Parry v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2004] QSC 215
•1 July 2004
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Parry v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] QSC 215
PARTIES:
ELIZABETH HEATHER PARRY
(Applicant)
v
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
479 of 2003
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
1 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
30 June 2004
JUDGE:
Jones J
ORDER:
Orders in terms of the draft initialled and placed with the papers.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
Ms T Schwartz (Solicitor) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Gadens Lawyers for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
By this application Ian David Jessup, receiver for Elizabeth Heather Parry, Cairns Management Accountants Pty Ltd, CMA Investments Qld Pty Ltd and DGME Pty Ltd, seeks that his fees be approved for payment for the work in his capacity as receiver of those respective entities. All told there are eight separate accounts totalling $233,709.83.
The order appointing the receiver dated 15 October 2003 provides:-
“The receiver shall be entitled to remuneration calculated in accordance with the scale of remuneration recommended from time to time by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia on the basis of the time occupied respectively by the receivers, the receiver’s partners and the receivers’ employees in addition to payment or reimbursement of such expenses and disbursements shall be incurred or made in the due course of the receivership, such remuneration, expenses and disbursement to be paid by the receivers from the assets of each respondent as a first charge.”
As appears from the affidavit of Ian David Jessup filed herein on 4 January 2004 the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association of Australian (“IPAA”) no longer provides a scale of remuneration for insolvency practitioners. Instead the IPAA recommends that firms should charge hourly rates in accordance with their own internal cost structures, having regard to the complexity and demands of each appointment. The professional rates claimed in respect of the subject accounts have been charged in accordance with the Jessup and Partners Charge Rates as exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Jessup (Ex “IDJ 11”).
A copy of the application and the supporting material was served on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”) by registered mail on 9 June 2004. ASIC has responded in writing indicating that it did not intend to appear to challenge the making of the orders sought by this application (Ex TCS 08).
Each of the claims for the remuneration has been verified by Mr Jessup in his affidavit filed on 4 June 2004 in which he has outlined the work which he and his partners and employees of the firm have performed. The detailed accounts disclose the charges made for each task in respect of which a claim has been made. Mr Jessup swears as follows:-
“22. It is my opinion that the professional rates set out and claimed in the accounts exhibited to this my Affidavit are a fair and reasonable rate for remuneration for services provided. The professional rates have been calculated using the rates recommended by the IPAA scale rate as a guide only. However, the professional rates, set out and claimed in the accounts exhibited to this my affidavit are rates determined by us from time to time bearing in mind the implications of GST to the underlying costs structure of my firm and the changing market place and the fact that the IPAA no longer supports such a rate scale. It is my opinion however, that the professional rates set out and claimed in the accounts were fair and reasonable rates for remuneration for services provided.”
In the absence of any challenge to the claim for remuneration and accepting Mr Jessup’s sworn statement as to the work performed and charges made, I approve the receiver’s remuneration as claimed. I make orders in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers.
0
0
0