should have been recorded as an got recorded as income?I think so. Something like that. I I know it more as a it was effectively an over-distribution. – – All right. You’re not sure of exactly why it was that the over-distribution occurred?No. No. But in any an over-distribution occurred?Yes. Yes. And that occurred in 2009?Yes. And that occurred because neither the custodian, nor Questor, had identified that, I would suggest, this was an asset rather than income?The custodian didn’t recognise. Not Questor. Questor also didn’t recognise it, did it?Well, that wasn’t its function. What do you mean it wasn’t its function?It well, the custodian has the function of – keeping a custody and a register of the assets. Yes?So if if it didn’t keep an accurate register, I mean, Questor Questor appoints – – it. I see. As far as you’re concerned, that’s not Questor’s fault?Strictly speaking, no, it’s a if you appoint a custodian and they fail to to accurately complete their task, – – but but you know. – – When you just so I can understand, when you say speaking”, you accept – “strictly that an argument that Questor also failed in respect of the distribution?No, but You don’t accept that?No. You don’t think it’s arguable that there was a problem for Questor?No, I you – appoint a custodian and you expect them to act accurately. You don’t think that it could be argued that Questor, as the responsible entity, may have been able to provide a greater level of oversight?I think with the benefit of hindsight maybe you might have done things differently, but but arguably you – – contract a custodian to act, your expectation is they will act accurately and report accurately. Can ?And that’s not what occurred here. I would just like to have a look at your statement, which is IFL.9999.0004.0001. Sorry, I said .0001, I think it should be .0019. This is your statement in response to Rubric 5-58?Yes.
should have been recorded as an got recorded as income?I think so. Something like that. I – I know it more as a – it was effectively an over-distribution. All right. You’re not sure of exactly why it was that the over-distribution occurred?No. No. But in any an over-distribution occurred?Yes. Yes. And that occurred in 2009?Yes. And that occurred because neither the custodian, nor Questor, had identified that, I would suggest, this was an asset rather than income?The custodian didn’t recognise. Not Questor. Questor also didn’t recognise it, did it?Well, that wasn’t its function. What do you mean it wasn’t its function?It – well, the custodian has the function of keeping a custody and a register of the assets. Yes?So if – if it didn’t keep an accurate register, I mean, Questor – Questor appoints it. I see. As far as you’re concerned, that’s not Questor’s fault?Strictly speaking, no, it’s a – if you appoint a custodian and they fail to – to accurately complete their task, but – but – you know. When you – just so I can understand, when you say “strictly speaking”, you accept that an argument that Questor also failed in respect of the but You don’t accept that?No. You don’t think it’s arguable that there was a problem for Questor?No, I – you appoint a custodian and you expect them to act accurately. You don’t think that it could be argued that Questor, as the responsible entity, may have been able to provide a greater level of oversight?I think with the benefit of hindsight maybe you might have done things differently, but – but arguably – you contract a custodian to act, your expectation is they will act accurately and report accurately. Can ?And that’s not what occurred here. I would just like to have a look at your statement, which is IFL.9999.0004.0001. Sorry, I said .0001, I think it should be .0019. This is your statement in response to Rubric 5-58?Yes. distribution?No,
transcript-10-august-2018.docx