that gave the estimate, I would be asking
21 for an explanation as to how it came to be.
22MR DEVRIES: I will make enquiries - - -
23HIS HONOUR: It's a Part 9 application involving seven
24 properties over nine years, four different causes of
25 action in a counterclaim, a bitterly contested series of
26 applications that have come before this court, and a case
27 where the defendant's put in issue not only the question
28 of contribution, but the existence of the relationship.
29 How two days was ever told to this court in good faith,
30 that escapes me.
31MR JOHNSON: Your Honour, I can give some information if you

2Cressy
1 like.
2HIS HONOUR: Well, you say you're willing to party to that?
3MR JOHNSON: The information I've received from the
4 Prothonotary's Office is that that was a hearing before
5 Master Kings.
6HIS HONOUR: That's right, well, that's - - -
7MR JOHNSON: The only party represented was the plaintiff by
8 Mr Devries' instructor.
9HIS HONOUR: - - - directed those remarks to Mr Devries.
10MR JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honour, I wish to assess.
11HIS HONOUR: Nine 30 tomorrow?
12MR DEVRIES: May it please Your Honour.
13ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER 2008

2Cressy

BrothelGate Day 7 PM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BrothelGate Day 7 PM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 (Kaye J)

2UPON RESUMING AT 2.14 PM:

3HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson has not made it back to court yet.

4MR JOHNSON: Your Honour.

5HIS HONOUR: The witness box, thanks.

6<HAROLD JAMES JOHNSON, recalled:

7WITNESS: Your Honour, may I firstly explain why I am late to

8 court at this moment. I have organised for Mr Thompson

9 to file and for one of his people to serve Mr Wittekind

10 on the basis he is subpoenaed to attend Your Honour's

11 court at 9.30 tomorrow morning. I had unsealed copies of

12 those documents if Your Honour or my learned friends are

15 moment in cross-examination?---Yes, Your Honour, I have

17 I do need to visit the bathroom, Your Honour, I'm sorry.

19 Registry to have the subpoena issued?---And it has taken

20 that long and I contacted your Tipstaff, Your Honour, and

21 said I could be five minutes late.

23 at all?---I had to walk to Mr Thompson - - -

25<(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)

27HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries?

28MR DEVRIES: May it please Your Honour. Mr - if Mr Johnson

29 could be shown this document, it's a redirection advice

30 for mail from 166 Queen Street. Is that in your

31 handwriting, Mr Johnson?---Yes, it is, Mr Devries?

1.LL:SK 10/12/08 FTR:28 73 JOHNSON XXN

2 Sutton, amongst others, doesn't it?---It does. There's a

3 mistake with that last part, Mr Devries.

4It's in your handwriting, signed by you, and it seeks to

5 readdress - readdress mail for you from 166 Queen Street,

6 Altona, is that correct?---Yes, it does.

8 ---This particular application is dated 25 September

10Yes?---No, sorry, it was signed by me on 19 September 2007.

11I tender it, Your Honour?---May I have a copy, please?

12HIS HONOUR: In due course. Exhibit O - - -?---Your Honour,

14I'm describing an exhibit, Your Honour, you don't (indistinct).

19 excused from the box just to get my pad that I was

20 writing notes on?

21HIS HONOUR: Yes?---Thank you, Your Honour.

22MR DEVRIES: For Your Honour's assistance, I'm now turning to

23 Exhibit 47, this is the income tax return for Mr Johnson

24 for the financial year of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2008?

25 ---Forgive me, Your Honour, I'm still looking

26 (indistinct) notepad this morning. I've found it, Your

27 Honour. I do apologise to everyone.

29 Mr Johnson?---I shall, Mr Devries, thank you.

30What are you writing down, Mr Johnson?---That there's an

31 exhibit, "O", mail redirection, Mr Devries. Thank you, I

32 apologise to my learned friend, I'm ready for more

1.LL:SK 10/12/08 FTR:28 74 JOHNSON XXN

3 return, you're aware of your obligation to ensure that

4 every statement contained in it is true and correct, is

5 that right?---Yes, Your Honour.

6Yes, and that's not just simply statements relating to your

7 financial affairs, but everything that's contained in

8 your tax return has to be true and correct, doesn't it?

9 ---I believe so, Your Honour, yes.

12 I take it, in the - doing your best to ensure that every

13 detail on them relating to you or your financial affairs

14 is true and correct?---Yes, my tax agent would prepare

16 and they would be submitted electronically.

17Yes?---Yes, Your Honour.

18(Indistinct) something with your individual tax return for the

19 year 2005, please, it's taken from Exhibit 5, that's a