White Rook Pty Ltd v White Horizon Pty Ltd

White Rook Pty Ltd, represented by Mr. White, brought an action against White Horizon Pty Ltd, represented by Mr. Combis, the first respondent, and another respondent. The dispute revolves around the administration of property, specifically the realisation of property and the protection of the trustee from personal liability, along with the costs of the proceedings. Mr. Combis, who was appointed as the receiver, initiated proceedings in the District Court in 2017. During the trial of these claims in 2025, Mr. Combis’ claim was dismissed after it was conceded that he did not have the standing to commence the proceedings. Consequently, the first respondent sought a declaration to disentitle Mr. Combis from claiming remuneration and disbursements in relation to these unsuccessful proceedings. The court had to determine whether the expenses associated with the unsuccessful proceedings were properly incurred, thereby granting Mr. Combis a right to indemnity under the general law, and if the receiver ought to be denied remuneration and disbursements for these proceedings.

The court examined the onus placed on Mr. Combis to demonstrate that the costs of the unsuccessful proceedings were properly incurred. It was noted that Mr. Combis did not apply for judicial advice before commencing the proceedings, nor did he provide any evidence regarding the factors considered before initiating the proceedings without a Beddoe application. The court considered whether Mr. Combis’ failure to discharge his onus warranted the denial of remuneration and disbursements. Furthermore, the court assessed whether Mr. Combis' remuneration for acting as receiver, excluding the unsuccessful proceedings, should be fixed by the court, given that he did not present any evidence to discharge his onus. The first respondent argued that, due to Mr. Combis' failure, the court should fix his remuneration at nil for the entirety of the receivership.

The court ruled that Mr. Combis’ remuneration for acting as receiver of the property of the Partnership in relation to District Court Proceeding 383/17 should be fixed at $0.00. The court found that Mr. Combis did not discharge his onus to demonstrate that the costs of the unsuccessful proceedings were properly incurred, and therefore, he should not be entitled to any remuneration or disbursements for those proceedings. The court also acknowledged the practical difficulties in deciding the application for Mr. Combis' removal and decided to adjourn the hearing of this application.