Scott and Scott

[2018] FamCA 317

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCOTT & SCOTT [2018] FamCA 317

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS – Where the wife sought a raft of interlocutory orders including personal restraints on the husband, the future conduct of the manager, orders compelling the husband to pay certain sums to the entities, procedural orders for trial and orders for costs – Where the husband sought orders dismissing the wife’s Amended Application and for the appointment of receivers and managers – Where various interlocutory orders were made, including the appointment of Receiver and Manager, powers assigned to the Receiver and the parties to equally pay the costs of the manager previously appointed

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 420
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 81K, 114

APPLICANT: Ms Scott

RESPONDENT: Mr Scott

FILE NUMBER: CRC 105 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 11 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 21 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	Mr Priestley
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Fishburn Watson O’Brien

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Carolan

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Green & McKay

Orders

1. That Mr B and Mr C (“the Trustees”) of D Associates be appointed Receiver and Manager (jointly and severally) of:

   a)E Pty Ltd as trustee of the F Trust and the Scott Family Trust;

   b)G Pty Ltd.

2. Pursuant to s 420(2)(a)-(w) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) an order that the Receiver be empowered to:

   a)Sell the property at H Street, J Town and the improvements known as the K Centre (“KC”) being the land in folio identifier … registered in the name of E Pty Ltd;

   b)Collect and take possession of the stock, plant, equipment and book debts of the companies and the trusts;

   c)Sell or otherwise dispose of the businesses conducted by the companies and the trusts and any stock, plant and equipment;

   d)Demand and call up all of the book debts of the trusts;

   e)Make debtors bankrupt and wind up companies and do all things in connection with any bankruptcy or winding up to take proceedings in any court or other tribunal in the name of E Pty Ltd or the trusts;

   f)Pay the debts of the company and the trusts and the family debts described in the schedule annexed and marked “A” (being annexure “L” to the affidavit of Mr Scott sworn 29 August 2017);

   g)Retain any balance of sale proceeds in a term deposit on the parties’ behalf pending further order of the Court.

3. That either the applicant or the respondent is entitled to purchase, including bidding at auction, the K Centre.

4. That the orders 1 to 4 of the Orders of 14 July 2016 are discharged.

5. That the parties shall pay in equal shares the costs of the manager previously appointed, Mr L, within 28 days of receipt of his memorandum of fees.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Scott & Scott has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: CRC105/2016

Ms Scott

Applicant

And

Mr Scott

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are competing applications for interlocutory and interim orders in relation to matrimonial property.

2. Between May 2016 and November 2017 there have been extensive, unfocused and repetitive filings in the Federal Circuit Court.

3. On 23 November 2017 the proceedings were transferred to this Court.

4. All issues, property and parenting, remain unresolved.

The Parties

1. Ms Scott is the applicant wife (“the wife”). She is aged 42 years old and lives in M Town. The wife is employed as a manager.

2. Mr Scott is the respondent husband (“the husband”).  He is aged 59 years old and lives in N Town. The husband is a health professional.

History of Relationship

1. The parties began living together in 2003 and married in 2005.

2. The only child of the marriage, O, was born in 2007.  O lives with his mother.

3. The parties separated in mid-2015 and were divorced in early 2017.  Overall, a relationship of 12-13 years.

Background To Issue Before The Court

1. The wife is a manager of a business owned by the parties in which the husband was formerly engaged as a health professional.

2. When the marriage ended in mid-2015 the financial arrangements put in place by the parties for their employment and mutual benefit came under increasing pressure.

3. On 14 July 2016 an interim order was made for the appointment of a manager for the entities operating the business pending the resolution between the parties of adjustment of financial interests and appropriate arrangements.

4. At that time, both parties apparently expected, or at least hoped, to reach such a resolution in mediation which took place soon after the appointment of the manager.

5. The consequence of there being no such settlement is that events have continued to unfold. Significantly, on 24 August 2016 the husband left the business: he said having been “locked out”; the wife says “by choice”.[1]

   [1] Affidavit of the husband filed 19 February 2018, par 27; Affidavit of the wife filed 20 February 2018, par 26

6. The manager has continued to try to manage constantly changing business arrangements. Conflict between the parties has heightened. Both parties raise allegations of aggression and conflict which has involved staff. Police have been called on two occasions.

