Hutchins, in the matter of Ardenberg Pty Ltd (in liq) (Administrators Appointed) (No 2)

The case of Hutchins, in the matter of Ardenberg Pty Ltd (in liq) (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) involved an application by receivers and managers for remuneration in accordance with rule 14.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The first plaintiffs, who had acted as liquidators and receivers and managers of the property, assets and undertaking of the Robson and Bennet Family Trust, sought remuneration for their work in the period from 7 March 2018 to 31 July 2019. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the amount of remuneration sought by the first plaintiffs was reasonable and proportionate to the nature and complexity of the tasks involved. This required a detailed assessment of the work performed, the complexity of the tasks, and whether the remuneration was consistent with the scale of the work carried out.

The court examined the affidavits provided by Mr Tang, who had been primarily responsible for the conduct of the liquidation and receivership, and considered the detailed time sheets and remuneration report included in his affidavits. The court found that the work carried out by the first plaintiffs was proportionate to the nature and complexity of the tasks involved. However, adjustments were necessary to ensure the remuneration was reasonable. Specifically, the remuneration sought for continuing to trade the supermarket business and the total remuneration for the receivership were each reduced by 5%. This reduction was due to identified issues such as the complexity of the tasks, the work carried out prior to formal appointment, and other relevant factors.

In conclusion, the court fixed the total remuneration for the first plaintiffs at $898,573.55 (inclusive of GST) for the period from 7 March 2018 to 31 July 2019. The court ordered that this remuneration be paid out of the trust assets, and if insufficient, from the property of the second plaintiff, with the condition that it not be paid in priority to any secured debts without the prior written consent of the relevant defendants. The orders were to be entered forthwith.