DELETE paragraph, and replace with the following:  (b) Appointed by the court.  A receiver may only charge for his services if the court so directs [49].  The court may also specify who is to be responsible for paying the reciever, and any fund or property from which the receiver may recover his remuneration [50].  If the receiver is to be entitled to receive remuneration, the basis for identifying that remuneration must be identified by the court [50a].  It would seem that the court is able to identify any suitable basis for remuneration [50b].  In some cases, the court may authorise remuneration by reference to factors which are wholly objective [50c]:  e.g., by reference to time actually spent (the court identifying the rate at whic time may be charged) or by reference to the amount of income received (the court identifying the rate at which commission on that amount may be charged) [50d].  However, in many cases the court is likely to direct that the amount of the receiver's remuneration will be such sum as is subsequently determined by the court [50e]; and, if it does so, it may also identify the basis upon which the court is to reach that determination [50f].  If a receiver incurs expenses in the course of the receivership, then these are not regarded as part of his remuneration:  rather, they are accounted for as part of the receiver's account for the assets he has recovered [50g].

NOTE 49:  DELETE existing note, and replace with the following:  See CPR 69.7(1).  The wording of CPR 69.7(1)(b) suggests that the court's direction must be prospective:  ie, the court's power is limited to directing that costs be paid in respect of the receiver's future services.

NOTE 50:  DELETE existing note and replace with the following:  See CPR 69.7(2).  The terms of CPR 69.7 should be read with caution.  Before the Civil Procedure Rules, a receiver was (and was merely) entitled to be indemnified (in respect of costs and expenses) out of the assets which were the subject-matter of the receivership:  see Boehm v. Goodall [1911] 1 Ch 155, at 161 (per Warrington J) and Mellor v Mellor [1992] 1 W.L.R. 517; also Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd [1988] 1 W.L.R. 358.  CPR 69.7 sets out a procedural code, but (i) does not (and cannot) make any fundamental change in the general law of receivership and (ii) bearing in mind the heavy responsibilities which a receiver accepts on his/her appointment, cannot effect a retrospective change in the terms of that appointment:  Capewell v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2007] UKHL 2, at [26]-[27].

ADD new NOTE 50A:  See CPR 69.7(1)(b).

ADD new NOTE 50B:  CPR 69.7(3) expressly contemplates that the court may direct that the amount of the receiver's remuneration may be identified in some other way than by a determination of the court.

ADD new NOTE 50C:  The court will normally detemine the amount of the receiver's remunderation on the basis of the criteria in CPR 69.7(4):  see CPR 69PD, para.9.2, and note 50f below.  With this in mind, a receiver's costs are only likely to be determined on an objective basis in relatively simple cases.

ADD new NOTE 50D:  Remuneration at five per cent on the amount of income received has (historically) been regarded as usual for straightforward cases:  see Day v Croft (1840) 2 Beav. 488. 

ADD new NOTE 50E:  See CPR 69.7(3).  The court may direct that such a determination be carried out by a costs judge:  CPR 69.7(5).  Where a direction is made under CPR 69.7(3), the receiver is not entitled to recover any remuneration for his services unless and until a determination is made:  CPR 69.7(3)(a).  An application for such a determination may be made "at any time", and it follows that a receiver may seek a determination (for work done to date) part-way through the receivership.

ADD new NOTE 50F:  Unless the court orders otherwise, the remuneration determined pursuant to a direction under CPR 69.7(3) should be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances, and should take into account the matters identified at CPR 69.7(4):  (a) the time properly given by the receiver and his staff to the receivership; (b) the complexity of the receivership; (c) the effectiveness with which the receiver appears to be carrying out (or to have carried out) his duties, and (d) the value and nature of the subject-matter of the receivership.

ADD new NOTE 50g:  See CPR 69PD, para.9.6.  It would seem to be the receiver who bears the risk that outgoings may exceed total income:  cp Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd, supra.