42 The scheme for distribution of assets of the estate and the trust provided for the distribution to the plaintiff from the trust of the property at Samora Avenue, Cremorne and payment of a sum of $30,000. The scheme stated that the balance of the estate assets totalling $1,457,015 less liabilities of the estate of $420,000, that is, a net amount of $1,037,015, would be retained by Mr Ekstein and his family. Included in the assets of $1,457,015 were debts due to the estate of $864,000. That sum was shown in the summary of assets and liabilities of the estate prepared by Mr Ward-Harvey and included a debt of $414,924 due to the estate from the trust. The scheme then proposed that certain of the trust assets, namely the shares in Elysee Pty Ltd and the Highbridge Road property, would be retained by Mr Ekstein and his family. Separate provision was made for another trust asset, namely a property at Milson Road, Cremorne. What was not stated in the scheme for distribution was how the balance of the assets of the trust would be applied. The balance sheet for the trust as at 30 June 2002 included cash at bank and loans at call of $224,530. As at 30 June 2003 cash at bank was recorded at $96,684 and there were no recorded loans owed to the trust.
43 The statement of assets of the trust to be retained by Mr Ekstein and his family did not include a separate statement of cash or debts which were trust assets. It is not possible to say from the financial statements of which discovery was given what sum was owed by the trust to the estate as at 30 June 2003. There was no statement of the makeup of the trust's liabilities as at 30 June 2003. They were not brought to account in the document showing the distribution. There may well be nothing untoward about this. There would be a double counting if the assets retained by Mr Ekstein and his family included both the debt owed to the estate by the trust and the assets of the trust which would be used to satisfy the debt, without taking account of the trust's liability to the estate. But without a break-up of the assets of the trust and the liabilities of the trust as at 30 June 2003 it is impossible to say whether the scheme did provide for an equal or approximately equal distribution.
44 The plaintiff submitted that if the trust accounts showed a liability of $100,000 not recognised by the estate as an asset, it is likely that the total pool of assets for distribution has been understated by that sum. I do not accept that that is probable, given that the scheme for distribution of assets left both the debts owed to the estate and the assets and liabilities of the trust (other than the Samora Avenue property) in the hands of Mr Ekstein and his family. But it is simply not possible to say from the financial statements of the trust that have been discovered, and the one-page statement as to how the trust and estate assets were valued and distributed, without any statement of the totality of the trust's assets or any statement of its liabilities, whether there was a sound basis for the scheme. I agree with the plaintiff's submission that insufficient records have been provided to explain the discrepancy apparently raised by the additional debt of $100,000 described as a "liability" owed by the trust to Otto Ekstein "Contra to Trust".
45 Even if, as Mr Ekstein asserts, the plaintiff is precluded from obtaining a proper accounting, that is no reason he should not be required to discover all the documents required to determine whether or not the scheme does give effect to the wishes of Otto Ekstein as recorded in his last will. It can now be seen that the limited discovery ordered by the Registrar is manifestly inadequate for that purpose.
46 The Registrar ordered discovery of "All documents setting out or relating to any distribution of assets or income of the Otto Ekstein Family Trust as and from 13 May 1992". Because the Registrar refused to order discovery of financial statements or income tax returns from 13 May 1992 Mr Ekstein gave discovery of single pages from the tax returns stating how trust income was distributed. In amendments to the statement of claim following discovery, the plaintiff alleges that over the period from 1992 to 2003 there were distributions totalling $395,950 over the period of which the reported distributions to the plaintiff were only $82,820. The plaintiff alleges that she did not in fact receive the amounts which according to the trust tax returns were distributed to her and alleges that in any event in accordance with the declarations made by Windeyer J in the 1998 proceedings and the wishes expressed by Otto Ekstein in his will, she was entitled to 50 per cent of the distributions. Mr Ekstein denies that the distributions disclosed in the trust tax returns were as pleaded by the plaintiff. I was taken to an example of that by Mr Burchett who appeared for Mr Ekstein. The reason, as explained by counsel, that Mr Ekstein contends the plaintiff's statement of distributions is wrong is that for the years 1992-1994 the plaintiff alleges that no trust income was distributed to Mischa Ekstein, whereas the discovered documents state that the balance of the trust income for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 financial years was distributed to Mischa Ekstein.
