Re CMTC Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
[2018] VSC 350
•27 June 2018
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST
S CI 2018 00989
IN THE MATTER of CMTC PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 607 395 004)
| TRAVIS JAY PULLEN AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF CMTC PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 607 395 004 | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| CMTC PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 607 395 004 | Defendant |
---
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: | Matthews JR |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 May 2018; further affidavit filed 30 May 2018 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 June 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re CMTC Pty Ltd (in liquidation) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 350 |
---
CORPORATIONS – External administration – Application by former administrators for determination of remuneration pursuant to s 449E(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Consideration of transitional provisions in respect of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) as Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Remuneration approved.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Zohal Hussaini, solicitor | DSS Law |
---
NOTE: The plaintiff has served all parties required to be served with notice of the intention to make this application and no such party appeared to oppose or contradict it. In such circumstances and in light of the provisions of r 9.2 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2013, it was considered appropriate to deal with the application in the absence of the public and without the necessity for the plaintiff to attend at Court (save as identified in these reasons).
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR MATTHEWS:
Introduction
Nature of the application and material relied upon
The plaintiff, Travis Jay Pullen (‘Administrator’), was appointed as administrator of the defendant, CMTC Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (‘Company’) on 29 May 2017, pursuant to s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’).
Prior to the Administrator’s appointment to the Company, winding up proceedings against the Company had been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia. On 20 June 2017, orders were made by that court that the Company be wound up and Hamish Alan MacKinnon was appointed liquidator of the Company (‘Liquidator’). Accordingly, the administration of the Company came to an end on that day.
By originating process issued 20 March 2018, the Administrator applies, under s 449E(1)(c) of the Act and r 9.2 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2013 (‘Rules’), for the approval of his remuneration in relation to the administration of the Company for the period 29 May 2017 to 14 June 2017 in the amount of $12,000 plus GST, and that the Company pay the Administrator’s costs of the application for remuneration approval (‘Application’).
The Application is supported by affidavits from the Administrator sworn 6 February 2018 (‘First Affidavit’) and 25 May 2018 (‘Second Affidavit’), and by an affidavit affirmed 19 March 2018 by Zohal Hussaini of DSS Law, the solicitors for the Administrator. For the reasons set out below, I will approve the Administrator’s remuneration in the amount of $12,000 plus GST.
Manner of determining the Application
The originating process also contains a request of the type contemplated by r 9.2(4)(b) of the Rules that the Application be dealt with in the absence of the public and without attendance by or on behalf of the Administrator.
Before making an application of this type, r 9.2 of the Rules requires the Administrator to serve certain persons with a copy of the principal affidavit in support of the application and a notice in accordance with Form 16 of the Rules stating that it is the Administrator’s intention to apply to the Court for an order determining his remuneration.
Other than the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, the Administrator does not state, in his First Affidavit, who the creditors of the Company were. The minutes of the first meeting of creditors in the administration of the Company held on 7 June 2017 record two creditors as being in attendance: the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Colwell Wright Solicitors.[1] The report to creditors by the Administrator pursuant to s 439A of the Act (‘s 439A Report’) states that the report as to affairs submitted by the director of the Company listed four unsecured creditors. These were the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (in the amount of $790,162) and three others (totalling $3,415).[2]
[1]First Affidavit, exhibit ‘TJP-5’.
[2]First Affidavit, [7.2], exhibit ‘TJP-7’.
Ms Hussaini deposes to having served, on 7 February 2018 by post, a copy of the Form 16 notice and the Administrator’s First Affidavit, on four creditors of the Company. These are identified as the Australian Taxation Office (ie the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation), Colwell Wright Solicitors, Brown Baldwin Accountants, and Michael Stocky.[3] Ms Hussaini also sent a letter on that date, along with the relevant documents, to the Liquidator.[4]
[3]Ms Hussaini’s affidavit, [3].
[4]Ms Hussaini’s affidavit, [5].
Based on the above, I am satisfied that the four persons identified by Ms Hussaini are the creditors of the Company.