7. On 21 March 2018 by special fixture, the Amended Application in a Case of the wife and the Response of the husband to the earlier application were considered.

The Evidence

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

   The [Applicant] wife

   (a)Amended Application in a Case e-filed 13 February 2018;

   (b)Affidavit of the wife filed 20 February 2018;

   (c)Wife’s Submission regarding preservation orders;

   The [Respondent] husband

   (d)Response to an Application in a Case filed 4 September 2017;

   (e)Affidavit of the husband filed 19 February 2018;

   (f)Affidavit of Mr P, chartered accountant filed 20 November 2017;

   (g)Affidavit of Mr B (proposed receiver) filed 16 March 2018;

   (h)Affidavit of Mr C (proposed receiver) filed 16 March 2018;

   (i)Outline of Submissions for the Respondent husband.

Manager Appointed 14 July 2016

(j)       Affidavit of Mr L filed 23 November 2017;        

(k)       Affidavit of Mr L filed 9 March 2018

1. Neither party required the attendance of the manager for cross-examination.  The matter proceeded overall on the basis of submissions.

Orders Sought

1. The orders sought by the applicant wife fall into categories as follows:

2. Personal restraints pursuant to s 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) –

   2.That the Respondent Husband in relation to the businesses known as … [K] Centre and in relation to the companies [G] Pty Ltd, [E Pty Ltd], the trusts [F Trust], [Scott] Family Trust and [Mr Scott] Superannuation Fund (“the businesses”), be restrained by injunction from in any way:

   2.1Conducting the affairs of the businesses;

   2.2Dealing with, acting on behalf of or in connection with the businesses;

   2.3Receiving or spending any funds in connection with the businesses;

   2.4Approaching directly or indirectly through any third party, any employee that has recently, is currently, or is in the future working for or at the businesses;

   2.5Engaging in any employment arrangement with any employee that has recently, is currently or is in the future working for or at the businesses directly or by way of any entity in which he has an interest or control;

   2.6Approaching directly or indirectly through any third party, practitioner or service that has recently, is currently or is in the future operating at the businesses;

   2.7Engaging in any business relationship with a practitioner or service that has recently, is currently or in the future is operating at the businesses, directly or by way of entity in which he has an interest or control;

   3That the Respondent Husband be restrained by injunction from attending the business premises situated at [H Street, J Town], at any time without written consent and supervision of the Interim Manager, [Mr L].

   4.That the Interim Manager be authorised to have the respondent husband removed from the business premise situated at [H Street, J Town], should the respondent husband attend without the prior written consent and supervision of the interim manager.

   (Paragraph 5 intentionally omitted)

3. Orders into future conduct of the manager:

   6.In relation to the Federal Circuit Court orders of 14^th July 2016 orders 2 and 4 in relation to the terms of appointment of the interim manager be discharged in relation to the following:

   6.1Involving the respondent husband in the conduct of the businesses (Order 4);

   6.2Continuing with the remuneration of the husband (Orders 2 and 4).

   7.That the Interim Manager be granted leave to refrain from disclosing to the respondent husband material of a “commercial in confidence” nature in relation to the businesses as the interim manager deems appropriate in relation to the protection and preservation of the businesses.

4. Orders compelling the husband to pay certain identified sums to the entities:

   8.That the respondent husband forthwith do all things and sign all documents necessary to effect the rollover agreement for Bank of Queensland Facility Agreement number …74, as set out in their letter of offer of 12 September 2017 in relation to the terms of the rollover facility contract number …25.

   9.That the respondent husband forthwith upon request of the Interim Manager or relevant finance provider, do all things and sign all documents necessary to effect all further continuing refinance or rollover arrangements in relation to the businesses as they fall due.

