Richardson v Lo Pilato (Liquidator); In the Matter of Trojan Hospitality (ACT) Pty Limited (In Liq)

In this case, the plaintiffs, represented by Mr. Richardson and Rich & Son, sought relief in two separate proceedings against the liquidator of Trojan Hospitality (ACT) Pty Limited, Justine Robinson, and the company itself. The primary dispute revolves around a contested sum of money which the plaintiffs claim was intended for the Robinsons as payment for their shares in Trojan. This sum was never paid, and the plaintiffs are seeking repayment on the basis that it was held on resulting trust by Trojan. The proceedings also involve an appeal against the liquidator’s rejection of the plaintiffs' proofs of debt.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Court should grant orders by consent to give effect to the settlement of two sets of proceedings, and whether the court was satisfied with the evidence to make consent orders concerning a Quistclose trust. Notably, the liquidator of Trojan, Mr. Lo Pilato, filed a submitting notice indicating his submission to the court's orders except for costs, yet he did not consent to the orders and wished to be heard on the matter.

The court's reasoning involved a careful examination of the principles regarding orders by consent and the nature of the evidence supporting the settlement. The court held that while the submitting notice indicated a willingness to accept the court's decision, the liquidator's refusal to consent and his desire to be heard necessitated a thorough evaluation of the evidence. The court found that the evidence was admissible and probative enough to justify the consent orders, despite the liquidator's objections. Consequently, the court was satisfied with the level of comfort required to make the orders.

In conclusion, the court made orders giving effect to the settlement reached between Justine Robinson and the Richardson interests, dismissing proceeding ACD 67 of 2012 as part of the settlement. The orders reflect the court's determination that the evidence supported the settlement terms, despite the liquidator's non-consent and wish to be heard.