I don't think you're wrong semisty. So WC state that Perpetual...

I don't think you're wrong semisty.

So WC state that Perpetual "instigated legal proceedings against the guarantors connected".

From Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary 3rd Edn.

Instigate: 1. Bring about by incitement or persuasion; provoke ('who instigated the inquiry?'). 2. (usu. foll. by 'to') urge on, incite (a person etc.) to esp. an evil act.

Incite: urge or stir up.

Provoke: 1a rouse or incite. 1b (provoking)exasperating; irritating. 2 call forth; instigate. 3. tempt; allure. 4 cause; give rise to.

As our RE, WC has a very broad commission and hence a huge amount of discretion on how it manages the relationship with PIF's borrowers.

Seems to me that WC's is saying to Seamisty that Perpetual acts on behalf of PIF unit holders without seeking instruction from WC. I wonder how Perpetual feels about being represented in this way?

But if WC where convicted for misleading Seamisty, Hutson could just try again to manipulate opinion with e.g. a dismissive 'I disagree with the judges opinion'. A spend more of our money in the process.