   10.That within 14 days of the date of these orders the respondent husband be ordered to pay:

   10.1$20,000 to [E Pty Ltd] being transfer of licence fee income for the years ending 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 in relation to the properties [1 and 2 Q Street, R Town];

   10.2$1,485 to [Mr S], Accountant, for the balance of invoice …42 in relation to services relating to the interim manager’s appointment;

   10.3One half of the costs of [Mr L] incurred from 1 September 2016;

   10.4$20,000 to [Mr L] for the costs of the financials and valuations of the businesses pursuant to the orders of 20 June 2017.

   (Paragraphs 11-13 intentionally omitted)

   14.That within 24 hours of a payment referred to in Order 10 above the respondent shall provide the applicant wife a memorandum stating the amounts so paid.

   15.That the amounts paid to the respondent husband’s lawyers referred to in Order 10 above be held in trust by the respondent husband’s lawyers and not be applied in payment until such time as the same amount has been paid to the applicant wife’s lawyers, and in the event that such a payment to the applicant wife’s lawyers has not been made in accordance with Order 10 above the respondent husband forthwith direct his lawyers to pay 50 percent of the amounts so held in trust to the applicant wife’s lawyers.

   16.That the amounts paid to the applicant wife’s lawyers under these orders be applied to the payment of the applicant wife’s legal costs and outlays incurred in the conduct of these proceedings.

5. Procedural orders for trial:

   11.That the orders of 20 June 2017 in relation to valuations, Annexure marked “A” be extended to include any new entities in which the husband has an interest, including but not limited to:

   11.1[T] Pty Ltd;

   11.2[U] Pty Ltd;

   11.3     [V] Trust;

   And further that the costs of the valuations as set out in the orders be shared equally between the parties pursuant to Orders 12 to 16.

   (Paragraphs 12-16 intentionally omitted)

   17.That within 14 days of the date of these orders the respondent husband be ordered to produce to the applicant wife full and complete disclosure in relation to all of his financial affairs including but not limited to:

   17.3Copies of all accounts rendered by the respondent husband’s past and current solicitors, barristers and accountants in relation to matters the subject of these proceedings as well as those in the Supreme Court between the parties under case number 2017/00151529, including evidence of any monies held in trust.

   18.That within 14 days of the date of these orders the respondent husband be ordered to produce to the applicant wife full and complete disclosure including all information in relation to the business from which he currently operates, including but not limited to:

   18.1The entities [T] Pty Ltd, [V] Trust, [U] Pty Ltd including bank account statements from the date of inception to the date of these orders;

   18.2Copies of employment contracts and rates of pay of all employees working at the [business] previously employed by the party’s businesses;

   18.3Details of, including copies of all documentation in relation to, … service arrangements of all [employees] and services operating at the [business] that previously operated at the party’s businesses.

   (Paragraph 19 intentionally omitted)

   20.That a trial date be determined for the matter as soon as possible, including trial directions, in particular in relation to the date of valuation to be adopted.

6. Orders for interim costs:

   12.[Dollar for dollar order:] That within 14 days of the date of these orders the respondent husband pay:

   12.1A lump sum of $14,300 to the applicant wife;

   12.2 The sum of $50,000 to the applicant wife to be utilised on account of the costs of the applicant wife of these proceedings.

   13.That within 7 days after the payment by or on behalf of the respondent husband of any money in payment of accounts:

   13.1Rendered by the respondent husband’s lawyers in respect of these proceedings;

   13.2Rendered by any accountant, valuer or other expert engaged by the husband in respect of these proceedings;

   The respondent husband pay the same amount of money to the applicant wife’s lawyers and the respondent husband’s solicitors be prevented from using any payment made in relation to their accounts rendered until payment of the same amount to the solicitors of the applicant wife.

7. It is apparent from consideration of these orders just how dysfunctional the operation of the parties’ entities has become.

8. The wife is asking the Court to exclude the husband in every way, including his physical removal from the premises from the business, however is also seeking orders compelling the husband to sign financial documents for funding of the business and in relation to outstanding accounts. Further, the orders proposed would make the manager’s role one of protecting the interests of the entities from the husband.

