second strike comments, page-6

Alfredo 9. It may also be worthwhile going back to the original VCAT decision of 4 May 2011 to get a more complete picture of how the blame should be apportioned.

Hodgkin v Planet Platinum Ltd (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2011] VCAT 725 (4 May 2011)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/725.html

The VCAT Deputy President says at Paragraph 341:
" ...... It is clear from the way the case was put on behalf of the respondents in both proceedings, that in most of the cases, the management of the venue do not believe that anything wrong has happened as a result of their management. They are unable to see how their management could have improved the situation. They have taken the course of blaming others, in particular the public themselves and the crowd controllers. In my view, that is not a reasonable course for a responsible licensee to adopt. I agree with Mr Devlin’s submissions at paragraph 64 when he stated :

'... To do nothing will mean that the incidents will continue. It is submitted that either the management of the venue will not change its style of management or alternatively it is the way the venue trades that is causing the trouble...."


In my view, PPN's shareholders are entitled to read the VCAT & Supreme Court decisions and make up their own minds as to where blame should be apportioned for the legal costs and the damage to the company's reputation. The police gave the PPN board adequate warning. It certainly wasn't the fault of the police that the PPN board were slow to react or were "asleep at the wheel". [Para. 122 of the 2012 VCAT decision refers].

While we are talking about blame, whose fault is it that the company made numerous bad decisions over its 10 year history?

Perhaps it is the shareholders' fault for voting against the Rem last year.

Perhaps it is the shareholders' fault that $450,000 is paid to the CEO and there is little left for dividends.

As that great American philosopher, Bart Simpson, once said: "I DIDN'T DO IT"