ATTORNEY-AT-LAW and former Cash Plus liquidator, Hugh Wildman has described a decision by the Court of Appeal to allow the former receiver-managers for the failed investment scheme to claim fees and expenses totalling more than $270m from its assets as a "bad ruling".

Wildman last Friday failed in his bid in the Court of Appeal to get an order to bar the former co-interim receiver-managers from claiming fees and expenses from Cash Plus assets.

"I think it is a strong case for appeal to the (United Kingdom) Privy Council," he said yesterday.

Last month, Wildman used a Gleaner Editors' Forum to criticise the quality of rulings delivered by judges in Jamaica, arguing that they were not on par with the rulings handed down by their British counterparts.

Asked if he thought those comments impacted the decision of the Appeal Court, the former Cash Plus liquidator would only say "that's for the public to consider".

The former receiver-managers were appointed when Cash Plus went into liquidation in 2008.

Wildman had said if he was successful in the legal battle, he would use the money claimed by the former receiver-managers to pay depositors who have been anxiously waiting for their money.

It was reported that there are 45,000 depositors in the failed investment scheme and they are owed $10 billion.

The former receiver-mangers have so far been paid $100 million

In the judgment handed down last Friday, it was disclosed that during the time of their appointment between March 31, 2008, and October 2008, the former receiver-managers had racked up fees of $39.4 million and expenses of $246.3 million.

The Supreme Court had ruled on November 27, 2008, that the fees charged and to be charged by the former receiver managers must be paid in priority out of the collective assets of Cash Plus.

The then liquidator did not object to the money owed to the former receiver-managers or to the liability to pay them.

Appointed in 2009

Wildman was appointed Trustee in Bankruptcy and liquidator for Cash Plus Ltd in 2009.

Last year, he took the former receiver-managers to the Supreme Court seeking several declarations, one of which was that their appointment on March 31, 2008, was improper and ineffective.

Wildman also sought an order that the Supreme Court order made on November 11, 2008, approving fees and expenses for the receiver-managers be revoked.

The order and declaration were not granted by Justice Sinclair Haynes and Wildman appealed the matter.

Legal submissions were made in April by Wildman who represented Cash Plus, John Vassell, QC, and attorneys-at-law Courtney Williams and Julianne Mais-Cox who represented the former receiver-managers. Submissions were also made by attorney-at-law Melrose Reid and Kayann Balli who represented 'Madam A', the former Cash Plus employee who placed the company into liquidation.

The Court of Appeal comprising Justice Hazel Harris, Justice Hillary Phillips and Justice Patrick Brooks, dismissed the appeal yesterday.

The judges held that Justice Almarie Sinclair Haynes was entirely correct to hold that the Supreme Court judges had the authority to appoint the former co-interim receiver-managers and the authority to approve their remuneration.

Cash Plus Ltd has been ordered to pay 75 per cent of the legal costs for the former receiver-managers and is to pay the full legal costs of 'Madam A'.