Now consider the leading case on the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 s 1(2): Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226. Mr Justice Garland's, decision was unsurprising for its conventional approach to the burden of proof, stating that it lies with the payee (that is, the party seeking to retain or recover their expenses from the sum of money paid or payable in advance) to show that it is 'just' for him so to do. On the subject of apportionment, he considered alternative approaches, but concluded that the court has a 'broad discretion'.