9. Also submitted was that the wife was trying to preserve the assets of the parties pending final hearing.

10. The orders sought by the husband are for dismissal of the wife’s Amended Application and for appointment of receivers and managers set out in Orders 3, 4 and 5 and Order 6 gives each party the entitlement to purchase the health centre in the event that that party wishes to do so. It is implicit in Order 4 that the receivers, if appointed, would have all of the powers of receivers as set out in s 420(2)(a)-(w) of the Corporations Act 2001.

A Binding Financial Agreement

1. Underlying the dispute and identified as a matter for final hearing is the issue of a Binding Financial Agreement entered into by the parties on 4 February 2011 during the course of their marriage.

2. The husband seeks a declaration that the agreement is a valid enforceable financial agreement.[2] The wife presses an application for the agreement to be declared invalid or to be set aside.

   [2] Section 90KA

3. For the purpose of this application, the husband’s position is that his orders sought are consistent with the implementation of the Binding Financial Agreement. The position of the wife is that his position is not so consistent. That will be a matter for final hearing.

The Role of The Manager

1. The interim orders made appointing Mr L as manager were made in the Federal Circuit Court on 14 July 2017 after consideration of written submissions by each party.  Given the significance of that appointment in these proceedings I reproduce the orders and notation in full here:

   1.[Mr L] be appointed forthwith as an independent interim manager to manage the continuing operation of the business of [K Centre] (“[KC]” – also referred to as the “business”), including but not limited to entities such as [G Pty Ltd] (“[GPL]”), [Mr Scott] Superannuation Fund 2 (“MSSF2”), [Scott] Family Trust, [F] Trust and [E] Pty Ltd (“[EPL]”).

   2.That in connection with the conduct of the business [Mr L] is hereby authorised to act on behalf of the above mentioned business and entities including but not limited to acting as signatory of the bank accounts at [W] Bank, being account numbers …99, …11, …40, …40 and further, shall continue to pay each of the parties remuneration calculated in the same manner as at the date of separation.

   3.Each of the Applicant and Respondent shall comply with all reasonable requests of [Mr L] in connection with the conduct of the business and associated entities.

   4.Both parties are to remain involved in the conduct of the business subject to the direction of [Mr L], and both parties are to receive the same remuneration from the business and in the same manner as has been the case prior to their separation on or about 13 June 2015.

   5.Leave is granted to the parties to file terms of settlement with chambers.

   6.The matter is adjourned to 9:30am on 19 September 2016 at [X Town] for directions hearing.

   THE COURT NOTES THAT:

   A.The parties are attending upon a private mediator on 26 July 2016.

2. The appointment of an independent interim manager has proved to be problematic. Far from being an interim measure, the manager’s role has continued now for one year and eight months.

3. Counsel for the wife submitted that there was no evidence to support a proposition raised by me that the orders were intended to address the running of a jointly owned business and associated entities until the parties reached agreement in mediation. Counsel is probably correct about that. 

4. Although there is a notation to the order that the parties would attend upon a private mediator 12 days after the order, the Court was not in a position to predict a positive outcome by way of settlement. In fact the mediation took place and was unsuccessful.

5. What is more certain is that a directions hearing was set down for 19 September 2016 with a view to progressing the matter for hearing.

6. On 22 November 2016 the proceedings were set down for a four day trial commencing 30 May 2017.

7. By then, there were multiple Applications in a Case pressing for implementation of the Binding Financial Agreement [the husband] and restraints on the involvement of the husband in the business [the wife]. That trial did not proceed but the role of the manager, by default, remained in place, in increasingly fractious circumstances as set out above.

8. On 20 June 2017 orders were made in respect of valuation of the business and related entities. The manager, Mr L, was ordered to undertake the valuations.

9. By then another issue had risen which was the husband’s wish to restrain the wife from selling a property at Y Street, M Town. Ultimately, the wife sold that property at or around the time the application was considered.  The circumstances of the timing of that sale too are a matter for final hearing.

