Ms Clare McGrath:

We would have expressed concerns because of the context that the alternative accommodation was in a divisional headquarters in a larger complex. That is a complicated transaction. We would not have seen that we would not be able to provide vacant possession, because if that was the case, we would look at alternative locations. That is what we were doing in 2008. The developer's situation changed so we then engaged with the developer by putting in place a transfer and a lease back. In fairness everybody was working to achieve that. There was an alternative being put in place. We had passed the deadline for vacant possession. We argued in court that we had an estoppel.