Ann: Voluntary Suspension Update , page-42

If this makes it any clearer....Justice Hammerschlag's Conclusions:

87 The Deed is not an agreement to which s 925A(1) applies, and CHM had no entitlement to give a notice of rescission. Its attempt to rescind was of no effect.

88 It follows that:

a the Funder is entitled to enforce the Deed according to its tenor;

b the Charge is effective to secure performance of CHMs obligations under the Deed;

c the Receivers were validly appointed; and

d the injunction granted by Einstein J restraining them must be discharged.

and:

CONCLUSION

119 CHMs challenge to the appointment of the receivers has failed. The injunction ordered by Einstein J on 11 August 2010 is dissolved.

120 CHM and Cape Lambert have succeeded in relation to the construction and the operation of the Deed for which they have contended and appropriate declarations will be made.

121 The parties are to bring in short minutes reflecting this outcome, I will hear them with respect to the future conduct of these Proceedings and on costs.

122 The exhibits are to be returned.

Last to leave the room please turn out the lights