Ms Maddock-Jones explained that CCW had nothing further to add on the ExA's Rule 17 question 3 (QA3 in letter of 10 May) and whether the ExA could withdraw this question.
Ms Maddock-Jones further enquired about whether their attendance at the hearings is required as she is unable to attend on the 21 June.

The Examining Authority has reviewed CCW's response to the ExA's written question by the set deadline of 25 April and felt it necessary to ask the additional question. There is no mechanism for him to withdraw the question asked without writing to all Interested Parties again and therefore it is very unlikely that he would agree to such a course of action. If CCW feel they have nothing further to add they can say this in their response and/or simply refer to where in their initial response they have already answered the additional questions.
It is for CCW to judge whether or not they consider CCW needs to be represented at the hearing, to be able to respond to any of the matters raised by other Interested Parties; and who in their organisation would be best placed to do that.