47 What this submission demonstrates is that the defendant did not give proper discovery in accordance with the Registrar's orders. To comply with the order showing what income was distributed, it would be necessary for the defendant to discover the tax return that showed what was the whole of the trust income for the year so that the "balance" said to have been distributed to Mischa Ekstein could be calculated. Whatever that balance was, assuming it to be more than nil, it will increase the size of the plaintiff's claim. Even under the existing discovery orders she is entitled to that information.
48 However, the plaintiff goes further. The defence alleges that the distributions to the plaintiff were made by being applied in reduction of a debt the plaintiff owed to the trust, which as at 1992 was $108,843.70. The plaintiff is entitled to the trust records that refer to such a debt and its reduction.
49 Mr Bilinsky deposed that the plaintiff's debt was also reduced by her receipt of director's fees from Elysee in 1995, 1996 and 1997. The scheme for distribution of trust and estate assets took into account a debt said to be owed by the plaintiff to the trust of $39,000. The plaintiff says that there is a discrepancy of over $58,000 between what Mr Ekstein through his solicitor asserts to have been the debt she owed to the estate as at 1992 after reduction for credit of director's fees from Elysee Pty Ltd and the closing balance of $39,000 recorded in the scheme statement and the distributions recorded in the income tax returns. She says that she did not receive the amounts the income tax returns state were distributed to her. Prima facie, the plaintiff's contentions are plausible and will require an answer. The plaintiff's allegation that she has not been paid the income she ought to have been paid in accordance with the declarations made by Windeyer J and the quantification of that claim cannot be determined on the limited discovery that has been given to date.
50 Another example of the inadequacy of the existing discovery concerns the plaintiff's complaint about the distribution of assets set out in the scheme document so far as concerns the valuation of the trust's shares in Elysee Pty Ltd. In the scheme document those shares are valued at $2,601,603 said to be based on net asset backing. Most of the shares in Elysee Pty Ltd were owned by the trust and the estate and under the scheme all of those shares in Elysee Pty Ltd were retained by Mr Ekstein or his family. The plaintiff complains that Mr Ekstein has not explained how the figure of $2,601,603 was arrived at. The financial statements for Elysee Pty Ltd (and the trust) were prepared on an historical cost basis. I accept that on the material discovered, and in the absence of any account from the defendant, it is not possible for there to be a fair trial of the issue concerning the fairness of the figure of $2,601,603. The plaintiff argues that it should be inferred that one of the properties owned by Elysee Pty Ltd at Turramurra was brought into the scheme at a value of $414,995, but was sold in the following financial year for $648,889. There is a degree of speculation in the reasoning, but there should be no need for speculation. The plaintiff should have discovery of documents which show the facts. The plaintiff is entitled to discovery of all of the documents relevant to how the scheme was prepared and as to how values were attributed to the assets referred to in the scheme.
51 Another illustration of the inadequacy of the present discovery concerns the financial statements of the fifth and sixth defendants, HP Holdings Pty Ltd and Newton & Co Pty Ltd. The financial statements of Newton & Co Pty Ltd for the year ended 30 June 2005 record a loan made by that company to the estate of $500,000. The plaintiff pleads that no such loan was made, that Mr Ward-Harvey had denied all knowledge of such a loan, that she had sought an explanation from Mr Ekstein about the loan, and that no explanation had been provided. These allegations are admitted. Mr Ekstein pleads that the financial statements were in error. He pleads that Newton & Co Pty Ltd paid $500,000 to Mr Ward-Harvey on behalf of the estate and that the payment was a loan made by Newton & Co Pty Ltd to HP Holdings Pty Ltd to enable HP Holdings Pty Ltd to discharge part of its liability to the partnership between the late Otto Ekstein and the late Sydney Frish and should have been so recorded. The plaintiff makes a similar allegation concerning the financial statements of HP Holdings Pty Ltd for the financial year ended 30 June 2005. She alleges that the financial statements record that HP Holdings Pty Ltd lent $151,234 to the estate in that financial year, whereas that was not the fact. She alleges that she wrote to Mr Ekstein with information that the executor denied all knowledge of the purported loan, asked for an explanation, and none was provided. These allegations are substantially admitted, or not denied. HP Holdings Pty Ltd pleads that its financial statements were inaccurate in that the payment of $151,234 to the estate was not a loan to the estate but was a payment in part-satisfaction of a loan from the partnership of the late Otto Ekstein and the late Sydney Frish to HP Holdings Pty Ltd and was received by the executor as a distribution to the estate from the Frish/Ekstein partnership.
