KERNICK LAW

Your Ref: Our Ref: Contact: Direct Phone: Direct Email: BK:1310021 Brad Kernick 02 4353 1967 brad@kernicklaw.com.au

4 September 2013 Mrs A Dan 2 Haigh Cl BERKELEY VALE NSW 2261

Dear Mrs Dan RE: BREACH OF COPYRIGHT ALLEGATIONS

I refer to the above matter, in particular the assertions of Centre Support and its subsequent publications. I note that a recent brochure authored by Centre Support , titled Centre Support Newsletter August 2013 alleges that your company has breached Copyright and in my view made several defamatory and misleading statements, namely: 1. Allegations of Copyright against Centre Support I note that there is no evidence that the document subject to the Copyright allegations is owned by Centre Support. I also confirm that no court documents have been served upon you or my office; 2. Police notification I confirm that there has been no contact by the NSW Police Force Fraud Squad as asserted by Centre Support. I expect that this is a tactic by Centre Support in an attempt to scare or frighten any competitors; 3. Commencement of Legal Proceedings I also confirm with you that there are no current legal proceedings against you. As your legal representative in this matter I have not been served with any Court documents. This brings me to the issue of defamation. Defamation is an extremely complex and litigious area of law. At Common Law, the defamation may be described as, one of a kind likely to lead ordinary decent folk to think less of the person about whom it is made i.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

PO Box 713 Wyong NSW 2259 100 Pacific Hwy Wyong NSW 2259

P: 02 4353 1967 F: 02 4351 2401 E: brad@Kernicklaw.com.au W: www.kernicklaw.com.au

There are defences to a claim of defamation in various jurisdictions including Public benefit or interest. No doubt Centre Support would rely on this defence. However, pursuant to Section 24(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), a defence may be defeated by proof that the publication was actuated by malice. Simply put, if the defamatory material was published through malice or intended harm, then there is no defence. In our view, this is the case. It is clear that your company is a direct competitor to Centre Support and that company is seeking to defame or destroy your reputation so as to maintain its standing within the industry. To this extent, I am satisfied that your actions and conduct to date have not been illegal or infringing as suggested by Centre Support. Should you require any further information, please my office on (02) 4353 1967. Yours faithfully Kernick Law

Brad Kernick Lawyer Encl.

Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Browne (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 86 at 88 per Jordan CJ