Ms Hussaini deposes that as at 19 March 2018, the Administrator had not received any notice of objection to the remuneration claimed from any of the creditors. Accordingly, the 21 day period prescribed by r 9.2(3) of the Rules has passed since the date that the creditors were served.
Rule 9.2(2)(d) provides that each member of the Company whose shareholding represents at least 10 per cent of the issued capital of the Company is also to be served with the Form 16 notice and the Administrator’s affidavit. Ms Hussaini’s affidavit does not deal with this. The Administrator has exhibited a copy of a search of the records of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) of the Company to his First Affidavit. That ASIC search reveals that Charles Clarke, who was also the sole director and secretary of the Company, is the sole shareholder of the Company.[5]
[5]First Affidavit, [3], exhibit ‘TJP-1’.
The Application was originally listed before Associate Justice Randall on 13 April 2018, where his Honour informed the Administrator’s solicitor that the Application would be determined by me.
Having reviewed Ms Hussaini’s affidavit, I am satisfied that it is in order for me to proceed in the way contemplated by r 9.2(4)(c) of the Rules. The creditors have been served with the relevant documents and have not objected to the remuneration claimed by the Administrator. Although the Company’s shareholder has not been served with the relevant documents, in circumstances where the Company is in liquidation and the Liquidator has been served with the documents, I do not regard that as an impediment to my proceeding in the manner contemplated by r 9.2(4)(c) of the Rules. While Ms Hussaini does not state, in so many words, that the Liquidator has not objected to the claimed remuneration, as an officer of the Court I would assume that if the Liquidator had so objected, Ms Hussaini would have informed the Court.
Accordingly, and subject to the below, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that I proceed to determine the application in the absence of the public and without attendance by or on behalf of the Administrator.
Upon reviewing the First Affidavit, I formed the view that further information and explanation as to some aspects of the remuneration claim was required. I will deal with the specifics of this later, but pause here to note that I caused the Application to be listed for a mention hearing on 7 May 2018 where I raised these matters with the Administrator’s solicitor. I then indicated that if he wished to do so, the Administrator could file further affidavit material in respect of those matters. The Administrator availed himself of this opportunity and the Second Affidavit was filed on 30 May 2018.
Applicable principles
Statutory provisions
This application is made under s 449E(1)(c) of the Act. That section provides:
449E Remuneration of administrator
(1)The administrator of a company under administration is entitled to receive such remuneration as is determined:
…
(c) if there is no such agreement or resolution – by the Court.
In exercising the power to determine the Administrator’s remuneration, s 449E(4) of the Act prescribes the matters which the Court must take into account when exercising that power:
(4)In exercising its powers under subsection (1), (1A) or (2), the Court must have regard to whether the remuneration is reasonable, taking into account any or all of the following matters:
(a)the extent to which the work performed by the administrator was reasonably necessary;
(b)the extent to which the work likely to be performed by the administrator is likely to be reasonably necessary;
(c)the period during which the work was, or is likely to be, performed by the administrator;
(d)the quality of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the administrator;
(e)the complexity (or otherwise) of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the administrator;
(f)the extent (if any) to which the administrator was, or is likely to be, required to deal with extraordinary issues;
(g)the extent (if any) to which the administrator was, or is likely to be, required to accept a higher level of risk or responsibility than is usually the case;
(h)the value and nature of any property dealt with, or likely to be dealt with, by the administrator;
(i)whether the administrator was, or is likely to be, required to deal with:
(i)one or more receivers; or
(ii)one or more receivers and managers;
(j)the number, attributes and behaviour, or the likely number, attributes and behaviour, of the company’s creditors;
(k)if the remuneration is ascertained, in whole or in part, on a time basis:
(i)the time properly taken, or likely to be properly taken, by the administrator in performing the work; and
(ii)whether the total remuneration payable to the administrator is capped;
(i)any other relevant matters.
While the criteria in s 449E(4) of the Act direct the Court to the factors that are to be taken into account, the ultimate question is whether the remuneration by the Administrator is reasonable.
