In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and Ors

Case [2023] NSWSC 421


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and Ors [2023] NSWSC 421
Hearing dates: 24 April 2023
Date of orders: 24 April 2023
Decision date: 24 April 2023
Jurisdiction:Equity - Corporations List
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision:

Orders for ending three receiverships, the winding up and remuneration made. See Short Minutes of Order set out below

Catchwords:

CORPORATIONS LAW – receivership – winding down – remuneration to liquidators – form of orders

Legislation Cited:

Corporations Act2001 (Cth)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and Ors [2018] NSWSC 700

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Barry Anthony Taylor and Andrew Fletcher Needham in their capacity as liquidators (Applicants)
Representation:

Counsel:
JR Anderson (Applicants)

Solicitors:
Maddocks (Applicants)
File Number(s): 2007/00258119

ex tempore JUDGMENT (revised)

  1. By Interlocutory Process filed on 3 March 2023, the applicants (the liquidators) seek certain orders, the object of which is to bring to an end three receiverships and the winding up of what for shorthand convenience have been referred to respectively as the Integrity Plus Unit Trust and the Master Fund, and to finalise the applicants’ entitlement to remuneration.

  2. The circumstances which give rise to the application are comprehensively set out in written submissions prepared by counsel for the applicants dated 17 April 2023 which I shall mark MFI-1 and retain with the papers. See In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and Ors [2018] NSWSC 700 per Black J.

  3. The application is supported by the following affidavits of one of the liquidators/receivers, Barry Anthony Taylor, dated respectively 28 September 2017, 1 March 2023 and 17 April 2023.

  4. I am satisfied that appropriate notice has been given to all those properly entitled to receive it, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. No one has appeared to oppose the relief sought.

  5. There has been some delay in the bringing of this application but I am satisfied that it is properly explained.

  6. I am satisfied that the liquidators have complied with the oft-stated requirements on liquidators and receivers properly to establish the reasonableness of the remuneration they claim. In this case, the time costed approach is appropriate. The liquidators have given a not insignificant discount to their remuneration calculated on a time basis.

  7. I am satisfied that the work done was appropriate and that the amounts of remuneration sought are reasonable.

  8. I make orders in accordance with the Short Minutes of Order, which I have initialled, dated today’s date and placed with the papers.

SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER

Remuneration approvals

  1. Pursuant to section 601EE(2) of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (Act) and rule 26.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW) (UCPR), the remuneration of Barry Anthony Taylor as the Receiver of the property of David Hobbs (Hobbs Receivership) be approved in the amount of $10,397.00 plus GST in the amount of $1,039.70 for the period 20 September 2017 to 30 September 2022.

  2. Pursuant to section 601EE(2) of the Act, the remuneration of Barry Anthony Taylor as liquidator of the Master Fund be approved in the amount of $3,139.62 plus GST in the amount of $313.96 for the period 30 April 2016 to 30 September 2022.

  3. Pursuant to section 425 of the Act and rule 26.5 of the UCPR, the prospective remuneration of Barry Anthony Taylor as the Receiver of the Hobbs Receivership be approved in the amount of $3,500.00 plus GST in the amount of $350.00 for the period 1 October 2022 to the finalisation of the receivership.

Directions as to payment of surplus and priority

  1. Pursuant to section 424 of the Act, the Applicants would be justified in paying any amounts in relation to their remuneration in priority to any payments or distributions in relation to the Hobbs Receivership as contemplated by the direction in paragraph 5, below.

  2. Pursuant to section 424 of the Act, the Applicants would be justified in paying any amounts remaining in the Hobbs Receivership after payment of their remuneration to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Passing of receivership accounts

  1. Pursuant to rule 26.4 of the UCPR, the accounts of the applicants for:

  1. the Hobbs Receivership; and

  2. the receivership of the property of Hui Min (Nancy) Wu,

for the period 20 September 2017 to 17 April 2023 be passed.

Release of the applicants

  1. Pursuant to section 601EE(2) of the Act, Barry Anthony Taylor and Andrew Fletcher Needham be released of their duties as Liquidators of the Integrity Plus Unit Trust with effect from the day that is 30 days after the date of these orders.

  2. Pursuant to section 1101B(11) and/or 1325(5) of the Act, order 38 of the orders made in these proceedings on 21 February 2013 be discharged with effect from the day that is 30 days after the date of these orders.

  3. Pursuant to section 601EE(2) of the Act, Barry Anthony Taylor be released of his duty as Liquidator of the Master Fund with effect from the day that is 30 days after the date of these orders.

**********

Details
AGLC
In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and Ors [2023] NSWSC 421
Case
[2023] NSWSC 421
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund and others sought to challenge the remuneration of liquidators appointed to wind down a company. The dispute involved the application of statutory provisions governing the remuneration of liquidators in corporate winding down and the discretion of the court in setting such remuneration. The court was tasked with determining whether the remuneration claimed by the liquidators was reasonable and in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the remuneration sought by the liquidators was justifiable under the relevant statutory framework and whether the court had the discretion to adjust the amount if it deemed the remuneration excessive. The court considered the statutory provisions regarding the remuneration of liquidators, including the authority to approve remuneration and the factors that should be taken into account when determining whether remuneration is reasonable. The court also examined the evidence and submissions provided by the parties regarding the complexity and duration of the winding-down process and the experience and expertise of the liquidators.

The court held that while it had the discretion to assess whether the remuneration was reasonable, the primary consideration was the statutory framework governing the remuneration of liquidators. The court found that the liquidators had acted in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the remuneration claimed was reasonable given the circumstances. The court acknowledged that the winding-down process was complex and time-consuming, and that the liquidators had demonstrated the necessary experience and expertise. Consequently, the court approved the remuneration as claimed by the liquidators.

The court ordered that the remuneration claimed by the liquidators be paid from the assets of the company being wound down. The court further directed that the liquidators submit a final report and account of their remuneration and expenses within a specified timeframe. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in determining liquidators' remuneration and the court's role in ensuring that the remuneration is reasonable and justifiable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.