1. In October 2017 the husband purchased a business within the locality of K Town Health Service (“KHS”).

2. In his first affidavit the manager refers to having been pressed by solicitors for the husband to confirm whether or not the business was trading insolvently. The manager gave evidence that he had difficulty in answering this question “without knowing whether the respondent’s actions are to be considered in this regard.”

3. It may be that the interpretation of Order 4 of 14 July 2016 where the words “both parties are to remain involved in the conduct of the business subject to the direction of [Mr L] …” has been interpreted as a mandatory order for the husband to remain in the business. Clearly that could not be the case. Rather it was to enable or authorise both parties to continue in their current employment. That the husband left the business is an agreed fact. The reasons why he did so may or may not be an issue in the final hearing but it is undoubtedly the case that his absence has led to a financial deterioration for the entities.

Conclusion

1. For the wife it was strongly argued that it was just and convenient, pursuant to s 114(3) of the Act, for the Court to make orders restraining the husband in the way set out in these reasons but also compelling the husband to sign the rollover document which would enable the business to continue to operate. The injustice of that proposition is obvious.

2. In my view the manager has been placed in an increasingly untenable position. In his second affidavit the manager asks for further orders from the Court as follows:[3]

   [3] Affidavit of Mr L filed 9 March 2018, Annexure A, pg 4

   1.When considering insolvency, can I include as item of income not received, the amount [Mr Scott’s] service fee income that [K Town] Health Care ([KC]) should have been entitled to?

   2.In addition thereto, I would ask that the judge order Mr Scott to make a regular monthly payment towards the running costs of [KC] - I would suggest 50 percent of the service fee he should have been paying, set at $6,000 per month plus GST.

   3.Authorise the sale of the 2 remaining vehicles. The net value of vehicle & tractor taken over by [Mr Scott] can be dealt with at settlement.

   4.Instruct [Mr Scott] to sign [ZB] documents [[Z Bank] rollover document]. (Statement of claim lodged by [ZB] dated 15 February 2018)

   5.Instruct [Mr Scott] to sign other refinance documents as requested.

   6.Authorise me to continue to restrict information supplied to [Mr Scott].

   7.Issue instruction to [Mr Scott] to not to attend premises.

   8.Order the provision of records so I can complete valuations.

   9.Confirm that [Mr Scott] and [Ms Scott] are personally liable for my costs.

   10.In respect of the above, I would ask that [Mr Scott] be ordered to pay me $20,000 forthwith to match personal monies paid by [Ms Scott], and further that should the Court order distribution of monies by [Mr Scott] to [Ms Scott], that some of those monies be applied to bringing my account up to normal trading terms.

   (References omitted)

3. The manager also asked the Court to consider removing the report prepared by Mr P on the basis that he was not an independent expert witness.

4. Those questions starkly reveal the dilemma of the manager. He needs the income that was anticipated by Mr Scott’s ongoing involvement in the business, but recognising the level of dispute which affects not only the parties but staff and clients of the business, wishes to exclude him from the operation.

5. In my view the position of the manager should not continue.

6. In relation to having the entities valued the position of the wife was that Mr L should proceed to conduct the valuations but it is hard to see in the circumstances how that could be a workable arrangement.

7. I accept the submission on behalf of the wife that it may be difficult for her to finance a buy-out of the business in the event that receivers put it up for sale. However, that is not a sufficient basis for allowing the current arrangement to continue.

8. On behalf of the husband it was submitted that it would be just and convenient proceeding under the power in s 81(1)(k) of the Act to appoint receivers to crystallise the assets and thus preserve them in the circumstances. The submission was made, “that the fabric of the management has been shredded and is unworkable.” I conclude that the evidence supports such a position.

9. The apportionment of blame, if that is how the final hearing proceeds, is not a matter for this application. 

10. I also accept that there is far from sufficient evidence to justify orders restricting the access of the husband to businesses jointly owned by himself and the wife without clear evidence of behaviour by him justifying such a course.

11. Accordingly in the circumstances, I make orders in accordance with the Response document of the husband noting that it is implicit in Order 4 that the receivers would have powers under s 420(2)(a)-(w) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

12. There will also be an order discharging the manager and directing the parties to meet his expenses to date. Mr L was appointed by the Court and has done his best to do what was ordered. His fees should be met from the joint assets of the parties.