For completeness, I note that while s 449E of the Act has been repealed, it continues to apply in certain circumstances. I explain that briefly here:
(a) numerous amendments to the provisions of the Act relating to external administrators were made by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (‘ILRA’). Amongst other things, the ILRA repealed s 449E of the Act and introduced a new Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) as Schedule 2 to the Act (‘Practice Schedule’). The Practice Schedule contains new provisions relating to insolvency practice, including the remuneration of administrators and liquidators. Division 60 of the Practice Schedule provides that an ‘external administrator’[6] of a company is entitled to receive remuneration for necessary work properly performed by him/her in relation to an ‘external administration’.[7] The amount of that remuneration will usually be set under a remuneration determination, which can be made by the Court under s 60-10(1)(c) of the Practice Schedule. Section 60-12 of the Practice Schedule provides that the Court must have regard to whether the remuneration is reasonable, taking into account certain factors which are then listed. These factors are materially the same as the factors which were set out in s 449E(4) of the Act;[8]
[6]For the purposes of the Practice Schedule, an external administrator is defined as an administrator, an administrator under a deed of company arrangement, a liquidator, or a provisional liquidator, of the company: s 5-20 of the Practice Schedule.
[7]A company is taken to be under external administration for the purposes of the Practice Schedule on the occurrence of certain events, being under administration, a deed of company arrangement has been entered into, a liquidator has been appointed, or a provisional liquidator has been appointed: s 5-15 of the Practice Schedule.
[8]There are some minor changes to the language used: for example, s60-12 of the Practice Schedule refers to the extent to which the work was ‘necessary and properly performed’, whereas s 449E(4) of the Act referred to the extent to which the work performed was ‘reasonably necessary’.
(b) the commencement of the new provisions concerning remuneration in Division 60 of the Practice Schedule were deferred until 1 September 2017;[9]
[9]Regulation 10.25.02(3) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (‘Corporations Regulations’).
(c) section 1581 of the Act was repealed and a new provision was substituted, as follows:[10]
[10]Schedule 13 of the Corporations Regulations.
‘1581 Old Act continues to apply in relation to remuneration for administrators already appointed or appointed during transition period
(1)Despite the repeal of sections 449E and 473 … of the old Act by Schedule 2 to the [ILRA], the old Act continues to apply in relation to the remuneration of an external administrator of a company who is appointed:
(a) before the start time; or
(b) during the transition period.
…’
(d) in summary, the upshot of all this is that despite the repeal of s 449E, the Act as it was prior to the relevant amendments continues to apply in relation to the remuneration of an external administrator of a company who was appointed before the ‘commencement day’ of the relevant sections of the Practice Schedule, being 1 September 2017.[11]
[11]For a more fulsome and useful discussion of how the relevant transitional provisions work, see the ruling of Hetyey JR in In the matter of Allstone Homes (in liquidation) [2017] VSC 500, [8]–[11]. Although that decision concerns a liquidator’s remuneration, the transitional provisions are the same.
Accordingly, the Administrator’s application in this case is properly considered by reference to what was ss 449E(1) and (4) of the Act, as Mr Pullen was appointed as administrator to the Company on 29 May 2017.
The Court’s approach when considering applications for approval of an administrator’s remuneration
The principles concerning applications for approval of the remuneration incurred by insolvency practitioners are well established and have been referred to in many decisions of this Court. While many of the decisions concern liquidators, the same approach has been applied in respect of administrators.[12] Gardiner AsJ summarised the relevant principles in IMO Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq)[13] (‘Traditional Values’) at paragraphs [18] to [25].
[12]By way of example, see Re AsiaPAC Communications Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2015] VSC 413.
[13][2012] VSC 650 (14 December 2012).
For convenience I adopt his Honour’s summary, which referred to the principles identified by Davies J in Thackray v Gunns Plantations:[14]
[14](2011) 85 ACSR 144 (‘Thackray’).
At [60], her Honour summarised the principles to be applied by reference to the decision of the Full Court of the West Australian Supreme Court in Venetian Nominees v Conlan as follows:
(a)A summary procedure was involved, not unlike that applicable to the taxation of solicitor’s costs, which is not necessarily subject to all the rules that would apply in an action.
