Receiver commission must be based on actual realisations, not notional sale proceeds or excluded trade discount.

A receiver's commission must be computed on the real sale proceeds actually realised, not on a fictitious or notional amount never received. On that basis, trade discount was excluded from the commission base, while freight and packing charges could be included because they formed part of the sums actually received. The court also declined to remove the receivers, but held that their duties needed clearer definition to protect the estate. Any excess commission already retained was treated as a debt due to the estate and could be adjusted against future commission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the receivers should be removed or continued and, if continued, whether their duties required further definition; (ii) whether the receivers were entitled to commission on the gross figure including trade discount, or only on the amount actually realised, with commission also claimed on freight and packing charges.

Issue (i): Whether the receivers should be removed or continued and, if continued, whether their duties required further definition.

Analysis: The application for removal was considered on the facts and charges raised against the receivers. The Court concluded that removal was not warranted, but that the existing orders did not sufficiently define the scope of their functions in the interests of the estate.

Conclusion: The receivers were to be continued, with their duties more precisely defined by directions of the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the receivers were entitled to commission on the gross figure including trade discount, or only on the amount actually realised, with commission also claimed on freight and packing charges.

Analysis: The commission clause was construed by reference to the words used and the commercial reality of the transactions. An amount never received could not form part of the sale proceeds. The Court distinguished between a notional price and the sum actually realised, holding that trade discount was not part of the proceeds. The Court also referred to other procedural provisions recognising the distinction between gross and net sale proceeds, and allowed commission on freight and packing charges only because those sums formed part of what was actually received.

Conclusion: Commission was allowable on freight and packing charges, but not on trade discount; the receivers were accountable for the excess commission already retained and it was to stand as a debt due to the estate, adjustable against future commission.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the limited extent that the receivers' remuneration was restricted by excluding trade discount, while the prayer for removal was rejected and the receivers were retained subject to directions.

Ratio Decidendi: A receiver's commission on sale proceeds cannot be computed on a fictitious or notional amount never actually received, and must be confined to the real proceeds realised under the order.

---