Please answer the following questions relating to the New Zealand High Court decision in Fatupaito v Bates [2001] 3 NZLR 386 which is mentioned on pages 170-171, 189 and 193 of the course textbook, Understanding Company Law.

(a)What were the legal grounds, relied on by the liquidators of Metalsmiths Ltd ('the company'), in arguing that Mr Bates was a director of the company?

(b)What were the arguments that the liquidators relied on, to convince the High Court that Mr Bates was a director of Metalsmiths Ltd?

(c)On which specific legal ground did the liquidators succeed, in establishing that Mr Bates was a director and why did they succeed?

(d)Mr Bates had argued he was only acting in a professional capacity in his dealings with the company and therefore should be excluded from being held to be a director

(i)What section of the CA 1993 did Mr Bates rely on for this argument?

(ii)Did he succeed in his argument and why did he succeed or not succeed?

(e)What were the specific directors' duties, that the liquidators had argued, Mr Bates had breached?

(f)Were the liquidators successful in their arguments about the particular duties that had been breached and why were they successful or not successful?

(g)The liquidators applied for a compensation order from the High Court for a sum of $59,517.59 for the loss Mr Bates had caused to the company's net asset position.

(h)Under what section of the CA 1993, were the liquidators applying for such an order?

Did the liquidators succeed in their claim and if they did, what was the amount of compensation ordered by the Court and under what specific section and paragraph of the relevant section in the CA 1993 was the Court order made?