Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dunner

In the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dunner, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) brought proceedings against Mr Andrew Dunner, a registered liquidator, alleging misconduct in his role as liquidator and controller of several companies. The primary issues concerned Mr Dunner's failure to properly investigate the circumstances of companies under his administration, improper payments of remuneration, and inadequate communication with creditors. ASIC alleged that Mr Dunner had received remuneration amounting to $613,737.90 without proper approval and an additional $48,500 as receiver and manager of Regen Polymers, which was paid pursuant to a void charge. The case involved detailed examinations of Mr Dunner's conduct in relation to several companies, including the Di Pietro group of companies, the Stevenson-Treseder companies, and others.

The court had to determine whether Mr Dunner's appointments as liquidator and receiver were valid, whether he adequately investigated the circumstances of the companies, and whether his remuneration was properly approved. The court also considered Mr Dunner's compliance with the requirements of the Corporations Regulations 2001, particularly Regulation 5.6.01 concerning the prescribed matters for entry in liquidator's or provisional liquidator's books. The evidence presented included affidavits from ASIC officers, company directors, creditors, and Mr Dunner himself, along with banking records and other documentation.

The court found that Mr Dunner's appointments as receiver and manager of the Di Pietro group of companies were invalid, as he failed to properly investigate the validity of the charges under which he was appointed. Additionally, the court determined that Mr Dunner had improperly drawn remuneration in several instances, as he did not follow the correct process for approval. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to the Insolvency Practitioners' Code of Conduct and noted that failure to comply with the code could lead to disciplinary proceedings but not criminal liability. The court ordered Mr Dunner to repay the improperly drawn fees into the administration accounts and bear the costs associated with rectifying these fees. The court also ruled that costs should follow the event, ordering Mr Dunner to pay ASIC's costs of the proceeding.