CA 18 November 1987. An appeal against a decision refusing an interlocutory application by the receiver and manager of a block of flats, for an order under Supreme Court Rules Order 30, with regard to payment and remuneration and expenses. (For the facts of this case see Abstract 37416). At issue was whether the court had the power, before the rights of the parties had been determined at trial, to order one of the parties, namely the landlords, to meet a deficit in the sums coming into the receiver`s hands, for the payment of his expenditure or remuneration. Held, in the CA that a receiver and manager appointed by the court is not the agent of the parties, nor a trustee for them, and they have no control over his expenditure. the court declined to express a view as to the power of the trial judge to make an order for costs covering the receiver`s remuneration or expenditure. Appeal dismissed.