Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,

Anthony Charles Quinn is a former employee of Carlton and United Breweries Limited which in 1996 was a subsidiary company of Fosters Brewing Group Limited.

The purported corporate trustee of the staff superannuation fund was FBG Superannuation Limited.

The Chairman of this corporate trustee was Geoffrey Cohen, who was also at the Chairman of HIH Insurance until the time of its collapse in 2001

In 1996 Mr Quinn was elected one of three member-elected trustee directors of the corporate trustee.

However a few days before Mr Quinn was due to attend his first trustee board meeting, Mr Cohen arranged for Mr Quinn's contract of employment to be terminated with one day's notice {when the CUB staff policy required 10 weeks notice} and which took effect the day before the next scheduled board meeting.

Mr Quinn then took proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to Section 68 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 - 'Victimisation of Trustees".

APRA sent one or more observers to these hearings as listed below.

The documents I seek are copies of file notes or reports prepared by these APRA observers of the proceedings that they attended involving Mr Quinn.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

List of Proceedings involving Charles Anthony Quinn

(1) Anthony Charles Quinn v Carlton and United Breweries Limited {796 of 1996}
(2) Quinn v FBG Superannuation Ltd [1998] VSC 173
(3) Quin (sic) v FBG Superannuation Ltd [2000] VSCA 29
(4) Legal Ombudsman v D'Abaco [1999] VLPT

Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's handling of my FOI request 'SEction 68 of the SIS Act - Anthony Quinn Proceedings'.

I am seeking copies of the documents identified as:

"I attach my notes and other documentation received from the parties as a result of my attendance at the hearing"

In the ISC Minutes Paper that was released in a redacted format.

I am not seeking documents 2 and 3.

The documents received from the parties to the proceedings would be public documents since any documents subject to legal privilege would not have been provided to the ISC representative with respect to these proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Dear Freedom of Information,

I received some of the documents requested in the FOI response from APRA, but not copies of the documents attached to the redacted document released.

The attached documents would not be subject to legal privilege.

So please deal with this request in the appropriate manner.

Yours sincerely,

Phillip Sweeney