Background
Nicolas Chambers and Rachel Hunter were involved with Matthew and Anastasia Hunter in a self-managed superannuation fund, the Loadstone Super Fund, and a bare trust holding the fund’s principal asset: a property used for a campground business. Corporate trustees of those trusts, Hidden Valley Tea Gardens Pty Ltd and Loadstone Property Holdings Pty Ltd, were wound up in February 2026 amid a breakdown in the parties’ relationships.
A Registrar made orders appointing Christopher Cook and Nikhil Khatri as receivers and managers of the two trusts. The parties later realised that, following a 2024 rules change, a Registrar did not have power to appoint receivers. The receivers had nevertheless acted under the orders, including taking steps toward a sale of the property. All affected parties consented to an application to regularise the position.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Derrington set aside the Registrar’s receiver-appointment and consequential orders under r 39.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The orders had been made without power, and the Court held that the consensual application was an appropriate, efficient means of correcting that defect rather than requiring an appeal or fresh proceeding. Alternatively, the Court would have extended time and treated the application as a review of the Registrar’s exercise of power.
The Court then appointed Cook and Khatri as joint and several receivers and managers of the Loadstone Super Fund and the Loadstone Bare Trust, with effect nunc pro tunc from 23 February 2026. The appointment was just and convenient because the insolvent corporate trustees needed their rights of indemnity and exoneration against trust assets administered, while the superannuation fund’s trustee could not lawfully act after becoming a disqualified person under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth).
Key Takeaways
- Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Registrar by consent where the Registrar lacks statutory or rules-based power.
- The Federal Court may use r 39.05 to set aside an improperly made receiver appointment in exceptional, consensual circumstances.
- A receiver may be appointed retrospectively to validate good-faith steps taken under an invalid appointment.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how the Federal Court can correct an invalid procedural appointment without undoing practical work already undertaken in reliance on it. It also confirms the importance of checking the current scope of Registrars’ powers, particularly after amendments to the Federal Court Rules.
For insolvency practitioners, the case illustrates why receivership orders can be necessary where liquidated corporate trustees hold rights of indemnity against trust assets and a self-managed superannuation fund’s trustee is disqualified from continuing to act.