(b)The initial task of the Court is to consider whether the liquidator has made out a prima facie case on the evidence before the Court that the remuneration claimed is fair and reasonable. The Court must make that assessment ‘bringing an independent mind to bear on the relevant issues’ even though at that point there is no objector.
(c)There is no absolute rule regarding the amount of detail required to support a remuneration claim. But the evidence relied on should be sufficient to enable potential objectors to review the amounts claimed and to ascertain whether there are matters to which objection should be taken. If there is inadequate evidence supporting the claim, no order should be made.
(d)If the liquidator establishes a prima facie case, the Court should allow for an objection procedure to enable objections to be made.
(e)If there are objectors to the claim or any part, the Court should then establish the validity of those objections.
At [63] and [64] of Thackray, her Honour stated:
…. the receivers accepted that the principles set out Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan are persuasive and that they should put sufficient evidence before the Court to enable the Court to determine that the amounts claimed are fair and reasonable. That involved providing sufficient detail of the work that was done and the expenses claimed for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed for that work and the reasonableness of the expenses incurred by the receivers. The reasonableness of remuneration may be adduced by evidence for example of an appropriate benchmark, such as the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia rates, for comparative work by persons with the relevant status and qualifications for that kind of work and justification of the hours spent. That amount can then be adjusted up or down to reflect other factors including:
(a) complexity above the norm for the kind of work involved;
(b) novelty and difficulty of the issues faced;
(c) the ultimate outcome obtained by the claimant.
The Court is looking for evidence of overcharging. Excessive charging may be indicated if there is a lack of proportionality between the cost of the work done relative to the value of the services provided. But there is no universal approach applicable in all circumstances by which the “reasonableness” of remuneration claimed or expenses incurred should be measured. The size, importance and complexity of the tasks performed are all factors to be taken into account. What is needed is sufficient information for the Court and any objector to have a clear view about what was done so that an assessment can be made about the reasonableness of the claim.[15]
[15]Traditional Values [60], citing Thackray (2011) 85 ACSR 144, [63]–[64] (citations omitted).
The Administrator’s evidence
The Administrator provides some further background to that described above in respect of the administration:
(a) the first meeting of creditors was held on 7 June 2017;[16]
[16]First Affidavit, [15].
(b) on 8 June 2017, the Administrator received a proposal from the Company’s director for a deed of company arrangement (‘DOCA’);[17]
(c) one week later, the Administrator sent a circular to creditors accompanying his s 439A Report. In that report, he expressed his opinion that it was in the interests of the creditors of the Company for it to execute a DOCA, it would not be in the interests of creditors for the administration to end and the Company returned to the control of its director, and it was not in the interests of creditors for the Company to be wound up;[18]
(d) the second meeting of creditors was to be held on 28 June 2017, however this meeting did not occur due to the Company being wound up by order made on 20 June 2017 by the Federal Court.[19]
[17]First Affidavit, [17].
[18]First Affidavit, [18]–[19].
[19]First Affidavit, [20].
In his First Affidavit, the Administrator describes the work that he did during the course of the administration. This includes:[20]
[20]First Affidavit, [21].
(a) preparing the draft documents to place the Company into administration;
(b) reviewing the documents to place the Company into administration and attending to the statutory requirements upon appointment;
(c) preparing a package of documents to the Company’s director, including a notification to provide the books and records of the Company and prepare a report as to affairs and completion of a questionnaire;
(d) preparing and distributing the first circular to creditors, including advertising the meeting on the ASIC Insolvency Notices website;
(e) preparing for and conducting the first meeting of creditors, preparing minutes and lodging them with ASIC;
(f) conducting investigations into the Company’s business, assets, affairs and financial circumstances as required under the Act;
(g) holding several further meetings and discussions with the director and advisors regarding the history and operations of the Company and the preparation of a DOCA;
(h) reviewing the DOCA proposal;
(i) preparing and dispatching the s 439A Report;
(j) advertising the second meeting of creditors on the ASIC Insolvency Notices website; and
(k) reviewing proofs of debt from creditors to assist with quantifying the value of creditors’ claims.
