Page 3 relation to the proceedings No: 4586 of 2001, 5093 of 2001, 1636 of 2002 and 1639 of 2002 issued in the Supreme Court and proceedings No 1437 of 2001 in the District Court" [1]] Between 6 May 2002 and 17 May 2002, three notices of motion were filed by various defendants in proceedings No 4586 of 2001, seeking orders that the proceedings be dismissed as incompetent and that Massey Bailey pay the defendants' costs of those proceedings; and on 16 May 2002, Massey Bailey filed a notice of motion in proceeding: No 4536 of 2001, for orders pursuant to : 1321(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Oth) to the effect that Zimmerman Holdings's act in retaining Massey Bailey for the purposes of these proceed- inge was "not invalid". Similar orders were sought by a notice of motion dated 16 May 2002, by Yaqob Rajwan and Baruch Rajwan. [12] On 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 May 2002, the various notices of motion in proceedings No 4586 of 2001 and No 1639 of 2002 were heard by Bryson J. He gave the principal judgment on 22 May, and on that day he made the following orders: On the sixth defendant's notice of motion of 6 May 2002, the first and second defendants' notice of motion of 10 May 2002 and the third, fourth and fifth defendants' notice of motion of 16 May 2002 1 order that the allegations and claims of the first plaintiff be dismissed as incompetent. (3003) 37 NEWER 718 #4 721 In proceedings 4386 of 2001 the notice of motion of Massey Bailey solicitors dated 16 May 2002 is dismissed with costs. 5 In proceedings 4386 of 2001 the notice of motion of the second and third plaintiffs dated 17 May 2002 is dismissed with costs. In proceedings 1639 of 2002. the notice of motion of Massey Bailey solicitors dated 16 May 2002 is dismissed with costs." The first order I have given in the form to which it was amended on 23 May 2002 [13] On 24 May 2002, Bryson J ordered in proceeding: No 1639 of 2002 that Zimmerman Holdings be wound up and that Neil Cuesen be appointed liquidator. [14] On 31 May 2002, Bryson J ordered that Massey Bailey pay the costs of the defendants in proceedings No 4586 of 2002 on an indemnity basis, and that the