Nallini Pathmanathan J:

[1]This decision relates to the issue of costs arising from the petition by the first petitioner ('TGB') and second petitioner ('TAS') to sanction schemes of arrangement between each of them as scheme companies and their respective creditors.

[2]The salient chronology of events leading up to this decision have been comprehensively set out in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners' as well as the respondents. I adopt and confirm the sequence of events leading up to the application for, and subsequent grant of sanction for the schemes, after a relatively protracted hearing over the course of several months.

[3]The matter originally commenced when the petitioners filed an application pursuant to s 176

[4]On 22 December 2010 the High Court held that the amounts owed by TAS to MTB enjoyed no such priority over the monies owed to the second to 13th respondents. The court further held that all respective debts therefore ranked pari passu for the purposes of the proposed scheme of arrangement between TAS and its scheme creditors. MTB did not succeed in its appeals.

[5]The issue of costs arises in respect of the petition for sanction which was filed on 29