Catanese v La Cava

The dispute in Catanese v La Cava involved the trustees appointed to sell commercial properties under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The trustees sought an increase in their remuneration limit and legal costs associated with their application. The parties included the beneficiaries of the trust and the trustees who were also directors of a proprietary company providing accountancy services. The court was tasked with determining whether the trustees' application for an increase in their remuneration and associated legal costs was justified.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trustees' remuneration included fees for services provided by their employees or if these were to be treated as disbursements. Additionally, the court needed to assess the adequacy of the initial estimate provided by the trustees at the time of their appointment and whether the actual fees claimed exceeded this estimate to a degree that warranted an increase in the remuneration limit. The court also had to decide if the trustees were entitled to reimbursement for the legal costs incurred in making the application for increased remuneration.

In its decision, the court found that the trustees' estimate had indeed been inadequate, and the actual fees claimed exceeded this estimate significantly. However, the court ruled that not all of the fees claimed could be included in the trustees' remuneration. Some of the fees were attributable to services provided by employees of the proprietary company, which the court considered to be disbursements rather than part of the trustees' remuneration. Consequently, the court allowed the trustees' application for an increase in their remuneration limit but only to a certain extent. The application for reimbursement of the legal costs incurred in making the application was rejected outright.

The final orders of the court included a partial increase to the trustees' remuneration limit to reflect the higher fees claimed but did not include reimbursement for the legal costs associated with the application. The decision underscored the importance of accurately estimating remuneration at the time of trustees' appointment and the need for clear differentiation between trustees' personal remuneration and disbursements for services provided by their employees.