52 Discovery of documents relating to these issues is required in any event because the issues arise from the plaintiff's amendments to her statement of claim. The relevance of these matters for present purposes is that they demonstrate that it is unsafe for the court to assume the accuracy of the financial statements. The financial statements were not audited.
53 The defendants submitted that because no application was made to review the Registrar's decision on discovery, discovery should be limited to those categories of documents ordered by the Registrar, except to the extent that additional documents might be required to be discovered by reason of the plaintiff's amendments to her statement of claim. The defendants submitted that although the Registrar's decision was an interlocutory decision on a matter of practice and procedure, it should not be departed from unless there had been a material change of circumstances. The only material change, so it was submitted, was the amendments to the plaintiff's pleadings.
54 There is force in this submission, but there have been material changes in circumstances since the Registrar's orders that require a fresh approach to discovery. The first is that there have been substantial amendments to the plaintiff's pleadings. Almost all of the additional categories of documents of which discovery is sought are relevant to issues raised by the amendments. The fact that many of them are also relevant to the issues raised on the pleadings before they were amended, and discovery was refused, is not a sufficient ground for refusing an order now. Secondly, leave has now been given for the plaintiff to bring proceedings on behalf of the second to sixth defendants against Mr Ekstein for alleged breaches of his duty as a director. This is a material change of circumstance. It is not possible to say to what extent the absence of such leave influenced the Registrar's decision. Thirdly, the limited nature of the discovery which has been given pursuant to the Registrar's earlier orders has demonstrated that further discovery is required if the proceedings are to be fairly tried.
55 Mr Burchett for Mr Ekstein submitted that it would be oppressive to require Mr Ekstein to give discovery to the extent sought and for the period sought. He submitted that it was self-evidently oppressive to require discovery of documents from the date of the late Otto Ekstein's death in 1992. I do not agree. There was no evidence from Mr Ekstein that the discovery sought would be oppressive. The only evidence on the question was from Mr Bilinksky, Mr Ekstein's solicitor. Mr Bilinsky deposed:
" The new List of Categories addressed to the First and Second Defendant [sic] are [sic] an extremely detailed request which includes revisiting matters that have previously been dealt with in the discovery process. I estimate that for the First Defendant to comply with the 127 paragraphs of categories would require searches and inquiries of numerous entities and would take a great deal of time and involve substantial additional expense. "
56 I accept that compliance with the orders for discovery sought by the plaintiff would require Mr Ekstein and his advisors to "revisit matters" that had previously been dealt with in the discovery process and would require searches and perhaps inquiries that would take considerable time and additional expense. However, I bear in mind that Mr Ekstein has not taken any steps to limit the inquiry by proffering an account of the transactions with the trust property. The need to "revisit matters" will substantially be due to what I consider to have been an inappropriately confined approach to the giving of discovery in 2005 and 2006. Nor is it self-evident that it will be onerous for Mr Ekstein to give discovery of documents relating to the affairs of the companies and the trusts dating back to 1992. From at least the time proceedings were instituted in 1998 he was aware that the plaintiff was seeking an account. One should presume that Mr Ekstein maintained the documents which would be required for that purpose even if he did not prepare accounts at the time. There is no reason to assume that such documents have been lost or destroyed. The presumption is to the contrary.
Discovery by first defendant
57 I turn then to the categories of documents for which the plaintiff seeks discovery from Mr Ekstein. These run to 137 categories over 18 pages. I will not set them out in full.
58 Category 1 seeks Mr Ekstein's accounts or draft accounts or interim accounts of his administration of the trust. I reject the first defendant's submission that the plaintiff should only have discovery of documents from 1999. It is not oppressive to require that any accounts or draft accounts which have been prepared be discovered. They are clearly relevant. The first defendant should give discovery of any documents falling within category 1 without limitation as to date.
59 The documents in category 2 will be discovered as they are trust records. If, and to the extent that, they are not produced as trust records, they should be discovered.
60 Orders have already been made for the documents in category 3. Those orders have not been fully complied with but should be.
61 The plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the documents in categories 4-8 to the extent they have not already been discovered. Almost all the documents sought would be trust records. To the extent they have not already been discovered and are not produced as trust records, discovery should be given.