13. The report of Mr P, together with his letter of 15 February 2018,[4] expresses his professional opinion that the business of K Centre is currently insolvent and represents a significant risk to creditors should it be permitted to continue. This is of course a serious matter with implications for both parties if found to be the case.

    [4] Exhibit E1

14. The wife disputes insolvency. It is not necessary in this proceeding to come to a finding on whether or not the business is insolvent. Given the history of events, the risk of it becoming insolvent, if not already so, is high.

I certify that the preceding fifty seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 11 May 2018.

Associate

Date:  11 May 2018

Current Liabilities (exceeding KC resources)

Liability	Being	Identifier		Source	Balance	Sub Total
1 W Bank	1.1 Personal Loan	#...99		W Online Banking	-$301,331
1.2 Business Loan	#...00		W Online Banking	-$490,610
1.3 Business Loan	#...41		W Online Banking	-$201,645
-$993,586
2 ZB Specialist	2.1 Motor vehicle	58431		ZB Schedule from Ms AA provided by Ms Scott	-$19,095
2.2 Solar Panels	61622		ZB Schedule from Ms AA provided by Ms Scott	-$13,950
2.3 Tractor	64396		ZB Schedule from Ms AA provided by Ms Scott	-$10,887
2.4 Solar Panels x2	77575		ZB Schedule from Ms AA provided by Ms Scott	-$25,151
2.5 Suite 2 Fit Out	A3874		ZB Schedule from Ms AA provided by Ms Scott	-$139,281
-$208,364
3 Australian Taxation Office	3.1 E Pty Ltd atf SFT	Integrated Client Account		ZB	-$88,912
3.2 G Pty Ltd	Integrated Client Account		ZB	-$32,968
3.3 G Pty Ltd	Integrated Client Account		BAS revision, Mr Scott PAYGWHY (unpaid by management)	-$51,686	*+
-$173,566
4 Employee Entitlements	4.1 Employee Superannuation Guarantee	SFT Employees		ZB – Est	-$15,000
4.2 Employee Leave Entitlements	SFT Employees		Estimated	-$34,700
4.3 Employee Leave Entitlements	GPL Employee – Mr Scott		By Calculation: MS 19yrs x 0.867 x $286000 / 52	-$90,602
4.4 Accrued Wages	Unpaid to Mr Scott		By Calculation; FY16 Net Unpaid, YTD17 Unpaid (see note)	-$155,560	*
-$295,861
5 Accounts Payable	5.1 Professional Fees	Accountants		ZB – Est	-$71,000
5.2 Expenses for reimbursement	Mr Scott		ZB – Est	-$6,000
5.3 Trade Accounts Payable	Suppliers		ZB – Est	-$10,000
-$87,000
6 Other Creditors – Mr Scott	6.1 G2 Pty Ltd	Expenses for reimbursement		G2 Xero Ledger	-$15,707
6.2 Mr Scott Rural Incentive Payment	FY16 to Rural Practitioners		HIC Remittance Advice	-$18,000
7.2  Mr Scott Rural Incentive Payment	FY17 to Rural Practitioners		HIC Remittance Advice	-$21,159
-$54,866
Grand Total	-$1,813,243
* Note – Mr Scott Unpaid Wages / Unpaid PAYGWHT
FY16
Gross Per ZB Issued Pmt Summary		266,886
PAYG WHT Per ZB Issued Pmt Summary		-64,569
PAYG WHT BAS Revision – Unpaid by mgmt.		-36,163 *+
Net Due		166,157
Actually Received		-61,228
Net Unpaid to Mr Scott – FY16		104,929
FY17
Gross Per Court Order		80,000
PAYG WHT		-3,249
PAYG WHT BAS Revision – Unpaid by mgmt.		-15,523 *+
Net Due		61,228
Actually Received		-10,597
Net Unpaid to Mr Scott – FY17		50,361
Net Unpaid to Mr Scott – FY16 & FY17		155,560 *