Background
Ross Andrew Blakeley and Kelly-Anne Trenfield, the joint and several liquidators of Global Capital Property Fund Ltd, applied for a court determination of their remuneration for work performed between 3 October 2024 and 30 September 2025. They sought $1,227,317.10, excluding GST, in remuneration and $64,791.30, excluding GST, in disbursements.
The disbursements concerned document processing and hosting on the Relativity e-discovery platform supplied by FTI Consulting Technology (Sydney) Pty Ltd, a related entity of the liquidators’ firm. Two creditors objected, principally on the basis that the fees would reduce investor recoveries and that the hourly rates were excessive. The remuneration question was referred to a Registrar, whose report recommended approval of the claimed amounts. No party applied to vary or reject that report.
The Court’s Holding
Justice O’Bryan adopted the Registrar’s report, correcting a typographical error in the remuneration figure, and determined under s 60-10(1)(c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that the liquidators were entitled to $1,227,317.10 in remuneration and $64,791.30 in disbursements, both excluding GST.
The Court held that the work was necessary and properly performed and that the remuneration was reasonable in light of the liquidation’s scale and complexity, including investigations, litigation, more than 500 investors and shareholders, and management of hundreds of thousands of documents. It also granted leave under s 60-20(3)(b) for the liquidators to derive any profit or advantage arising from the specified $64,791.30 paid to their related entity for Relativity data processing and hosting. The leave was confined to those evidenced payments, rather than the broader order initially sought.
Key Takeaways
- A court may approve liquidators’ remuneration where the evidence shows the work was necessary, properly performed and reasonable under the statutory criteria.
- A referee’s unchallenged report will ordinarily be adopted where it is supported by adequate evidence and no error is shown.
- Related-party internal disbursements require court leave if they may confer a profit or advantage, and the leave should be limited to the particular payments proved.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Australian courts assess substantial insolvency fees in complex administrations while taking account of investor and creditor concerns about reduced returns. The size of the fees alone did not make them unreasonable where the work produced or protected substantial potential recoveries.
It also underscores the need for liquidators to substantiate related-party technology charges with evidence of necessity, proportionality and market comparability, and to seek precisely tailored relief under s 60-20.