Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Drury Management Pty Ltd
[2004] QSC 247
•2 July 2004
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
ASIC v Drury Management Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 247
PARTIES:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
(Applicant)
v
DRURY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD.
ACN 809 253 958
(First Respondent)
PIET CORNELIUS WALTERS
(Second Respondent)
MARK SAMUEL EVANS
(Third Respondent)
RANSOM HOUSE PTY LTD ACN 072 391 407
(Fourth Respondent)FILE NO/S:
464 of 2002
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
2 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
1 July 2004
JUDGE:
Jones J
ORDER:
Orders in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
By this application Ian David Jessup as receiver of Drury Management Pty Ltd (Receiver appointed), Piet Cornelius Walters (Receiver appointed), Mark Samuel Evans (Receiver appointed) and Ransom House Pty ltd (Receiver appointed), seeks that his fees be approved for payment for work performed in his capacity as receiver for those respective entities. All told there are eight separate accounts totalling $401,359.53.
The order of Moynihan J of 27 September 2002 provides:-
“Until further ordered, the receiver’s remuneration be calculated as determined by the Court on the basis of the time occupied respectively by the receiver, the receiver’s partners and the receiver’s employees in addition to payment or reimbursement of such expenses and disbursements shall be incurred or made in the due course of the receiverships, such remuneration, expenses, and disbursements to be paid by the receiver from the assets of the first respondent as a first charge.”
In the course of an earlier application for approval of remuneration on 6 March 2003, I ordered that further applications for remuneration together with the supporting material be served upon the Townsville Office of Australian Securities and Investments commission (“ASIC”) at least 21 days prior to the hearing of the application. The purpose was to permit ASIC, as the entity responsible for the appointment of the receiver, to raise any objection to the validity of claims for remuneration.
ASIC has in respect of this application been served with the relevant material and, as appears from the affidavit of Thelma Caroline Schwartz filed herein on 1 July 2004, has not raised any opposition to the claim for remuneration being approved.
Each of the claims has been verified by Mr Jessup in his affidavit filed on 4 June 2004 in which he has outlined the work which he and his partners and other members of the firm have performed. The detailed accounts disclose the charges made for each task in respect of which a claim has been made. Mr Jessup swears as follows:-
“21. It is my opinion that the professional rates set out and claimed in the accounts exhibited to this my Affidavit are a fair and reasonable rate for remuneration of services provided. The professional rates have been calculated using the rates recommended by the IPAA scale rate as a guide only. However, the professional rates set out and claimed in the accounts exhibited hereto are rates determined by Jessup & Partners from time to time bearing in mind the implications of GST to the underlying costs structure of my firm and the changing market place and the fact that the IPAA no longer supports such a rates scale. It is my opinion however, that the professional rates set out and claimed in the accounts were fair and reasonable rates for remuneration for services provided.”
In the absence of any challenge to the claim for remuneration and accepting Mr Jessup’s sworn statement as to the work performed and charges made, I approve the receiver’s remuneration as claimed. I make orders in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers.
0
0
0