SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Palmer v Palmer [2024] QCA 263
PARTIES:
GARRY THOMAS PALMER
(appellant)
v
KEITH DOUGLAS PALMER
(first respondent)
CHRISTOPHER RICHARD COOK AND RAJENDRA KUMAR KHATRI (AS RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS OF THE LINDSAY PALMER AND SONS PARTNERSHIP)
(second respondents)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11 of 2024
SC No 8001 of 2019DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2023] QSC 278 (Crowley J)DELIVERED ON:
20 December 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 May 2024
JUDGES:
Mullins P, Bond JA and Callaghan J
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PARTNERSHIP – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTNERS – EQUITABLE REMEDIES AND RELIEF – RECEIVERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and his brother are partners in a partnership and the second respondents (the respondents) were appointed by the Court to be receivers and managers to conduct the winding up of the partnership and for their costs and expenses to be paid from the assets of the partnership – where the respondents applied to the Court that their remuneration in acting as receivers of the property of the partnership be fixed – where the appellant opposed the order for the respondents’ remuneration – where the respondents filed affidavits that dealt with the work undertaken during the receivership outlining that the respondents’ firm used a time costing approach that resulted in the quantum claimed – where the parties disagreed about what the authorities required in respect of the nature and extent of the material which the receiver must provide to the Court – where the appellant relied on the approach of Shepherdson J in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182 and Lancet Pty Ltd v Olholm Developments Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 22 – where the respondent relied on the approach in Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan (1998) 20 WAR 96 – whether the trial judge should have followed the practice for approval of remuneration in Solfire and Lancet – whether the trial judge was provided with sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed by the respondents
PARTNERSHIP – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTNERS – EQUITABLE REMEDIES AND RELIEF – RECEIVERS – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and his brother are partners in a partnership and the second respondents (the respondents) were appointed by the Court to be receivers and managers to conduct the winding up of the partnership and for their costs and expenses to be paid from the assets of the partnership – where the respondents applied to the Court for an order that their remuneration in acting as receivers of the property of the partnership be fixed – where the appellant opposed the order for the respondents’ remuneration – whether the amount claimed by the respondents was fair, reasonable and proportionate remuneration
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – where the task of the primary judge was fixing…
Continue reading Palmer v Palmer
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Palmer v Palmer [2024] QCA 263
- Case
- [2024] QCA 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in determining that the material provided by the respondents was sufficient to enable a determination of the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed. The trial judge's analysis demonstrated the usability of the information provided, despite the appellant's contention that the information was not presented in the form favoured by the Solfire case. The trial judge's approach was consistent with the general principles that apply when the Court considers the reasonableness of remuneration claimed by a receiver. The Court concluded that the trial judge's evaluative judgment, which tolerated a range of outcomes, was within the bounds of the legal norm of reasonableness.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs. This decision underscores the importance of the trial judge’s evaluative judgment in determining the reasonableness of remuneration for receivers and affirms that the material provided need not strictly adhere to the format favoured in previous cases, so long as it enables a fair determination of the remuneration claimed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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
The trial judge concluded (at [72] of the reasons) that the material the respondents provided to the Court was sufficient to enable the trial judge “to generally determine the reasonableness of the remuneration they claim”. The trial judge’s analysis of that material to support the conclusion as to sufficiency is set out at [73]-[82] of the reasons. The trial judge set out (at [78]) an entry in the AETCR of details recorded for 36 minutes of work undertaken by a specified staff member on 21 February 2020 in relation to the sale of the hotel. The trial judge noted (at [79]) that the information provided in the “Details” column of the AETCR in most cases provided sufficient information about the task undertaken but further noted (at [80]) that it was possible to cross-reference entries in the AETCR with the narrative description of the work undertaken recorded in the Workstream Summary Report. The trial judge referred to the relevant entry in the Workstream Summary Report for the example used at [78]. The trial judge then showed (at [81]) how the cost shown in the AETCR for the 36 minutes of work can be confirmed with the rates of charge in the Master Staff Time Report. There was no suggestion on the appeal that the trial judge erred in using the material adduced by the respondents as shown by this example. The appellant’s focus was on the failure of the respondents to present the material in the form favoured in Solfire. The appellant did make submissions on the appeal about the usability of the information provided by the respondents but the trial judge demonstrated by this example that the information was usable.Should the trial judge have followed the practice for approval of remuneration in Solfire and Lancet? As it affects how some of the other grounds of appeal will be dealt with, ground (b) should be considered as a preliminary matter. The trial judge noted (at [62] of the reasons) that there was no dispute about the general principles that apply when the Court is required to consider the reasonableness of remuneration claimed by a receiver and set out the summary of Brereton J in Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 396 at [6]. The trial judge also noted (at [63]) that there was no real dispute about the further general principles that can be summarised briefly as:(a)a receiver is entitled to remuneration that is fair and reasonable and carries the onus of establishing that entitlement;(b)the procedure of approving a receiver’s remuneration is a summary one in which the rules of evidence are ordinarily not strictly observed;(c)the Court does not usually undertake a “line by line” analysis of the receiver’s time sheets;(d)the receiver’s views as to what is reasonable are relevant but not determinative;(e)the concept of proportionality between the work done and remuneration claimed to the value of the property is an important consideration in determining reasonableness. Even though there was general agreement between the parties about the general principles to be applied, the trial judge noted (at [64] of the reasons) that the parties disagreed about what the authorities required in respect of the nature and extent of the material which the receiver must provide to the Court on a remuneration application.