In his first circular to creditors, the Administrator estimated that his costs to undertake the administration could be in a range from $15,000 to $20,000, and he provided a notice of basis of proposed remuneration (‘Remuneration Notice’).[21] In that notice, the Administrator proposed that his remuneration be calculated on the time based/hourly rates method. He provided a schedule of hourly rates for his firm, TJP Advisory Pty Limited, as follows:
[21]First Affidavit, [14]. The Remuneration Notice is exhibit ‘TJP-4’.
Classification Hourly rate (excl GST) Example of level of tasks performed Appointee $450 Strategic management of administration requiring specialist skills and expertise.
Convening creditor meetings.
Sign off on investigations and other work performed by staff.Manager $350 Tasks required to ensure day to day control of file.
Complex investigation matters.
General control of management of file.Analyst / Administration $250 Day to day tasks including responding to creditors, employees and other stakeholders.
Drafting basic correspondence.
Control of data contained within insolvency software.
Completing investigations as required.
Administrative tasks.
In his First Affidavit, the Administrator confirms that his remuneration was calculated on the time based/hour rate method, which he describes as the most commonly used method of calculating remuneration. The hourly rates used are those detailed above, and the total fee charged is calculated using those rates for each hour spent performing the tasks at the specified levels.[22] The Administrator exhibits a table (‘First Table’) showing the total hours per classification of staff for the period 29 May to 14 June 2017,[23] which can be summarised as:
[22]First Affidavit, [23].
[23]First Affidavit, exhibit ‘TJP-9’.
Position $ per hour (excl GST) Total hours Total Amount Appointee $450 5.5 $2,475 Manager $350 11.0 $3,850 Analyst/Administration $250 22.7 $5,675 Totals 39.2 $12,000
The Administrator states that the schedule of hourly rates contained in the Remuneration Notice and the First Table read ‘as if I have multiple staff working on the job, rather, it is only me and I charge different rates depending on my view about the level of staffing that would normally be required to do the task’.[24] In other words, the Administrator performed all of the work, but charged it at different rates depending on the level of complexity associated with the task. By this mechanism, he was ‘delegating’ the tasks to the appropriate level.
[24]First Affidavit, [25].
The Administrator states that the work performed was reasonably necessary.[25]
[25]First Affidavit, [21].
In his First Affidavit, the Administrator sets out a detailed table containing what he describes as the specific details of his remuneration (‘Claim Details Table’).[26] It contains a task area (creditors, investigation, administration), a general description of the tasks associated with each, the total amount for each task area and the total hours for each area. The time spent on individual tasks is not set out, rather, it is aggregated for each of the 3 task areas. This table is virtually identical to one contained in the Remuneration Notice as an estimate of what the Administrator thought his fees may be, at the time of preparing the first circular to creditors.
[26]First Affidavit, [23].
Upon reviewing the First Affidavit, as mentioned in paragraph 15 above, I considered that further information and explanation was required, and I listed the Application for a mention hearing. At that hearing, I observed that the Claim Details Table was identical to the estimate given in the Remuneration Notice, and expressed a concern that without more information, this raised serious doubts in my mind as to the accuracy of the Claim Details Table. I stated that I found it hard to believe that the actual time spent and tasks performed would correlate exactly with the estimate. I indicated that an explanation was required and that it should be supported by actual timesheets or a report containing a description of individual tasks, the time spent on each, the dates upon which those tasks were performed, and the hourly rates for those tasks. I also asked for clarification as to why the Administrator was seeking approval for the work done in the period 29 May to 14 June 2017, rather than to 20 June 2017 when the administration came to an end.
Following that hearing, the Administrator filed his Second Affidavit. He states that although he performed work for the entire period of the administration, he was seeking approval only for the period to 14 June 2017, which he fixed in the amount of $12,000 (excluding GST) in accordance with his s 439A Report.[27] He says that this was because the work done in the period 15 to 20 June was done so that creditors would receive a better return by executing a DOCA as an alternative to liquidation.[28] The Administrator also exhibits a summary timesheet detailing the description of works undertaken for the claimed period (‘Timesheet’),[29] which contains the information I identified as being required.
