Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).

Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.

On 17 March, in Hambleton v Finn [2017] QDC 61, McGill SC DCJ of the District Court of Queensland applied the section 553C(1) setoff under the Corporations Act 2001 to a liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against a director.

His Honour followed the earlier decision of the District Court of Queensland in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd. In that case, the set-off provision was applied where the liquidator was seeking the recovery of unfair preference payments.

On 9 March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38, unanimously allowing the liquidator’s appeal against a decision of Brereton J applying principles of proportionality and ad valorum to reduce the liquidator’s outstanding remuneration from the $63,000 claimed by the liquidator to $20,000.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate.  Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.

In this Australian case, a major creditor of the company in question alleged that it was involved in phoenix activity and offered to fund a public examination of the director provided that the creditor's solicitors would act for the liquidators in that examination.  The liquidators refused the offer and, in response, the creditor applied to have the liquidators removed.

Liquidators entitled to a fair fee

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Privilege – post Hastie

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Hastie Group (In Liq.) v Moore1 underlines the view that disclosure of the mere existence of privileged documents to third parties will not necessarily waive privilege.

Key Facts

The liquidators of Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq.) (Hastie) had obtained orders extending the time for service of a statement of claim alleging professional negligence against Hastie’s Auditor, Deloitte (Auditor), between 2008 and 2010.

As you may recall, in 2013 ASIC wrote to all liquidators to announce the commencement of an industry-wide project to test all registered liquidators’ compliance with the requirement to publish certain notices on ASIC’s “published notices website” and to lodge forms with ASIC. ASIC refers to this initiative as the “PNW Project”.