62 Categories 9-11, 15 and 16 concern advices that the first defendant might have received in relation to the effect of Otto Ekstein's will and the first defendant's obligations as trustee or the executor. The documents are relevant to Mr Ekstein's claim that any breach of trust should be excused. I express no view as to whether any legal advice would be privileged or whether the existing pleadings would involve a waiver of any privilege which might otherwise attach. If there are documents over which privilege is to be claimed, the claim should be made in the usual way. The possibility of privilege being claimed is not a reason for refusing to make the order for discovery. I will therefore order discovery of the documents sought in these categories.
63 I do not accept that the documents sought in category 12 are irrelevant. Nor would it be oppressive to discover any records of communications between the named persons concerning the subject matters dealt with in category 12. The first defendant raises the termination of the partnership agreement as a reason why effect cannot be given to the deceased's wishes expressed in his will. The circumstances of the termination and any subsequent arrangement between the partners could well be relevant to the first defendant's contention. Discovery should be given of the documents in categories 12 and 13.
64 Mr Ekstein made no objection to categories 14 and 17 other than the lateness with which the request was made. It is surprising that these categories were not directly sought in 2005. However, the categories of documents for which discovery was sought in 2005 would probably have caught at least most documents which would come within categories 14 and 17, although the application then made was unsuccessful. The documents in categories 14 and 17 are highly relevant to the issues in the proceedings and I will make an order for discovery of documents in those categories.
65 Category 18 seeks discovery of correspondence with Mr Ward-Harvey in relation to the plaintiff or in relation to any defendant. That request is too wide. It would require Mr Ekstein to search documents which may have no relevance to any issue in the proceedings. I reject category 18.
66 Category 19 is relevant and will be expanded to include correspondence with the seventh defendant. Discovery should be given of documents within category 19 as so expanded.
67 Category 20 seeks discovery of valuations obtained or received in relation to the assets of the trust. That is objected to on the grounds that it is oppressively wide and has no necessary connection with any issue in the proceedings. Valuations relevant to the preparation of the scheme for distribution are clearly relevant. That includes valuations received by Mr Ekstein whether used by him or not. It is hard to draw a line as to when an earlier valuation would cease to be relevant. Whilst acknowledging that there is a degree of arbitrariness in the assessment, I consider that valuations obtained or received from 4 October 2000 (being the date of the court's orders in the earlier proceedings) in relation to assets of the trust should be discovered.
68 Category 21 seeks such valuations in relation to any asset dealt with by the scheme. I will order discovery of such valuations obtained or received from 4 October 2000. Mr Burchett submitted that the request was fishing and sought documents going to the reasons for the trustee's ascribing values to assets without any basis for impugning his decisions. So far as appears on the present application, the information provided to the plaintiff as to the basis upon which the scheme was prepared and values attributed to assets of the estate and the trust was skimpy in the extreme. This is an example of where discovery is required before particulars.
69 Category 22 seeks discovery of records concerning any proposal to enter into a deed dated 21 September 2004 between Mr Ekstein and Mr Ward-Harvey. Mr Burchett submitted that the documents sought were not relevant to any issue in the proceedings. However the plaintiff challenges the deed by amendments to the plaintiff's statement of claim allowed on 11 March 2009. The documents sought in category 22 are relevant to the issues raised in para 50.2 of the amended statement of claim and para 48 of the defence. I allow discovery of documents in that category.
70 Category 23 seeks the discovery of documents which the Registrar ordered to be discovered. There is no need to make an order for discovery in that category.
71 Cateogories 24-27 seek discovery of documents in relation to terms of settlement between the estate and Sonja Ekstein. Objection is taken on the grounds of relevance. The scheme provided for Mr Ekstein to retain $340,000 to cover an annuity payable to Mrs Sonja Ekstein. This is an example of a topic on which the plaintiff is entitled to discovery before being required to plead. Objection is also taken on the ground that discovery is sought from an "inappropriate party". This is not a proper basis for objecting to discovery. If Mr Ekstein does not have documents in his possession, custody or power, then there will be nothing to discover. The fact that it can be expected that documents in the categories sought would be in the possession of another party, in this case Mr Ward-Harvey, is no reason for Mr Ekstein not giving discovery if he has documents in his possession, custody or power. Mr Ward-Harvey did not object to producing any documents he has of this character. The plaintiff is entitled to the discovery sought against Mr Ekstein in these categories.
