Background
Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb were appointed provisional liquidators of Crown Group Holdings Pty Ltd and 37 wholly owned subsidiaries in August 2023, amid a governance deadlock following the breakdown of the relationship between the group’s ultimate owners, Paul Sathio and Iwan Sunito. They were also appointed receivers of three entities. The Crown Group remained solvent and operated a complex group of property development, hotel and real-estate businesses.
The provisional liquidators sought approval of remuneration for work performed from 1 January to 30 June 2025: $2,482,181 plus GST for their provisional-liquidator roles and $240,389.50 plus GST for their receivership roles. PNR International and Mr Sathio opposed the application, alleging unnecessary duplication with the group’s finance team, excessive tax-related charges, and overcharging for project administration.
The Court’s Holding
Brereton J approved and fixed the remuneration sought, and dispensed with the requirement to notify specified creditors. The Court held that the evidence, including detailed workstream evidence and time records, sufficiently established that the work was necessary, properly performed, and reasonable and proportionate for this large and complex administration.
The Court rejected the asserted duplication and overcharging. Although parallel accounting functions and apparently high accounting costs warranted scrutiny, the provisional liquidators had reasonably concluded that the group’s systems could not meet their reporting obligations and that their own systems and staff were needed. The Court also accepted the justification for using the liquidators’ tax team and for reviewing time entries across the many entities. It fixed the receivers’ remuneration at $234,033.50, $3,844.50 and $2,511.50 respectively, exclusive of GST.
Key Takeaways
- A court assesses insolvency remuneration independently, with proportionality and the necessity of the work central to the inquiry.
- Detailed evidence need not permit a line-by-line reconstruction of every time entry in a large, complex administration.
- Overlap with a company’s internal finance function does not establish unreasonable duplication where separate systems and controls are reasonably required.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary standard for substantial remuneration claims in a solvent but contested corporate administration. It confirms that professional administrators may be remunerated for work that preserves a going concern and manages shareholder-dispute risks, even where that work does not directly increase distributable funds.