Federal Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 725

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The 14th and 15th defendants’ application filed 21 May 2026 is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1    There have been two prior judgments in this matter: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 1) [2024] FCA 1275 and Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1505. These reasons should be read in conjunction with those judgments.

2    Orders appointing Receivers to the property of the 14th defendant, David George McWilliams and the 15th defendant, Laura Mary Fullarton, were made on 22 October 2024.

3    Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton (together for the purposes of these reasons, the defendants) are husband and wife.

4    Receivers were appointed to the 1st to 13th defendants on 1 November 2024, to the 16th defendant on 19 February 2025 and to the 17th and 18th defendants on 28 April 2025.

5    On 14 October 2025, the Court made orders winding up the 1st to 13th, 17th and 18th defendants.

6    By an Amended Statement of Charge filed 4 March 2026, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission charged Mr McWilliams with five counts of contempt. ASIC also charged Ms Fullarton with one charge of contempt (together, the contempt charges).

The charges

7    In the case of Mr McWilliams, in summary the charges allege:

(a)    deliberate disobedience or disobedience of disclosure orders made by the Court on 11 September 2024, as varied on 26 September 2024 (Charge DM-1);

(b)    deliberate disobedience or disobedience of paragraph 4(e) of the Freezing Orders made by the Court on 11 September 2024, as extended by order 1 of the orders made on 16 September 2024 and order 10 of the orders made on 1 November 2024, by withdrawing, transferring or otherwise disposing of monies available to Mr McWilliams in bank and cryptocurrency accounts in which he had a legal interest otherwise than as permitted by the authorised carve outs to those orders, being exceptions to the Freezing Orders provided by order 5 of the orders made on 11 September 2024, order 3 of the orders made on 16 September 2024, orders 1 to 3 of the orders made on 4 October 2024 and orders 10 to 13 of the orders made on 1 November 2024 (Charge DM-2);

(c)    deliberate disobedience or disobedience of paragraph 4(b) of the freezing orders by selling or otherwise dealing with part of his property (Charge DM-3);

(d)    in the alternative to Charge DM-3, by deliberately disobeying or disobeying paragraph 4(c) of the Freezing Orders by permitting part of his property to be sold or otherwise dealt with (Charge DM-4); and

(e)    deliberate disobedience or disobedience of paragraph 4(c) of the Freezing Orders by causing part of his property to be dealt with or disposed of (Charge DM-5).

8    In the case of Ms Fullarton, the charge relates to alleged deliberate disobedience or disobedience of paragraph 4(e) of the Freezing Orders by withdrawing, transferring or otherwise disposing of monies available to her in bank accounts in which she had a legal interest otherwise than was permitted by the authorised carve outs.

Funding orders

9    Given the seriousness of the contempt charges, the defendants applied for funding for the costs of their defence to the contempt charges to be paid from funds in the Receivership.

10    On 3 February 2026, the Court made orders for that funding including:

1.    By on or before 4.30pm (ACDT) on 5 February 2026, the Receivers are to pay into Court, from the proceeds of the Receivership, the sum of $47,200, (inclusive of GST), for the purpose of the provision of legal fees to be incurred by the 14th and 15th defendants in relation to the Contempt Application filed by ASIC in this matter on 27 November 2025.

2.    After the hearing of the Contempt Application on 10 March 2025, the 14th and 15th defendants’ solicitors are to lodge with the Court a bill of costs for work done in relation to the Contempt Application including counsel fees, for assessment of those fees by a Registrar.

3.    In the event the Registrar assesses the costs in a sum greater than $47,200 (including GST), then the amount in excess of that amount is to be considered by the Receivers in the Receivership as an unsecured debt.

4.    In the event the Registrar assesses the costs in a sum less than $47,200 (including GST), then the amount by which the sum of $47,200 (including GST) exceeds the assessed sum is to be repaid to the Receivers as funds in the Receivership.

11    The amount of $47,200 (inclusive of GST) was based on an estimate of fees given by the solicitors for the defendants to the Court of the costs to be incurred by them in relation to the Contempt Application.

12    At the time those orders were made, the Contempt Application was listed for hearing on 10 March 2025.

13    Subsequently, the hearing listed for 10 March 2026 was vacated and ASIC was given leave to file an Amended Statement of Charge. Other timetabling orders were made, including that the hearing for the Contempt Application be listed for 23 April 2026 with one day set aside.

14    On 4 March 2026, ASIC filed and served its amended statement of charge.

15    On 20 March 2026, the defendants applied by way of interlocutory application for further funding from funds in the Receivership.

16    On 24 March 2026, orders 7 to 11 were made in the following terms:

7.    Order 1 of the Orders made by O’Sullivan J on 3 February 2026 is varied so that, on or before 27 March 2026, the Receivers are to pay into Court from the proceeds of the Receivership the sum of FIVETY FIVE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($55,150.00) (inclusive of GST) for the purpose of the provision of legal fees to be incurred by the 14th and 15th defendants in relation to the Contempt Application filed by ASIC in this matter on 27 November 2025.

8.    Order 2 of the Orders made by O’Sullivan J on 3 February 2026 is varied so that:

(a)    the solicitors for the 14th and 15th defendants are at liberty to lodge with the Court prior to the hearing of the Contempt Application on 23 April 2026 one bill of costs for the work done to the date of that bill of costs in relation to the Contempt Application only (including counsel fees), to be assessed by a Registrar of the Court; and

(b)    after the hearing of the Contempt Application on 23 April 2026, the solicitors for the 14th and 15th defendants are to lodge with the Court a bill of costs for the balance of any work done in relation to the Contempt Application (including counsel fees), to be assessed by a Registrar of the Court.