72 Objection was taken to category 28 which seeks the production of "Records of the Frish/Ekstein partnership and its transactions". There was no limitation as to date and counsel for Mr Ekstein objected that the discovery sought would require Mr Ekstein to trawl through any family records that he might have of business transactions of the late Mr Otto Ekstein and the late Mr Sydney Frish which could go back decades as far as the 1950s in relation to transactions which are of no relevance. There is force in that submission. Counsel for the plaintiff was prepared to limit the records sought to those coming into existence since the death of the late Mr Otto Ekstein. This would confine the discovery to transactions of the partnership (or former partnership) to which Mr Ward-Harvey was presumably a party. If Mr Ekstein had any such documents it is likely that they would be relevant to the determination of the value of the estate's interest in the partnership, the value of which was used in the calculation of the amounts to be retained by Mr Ekstein and his family and is relevant to the scheme for distribution of the assets of the estate and trust. The same is true of the documents sought in category 31. Accordingly the first defendant should give discovery of any documents in his possession, custody or power coming into existence after the death of the late Otto Ekstein in categories 28 and 31.
73 The documents sought in categories 29 and 30 are clearly relevant to the allegations in para 32D.14 of the amended statement of claim. Discovery of the documents in category 29 may have been required under the Registrar's order requiring discovery of documents in category 25 of the list of categories of documents for discovery by the first defendant dated 12 July 2005. The first defendant should give discovery of documents in those categories except insofar as discovery of documents in those categories has already been given.
74 The first defendant did not object to giving discovery of the documents sought in categories 32, 33, 36 or 37, save for the documents referred to in the "inclusive definition", presumably the particular documents referred to in paras 32(a)-(f) and para 36(a)-(e). I do not consider that the documents in those sub-paragraphs go beyond what is relevant to an issue (as alleged by the first defendant) or go beyond what "[could] reasonably be expected to be within the possession of the first defendant". If none of the documents sought are within the possession, custody or power of the first defendant, he will not be required to give discovery. However, if documents in categories 32, 33, 36 or 37 are in the first defendant's possession, custody or power, he should give discovery of them.
75 The objection to categories 34 and 35 is that the categories have "nothing to do with the first defendant". The documents are relevant and if the first defendant does have possession, custody or power of the documents in those categories he should give discovery of them.
76 The documents sought in categories 38-40 are also relevant. I see no reason to limit the period of time for which the discovery is sought as contended for by the first defendant. The first defendant should give discovery of the documents in categories 38-40.
77 Category 41 seeks discovery of valuations and appraisals of the property of Elysee Pty Ltd at Burton Street, Kirribilli. It is clear from the correspondence between the solicitors that Mr Ekstein obtained a valuation of the property. He contends that he did not use it in calculating the value of the shares of Elysee Pty Ltd and therefore was not required to discover it. He contends that the valuation was lower than the valuation he in fact used. Whether or not this was a proper construction of the orders of the Registrar, the documents are relevant. The first defendant should give discovery of the documents sought in category 41.
78 Category 42 seeks discovery of "Communications concerning [the first defendant's] occupation of portion of the property owned by Elysee Pty Ltd at Burton Street, Kirribilli".
79 In my view that paragraph is too wide and is oppressive. It would extend to any document which Mr Ekstein may have received or brought into existence, and of which he kept a copy, concerning his occupation of the premises. For example, it would extend to a request to a plumber to fix a leaking tap in the premises he occupied. I reject category 42.
80 Category 43 seeks discovery of records of rent paid of the first defendant to Elysee Pty Ltd. These are clearly relevant. The learned Registrar refused to order that Mr Ekstein give discovery of documents setting out or referring to rent received by Elysee Pty Ltd in respect of the Kirribilli premises from 13 May 1992 on the basis that this was not an issue between the plaintiff and the first defendant and discovery should only be had from Elysee Pty Ltd. I do not agree with that reasoning. There is no doubt that the rent payable and paid by the first defendant to Elysee Pty Ltd up to July 2003 is relevant to determining the value of Elysee Pty Ltd's assets given that the Kirribilli property was valued by capitalising the income derived from it. The plaintiff is entitled to discovery from the first defendant as well as from Elysee Pty Ltd of documents sought in category 43.
