Debnam v Firehaus Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Debnam v Firehaus Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 307 PARTIES: STEPHEN ROSS DEBNAM (applicant) v FIREHAUS PTY LTD ACN 624 326 263 (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 3194 of 2021 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: On the papers (26 November 2021) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: On the papers JUDGE: Brown J ORDER: The order of the Court is that: 1. Pursuant to section 60-16 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), the remuneration of Mr Leon Lee as the former provisional liquidator of Firehaus Pty Ltd ACN 636 520 191 is fixed in the sum of $5,539.00 plus GST. 2. Mr Leon Lee’s costs of this application form part of the costs and expenses of the provisional liquidation of Firehaus Pty Ltd ACN 636 520 191. CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – LIQUIDATORS – REMUNERATION – where a provisional liquidator was appointed – where the provision liquidator applies for approval of his remuneration Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sch 2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) sch 1A Debnam & Stonehaus Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 306, cited SOLICITORS: Rose Litigation Lawyers for the applicant -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [1] The liquidator applies for an order that his remuneration be fixed in the sum of $5,539.00 plus GST for work done while he was the provisional liquidator of Firehaus Pty Ltd. I have set out the relevant principles and the requirements for seeking such remuneration in the judgment of Debnam & Stonehaus Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 306 and will not repeat those principles here. [2] The evidence indicates that the provisional liquidator has complied with r 9.3 of the Corporations Proceedings Rules.1 No party (including any creditor) has filed an objection to the remuneration sought. Mr Lee, who acted as the provisional liquidator, has deposed as to the work performed by him which includes a breakdown of the work performed during the liquidation, the staff who carried out the work including himself and the basis upon which he considers the work was necessary and properly performed. [3] Mr Lee has deposed to the fact that in addition to the usual steps/day one steps taken by insolvency practitioners, in respect of the provisional liquidation of Firehaus Pty Ltd, Mr Lee and his staff undertook the following tasks: (a) Taking control of Firehaus Pty Ltd’s assets and, books and records, so that they could be preserved pending the determination of the winding up hearing. (b) Communicating with the interested parties and their legal representatives who were involved in the just and equitable winding up proceedings and the related winding up in insolvency proceedings. (c) Securing Firehaus Pty Ltd’s stock and inventory which was stored at Firehaus Pty Ltd’s business premises. [4] On the basis of the affidavit evidence that has been provided I am satisfied that the remuneration is reasonable having regard to the matters set out in r 60-12 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations).2 The affidavit evidence does demonstrate that the work carried out was necessary and properly performed. The fees are a small amount. [5] I accept Mr Lee’s evidence that the work has been carried out efficiently satisfactorily and competently, at the appropriate level, by staff experienced to the appropriate level for the work to be undertaken and had a bona fide connection to the functions and duties of the external administrator and all of the work undertaken related to the discharge of the provisional liquidator’s duties and functions. [6] The Court will therefore make the order in accordance with the draft. 1 Schedule 1A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). 2 Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). -- 2 of 2 --