In the matter of Bexalaw Pty Ltd (in liq)

In the matter of Bexalaw Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the court was required to determine the distribution of funds held by the liquidators of the company, which had been the trustee of the Gladstone Unit Trust. The legal issues included whether certain assets recovered after liquidation were held on trust, whether creditors should be reimbursed for litigation costs, and whether a person who performed work for the company in liquidation was entitled to payment. The court also considered the ranking of claims and the interpretation of the Architects Act 2002 (Qld) in relation to the entitlement of a "non-practising architect" to charge for services.

The court found that the assets recovered after liquidation were indeed held on trust for the parties to the Joint Venture Agreement. It rejected the claim that creditors should be reimbursed for litigation costs, as they had provided security for costs and the litigation had settled. The court also found that the person who performed work for the company in liquidation was not entitled to payment from the trust fund. Regarding the ranking of claims, the court determined that priority should not be afforded to the creditor who did work without being paid. Finally, the court held that a "non-practising architect" is not entitled to charge for services under the Architects Act 2002 (Qld), as only an "architect" is entitled to do so.

The court made several orders regarding the distribution of funds held by the liquidators. It declared that the proceeds of the settlement of a proceeding were held by the liquidators in their capacity as trustee of the Gladstone Unit Trust and on constructive trust for the parties to the Joint Venture Agreement. It directed the liquidators to retain a sum for their remuneration, pay certain amounts to specific parties, and distribute the remaining funds among the creditors. The court also granted the liquidators liberty to apply for an order to increase the sum retained for their remuneration and costs. Finally, it made no order as to costs between the second and fourth respondents.