Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Letten (No 25)

In the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Letten (No 25), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia reviewed the remuneration and costs claimed by receivers for their services in managing an unregistered managed investment scheme. The primary judge had approved the receivers' remuneration and costs but applied reductions to the claim, a decision the receivers appealed. The Full Court considered several grounds of appeal, including whether the primary judge was entitled to consider the concept of proportionality in determining the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed.

The Full Court found that while the primary judge was entitled to consider proportionality as a factor in assessing reasonableness, she had applied the concept incorrectly. The Court emphasised that proportionality involves comparing like with like and that the primary judge had not adequately identified the specific issues affecting the overall outcome. The Full Court also rejected the argument that the primary judge should have made specific findings about the necessary and appropriate work done by the receivers, stating that it was not required to make such findings in detail. Instead, the Court was entitled to take a broad approach and apply appropriate discounts where necessary.

The Full Court remitted the application for review to be reheard, focusing on whether the reductions applied to the receivers' claim for remuneration and disbursements were justified. The Court set aside the primary judge's orders and fixed the receivers' remuneration, costs, and expenses for the specified period. The receivers' costs incurred on the application for review were ordered to be costs in the receivership.