the Joint Administrators’ conduct. ‘The Joint Administrators do not accept such comments and wish to have the opportunity to respond to the same. I therefore ask that the witness statement is available to the court at trial, 5. would state at the outset that it is not elear upon what basis Mr Fabb is secking to appeal the order of District Judge Needham and what he is seeking to achieve. Jn this regard, it appears from Mr Fabb's skeleton argument that Mz Fabb is raising issues that do not form part of the order of 2104/2008, ict Tudge Needham dated 6. and serious, Proceedings’ Before however responding to the skeleton argument it may assist the court and ultimately save time, if [ briefly exptain the procedural history with a view to seeking to place matters in context. 8. Proceedings were issued on 23/12/2005. ‘The claim was listed for an initial directions hearing on 03/02/2006 and directions were agreed by cousentt between the defendants’ solicitors DWF LLP and the Joint Administrators’ solicitors DLA Piper (UK) LLP. Points of defence were subsequently ‘iled and served on 24/02/2006, and the Joint Administrators subsequently served points of reply on 14/03/2006. 9, ‘The matter was listed for a further directions hearing before District Judge Needham on 31/05/2006, and direstions were again ordered by consent. 10. Lists of documents were exchanged in accordance with the consent order on 09/06/2006. In relation 0 inspection of the documentation, we discussed the mechanics of inspection with DWF LLP and it was agreed that the best way to proceed would be for DWF LLP to inspect the documents at the Joint Administrators’ offices. DWF LLP then contacted my solicitors to state Mr Fabb would be inspecting the documents personally in the interest of saving costs, Mr Fabb-attendéd the oint Administrators” office and inspected! the > adlogument its on 09/08/2006, ie 51