81 Mr Ekstein objects to giving discovery of any documents in category 43 which post-date the distribution of the assets of the trust and estate in July 2003. The plaintiff does not seek an order to set aside the transfer of the shares held by the estate to Mr Ekstein or his nominee in Elysee Pty Ltd. The plaintiff pleads that she is a shareholder of Elysee Pty Ltd (amended statement of claim, para 53). This is admitted. There is an apparent inconsistency between this allegation and the allegation in para 79 of the amended statement of claim (also admitted) that "The totality of the shares in Elysee Pty Limited are owned or controlled by members of the Ekstein family" unless the plaintiff includes herself in that family. Notwithstanding this apparent inconsistency, I must proceed on the basis that the plaintiff is a shareholder of Elysee Pty Ltd. It was on this basis that she was given leave to bring derivative proceedings on its behalf against Mr Ekstein. The plaintiff seeks an order for the winding-up of Elysee Pty Ltd or the compulsory purchase of her shares. She alleges that Mr Ekstein has breached his duty as a director of Elysee Pty Ltd by occupying a portion of the premises at Kirribilli owned by Elysee Pty Ltd without paying to the company a proper commercial rental. That allegation is not confined to the position prior to 2003. She seeks an order that Mr Ekstein pay compensation or damages in respect of this alleged breach of his duty as a director. Accordingly, discovery of documents disclosing what rent has been paid for occupation of the Kirribilli premises should not be confined to the period before July 2003. The first defendant should give discovery of the documents sought in category 43 without being confined in the manner contended by the first defendant.
82 Categories 44-46 are relevant to the plaintiff's claims that Mr Ekstein was not entitled to receive director's fees or management fees from Elysee Pty Ltd. The documents are sought from 1992. Mr Ekstein says that this is too wide and outside "any limitation period". He submits that the plaintiff has no basis for impugning decisions as to the quantum of remuneration paid. However the plaintiff does plead the basis for impugning the payment of director's fees or fees for management. She pleads amongst other things that the company was without directors and that the articles of association of Elysee Pty Ltd stipulated that remuneration of the directors would be as determined from time to time by the company in general meeting. She pleads that there was no such determination and that fees paid to Mr Ekstein were paid without the company's authority. As well as denying these allegations, the first defendant pleads that all payments received by him were for legal and other services rendered by him and his firm in relation to the management of the company's property portfolio. He denies the plaintiff's pleading of the quantum of the sums which the plaintiff alleges were paid as director's fees and as management fees. The documents sought in categories 44-50 are relevant to these questions. I do not accept that they are oppressively wide. A further objection is taken to categories 47-50 namely that the request for discovery is not addressed to the "appropriate party", which should be Elysee Pty Ltd, the second defendant. Although this argument found favour with the Registrar, it is not well founded. If the first defendant has possession, custody or power of the documents in question, they should be discovered, regardless of whether they are in the possession, custody or power of the second defendant. The fact that both parties might be required to give discovery is not a reason for refusing discovery against both or either of them. I will therefore order discovery of the documents in categories 44-50.
83 Categories 51-53 are also relevant to the plaintiff's claims concerning Mr Ekstein's entitlement to receive fees from Elysee Pty Ltd. The first defendant's objection to discovery is that, as a shareholder and former director of the company, the plaintiff had all the access she could properly want to records such as notices of general meeting and records concerning the declaration and payment of dividends, as well as records concerning the appointment and retirement of directors. Counsel for the first defendant submitted that the plaintiff was seeking to "fish for yet more trivial informalities" by seeking documents in these categories. However, the documents in these categories are relevant and the first defendant's objection is not enhanced by hyperbole. The first defendant should give discovery of the documents in these categories.
84 In category 54 the plaintiff seeks discovery from the first defendant of the following documents:
" 54. Records of transactions between the second defendant and any of the following companies, persons or organisations since the death of Otto Felix Ekstein:
a. Paul George Ekstein (whether in his personal or any other capacity);
b. Boucher & Muir Pty Ltd;
c. H P Holdings Pty Ltd;
d. Newton & co Pty Ltd;
e. Boucher & Muir (Holdings) Pty Ltd;
f. Paul Ward Harvey as executor of the estate of the late Otto Felix Ekstein;
g. TaraMattBren Trust; and
h. Westpac Banking Corporation. "