Re Sunraysia Roofing Pty Ltd - [2020] VSC 724

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

S ECI 2016 01206

IN THE MATTER of SUNRAYSIA ROOFING PTY LTD (ACN 005 456 575)

BETWEEN

JULIE MAREE COHRS (IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE OF THE WILL AND ESTATE OF RAYMOND MANFRED COHRS)	Plaintiff
v
PAUL ANTHONY COHRS & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	Matthews JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF RULING:	4 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sunraysia Roofing Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 724

---

CORPORATIONS – Court-appointed receivers – Application for approval of remuneration – Source of power for making orders – Prima facie case for remuneration established – Remuneration approved – In the matter of Banksia Securities Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] NSWSC 540 – IMO Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq) [2012] VSC 650.

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

Introduction

By report filed 21 September 2020 (‘Receivers Report’), the First Other Party in this proceeding, being John Ross Lindholm and George Georges in their capacity as joint and several court appointed receivers and managers (‘Receivers’), seek approval of their remuneration for the period 26 October 2019 to 11 September 2020 (‘Second Period’) in the amount of $614,897.50 (excluding GST) (‘Remuneration Approval Request’).[1]
[1]The Remuneration Approval Request is Annexure C to the Receivers Report.

By orders made by Riordan J on 2 October 2020, the Remuneration Approval Request was referred to me for determination on the papers, unless otherwise ordered (‘2 Oct Orders’). Those orders also relevantly include the following:

(a) the First Defendant is to file and serve any notice of objection to the Remuneration Approval Request, which specifies each objection and provides proper particulars of its grounds, by 4.00 pm on 14 October 2020; and

(b) the Receivers are to file and serve a written response to any notice of objection to the Remuneration Approval Request by 4.00 pm on 28 October 2020.

On 15 October 2020, my Associate received an email from the Receivers’ solicitors, advising that they had not been served with any notice of objection from the First Defendant, requesting that the Remuneration Approval Request be approved on the papers, and stating that the other parties to the proceeding had indicated that they had no objection to the Remuneration Approval Request.

On my instruction, on 22 October 2020, my Associate informed the parties that as the time for the First Defendant to file and serve any notice of objection to the Remuneration Approval Request by the time set out in the 2 Oct Orders had now passed, I would determine the Remuneration Approval Request on the papers and on the basis of the materials already filed in respect of it.

For the reasons set out below, the Remuneration Approval Request is granted and the Court will make orders approving the Receivers’ remuneration for the Second Period…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Sunraysia Roofing Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Sunraysia Roofing Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 724
Case: [2020] VSC 724
Decision Date: 4 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application for approval of the remuneration of court-appointed receivers and managers, John Ross Lindholm and George Georges, for the period from 26 October 2019 to 11 September 2020. The Receivers sought approval of their remuneration for this period in the amount of $614,897.50 (excluding GST). The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the Remuneration Approval Request was reasonable and should be approved. The Court considered the legal principles applicable to approving the remuneration of court-appointed receivers and managers, including the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the decisions of the NSW Supreme Court in Banksia Securities Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) and IMO Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq). The Court found that the Receivers had made out a prima facie case for the approval of their remuneration and that the amount claimed was reasonable based on the work performed. The Court approved the Receivers' remuneration in the amount of $614,897.50 plus any applicable GST.

Orders