[27]In the s 439A Report, the Administrator stated that at the second meeting of creditors, he would be seeking approval for his remuneration for the period 29 May to 14 June 2017 in the amount of $12,000 plus GST. He also stated that he would be seeking approval for his remuneration as administrator for the period from 15 June 2017 to the date when a DOCA was executed or the Company would up in the amount of $3,000 plus GST.
[28]Second Affidavit, [13]–[15].
[29]Second Affidavit, [9], exhibit ‘TJP-10’.
The Administrator seeks that the Court determine his remuneration, as the second meeting of creditors was not held,[30] which means that his remuneration could not be presented for the approval of creditors.
[30]First Affidavit, [20].
Consideration
Administrator’s prima facie case for approval
Based on all of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Administrator has made out a prima facie case for payment of his remuneration, within the meaning referred to in paragraph 22 above. That is, the Administrator has made out a prima facie case that the remuneration claimed is fair and reasonable, and there is sufficient information to enable potential objectors to review the amounts claimed and to ascertain whether there are matters to which objection should be taken. I will indicate here that the clarification provided by the Second Affidavit and the Timesheet were important to reaching this conclusion.
From my experience in matters associated with insolvency administrations, I know the hourly rates specified by the Administrator to be commensurate with the hourly rates typically charged by insolvency practitioners. The hourly rates used here are at the lower end of that range.
Although no objection has been taken to the remuneration claimed by the Administrator, the Court is still required to review the claimed remuneration, taking the matters identified in s 449E(4) of the Act into account.
Amount of remuneration to be approved
As noted above, the Administrator seeks approval for his remuneration in the amount of $12,000 plus GST.
In terms of the matters identified in s 449E(4) of the Act, I am satisfied that:
(a) the work performed by the Administrator was reasonably necessary;
(b) the Administrator was not required to perform any complex work or deal with any extraordinary issues, save for the winding up application which was on foot during the period of the administration and the assessment of the DOCA proposal;
(c) the Administrator was not required to accept a higher level of risk or responsibility than was usually the case, or to deal with property of any significant value; and
(d) the remuneration was calculated on a time basis, and the time taken for each task and the level of employee performing that task is set out in sufficient detail, by reference to the Timesheet.
I have reviewed the Timesheet and the description of work given in both of the Administrator’s affidavits. It contains sufficient detail for me to be satisfied as to the amounts claimed. In particular, I am satisfied that:
(a) there was an appropriate degree of delegation of the work to be performed, in that the matters which were of a more routine nature were charged at the lower hourly rate. The breakdown contained in the First Table, when combined with the Timesheet, establishes this;
(b) the tasks described are reasonable to have been performed, and the time taken to perform them (and therefore the amounts charged for them) were reasonable;
(c) there is no evidence of duplication, or unnecessary duplication, of work; and
(d) the amount claimed by the Administrator appears to have been reduced from the amount of time actually spent, so as to bring it within the amount he specified in the s 439A Report.[31] Further, it would have been open to the Administrator to claim remuneration for the period 15 to 20 June 2017, but he has elected not to do so.
[31]See footnote 27 above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I will approve the Administrator’s remuneration in the amount of $12,000 plus GST.
The Administrator also seeks orders that his costs of and incidental to making the Application be ‘costs in the proceeding’. Since the only subject matter of the proceeding is the approval of his remuneration, what the Administrator seeks is not sufficiently clear. If the Administrator seeks approval for his remuneration and expenses associated with the Application, then it is clear that such matters may be included within an application for approval, and I will therefore give leave to the Administrator to address that in a further affidavit should he wish to do so.
Once the parties have had an opportunity to consider these reasons, the Court requests that the Administrator’s solicitor provide a draft form of order to my Associate and file any further affidavit as referred to in paragraph 40 above (if that is what the Administrator elects to do).
0
3
0