9.    For the avoidance of doubt, the solicitors’ fees are to be assessed at the relevant scale and Counsel fees are not to exceed the estimate provided by Counsel in its Legal Services and Costs Agreement letter sent to the solicitors for the 14th and 15th defendants dated 27 February 2026 and annexed at pages 21-24 of annexure RTJH-02 to the affidavit of Russell Tyson James Hall sworn 19 March 2026 and filed in these proceedings.

10.    Order 3 of the Orders made by O’Sullivan J on 3 February 2026 is varied so that in the event a Registrar assesses the total costs claimed by the 14th and 15th defendants in relation to the Contempt Application to be in a sum greater than ONE HUNDRED AND TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($102,350.00) (inclusive of GST), then the amount in excess of that amount is to be considered by the Receivers in the Receivership as an unsecured debt.

11.    Order 4 of the Orders made by O’Sullivan J on 3 February 2026 is varied so that in the event a Registrar assesses the total costs claimed by the 14th and 15th defendants in relation to the Contempt Application to be in a sum less than $102,350 (inclusive of GST), then the amount by which the sum of $102,350 (inclusive of GST) exceeds the assessed sum is to be repaid to the Receivers as funds in the Receivership.

17    The sum of $55,150 (inclusive of GST) was assessed by the Court having considered the defendants’ interlocutory application for an increase in funding.

18    As is evident from order 9 of the orders made on 24 March 2026, solicitor and Counsel fees are to be assessed by a Registrar of the Court at the relevant Scale and Counsel fees are not to exceed the estimate provided by Counsel in a Legal Services and Costs Agreement sent to the defendants’ solicitors dated 27 February 2026.

19    In total, the amount paid into Court by the Receivers against which the solicitors and Counsel fees are to be assessed at the relevant scale is $102,350 (inclusive of GST).

20    By orders made 13 April 2026, the hearing for the Contempt Application listed on 23 April 2026 was vacated and relisted for Monday 15 June 2026 with five days set aside. The estimate of five days was based on the fact that it was not known at that stage, how many witnesses would be required for cross-examination and whether or not the defendants would admit the contempt charges.

Further funding sought

21    On 21 May 2026, the defendants applied for further funding to be paid into Court from the proceeds of the Receivership, this time in the additional sum of $96,496.35 (inclusive of GST). They also sought an order that their solicitors, Stone Group Lawyers, be at liberty to file a second interim Bill of Costs prior to the hearing of the contempt charges.

22    That application was opposed by ASIC and the Receivers. I heard argument on 2 June 2026. It is for the reasons which follow that the application is dismissed.

Documents read

23    In support of their application for further funding, the defendants read the affidavit of Berren O’Sullivan Hamilton, a solicitor employed by Stone Group Lawyers, sworn on 21 March 2026 and filed on 22 March 2026. Mr Hamilton appeared for the defendants at the hearing of this application.

Parties’ submissions and consideration

24    At the hearing, Mr Hamilton confirmed that the contempt charges were to be admitted, save for the issue of the alleged acts of contempt being done with intent or deliberately.

25    I was also informed at the hearing by Mr Steele KC, Senior Counsel for ASIC, that his current estimate for the Contempt Application hearing is now three days and that four witnesses are to be cross-examined. His estimate was based on half a day per witness plus time for submissions.

26    Although Mr Hamilton did not object to the 3 day estimate, he thought it may go longer.

27    I proceed on the basis of a 3 day hearing.

28    In his affidavit, Mr Hamilton deposes as to the history of the matter in relation to the funding to be paid into Court by the Receivers on account of the costs of Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton in defending the contempt charges, as well as further events which have occurred since the orders of 24 March 2026, deposing that a substantial amount of further work has been required in relation to the contempt charges.

29    Mr Hamilton deposes that in accordance with order 8(a) of the orders made on 24 March 2026, an interim Bill of Costs had been lodged with the Court claiming $89,306.25 (inclusive of GST) to 30 March 2026 for work done by solicitors and Counsel for the defendants in relation to the contempt charges.

30    In his oral submissions, Mr Hamilton confirmed that the amount of $89,306.25, the subject of the interim Bill of Costs, was not calculated at the relevant Federal Court Scale but in accordance with the Costs Agreement between Mr McWilliams, Ms Fullarton and Stone Group Lawyers. That is contrary to order 9 made on 24 March 2026.

31    Mr Hamilton also confirmed that the costs now claimed are for a five-day hearing and also in accordance with the Costs Agreement between Stone Group Lawyers and the defendants.

32    Mr Hamilton deposed that the further legal fees anticipated to be incurred by Stone Group Lawyers were those set out at [39(a)-(g)] of his affidavit which totalled $67,200 (inclusive of GST). That estimate was exclusive of Counsel fees which were estimated at between $37,812.50 to $50,425 (inclusive of GST) in total.

33    ASIC submits that given the interim bill lodged by Stone Group Lawyers with the Court for assessment by a Registrar was calculated in accordance with its Costs Agreement and not at the relevant Scale, and is also calculated on an indemnity basis, the true amount on assessment is likely to be in the order of $50,000 (inclusive of GST and including Counsel fees).

34    Stone Group Lawyers have not done the exercise of calculating its claimed costs at Scale. In what is necessarily a high level calculation and where the costs have to be assessed by a Registrar at the relevant scale, I accept ASIC’s submission that it is likely that Stone Group Lawyer’s costs (including Counsel fees) claimed in the interim Bill of Costs will be in the order of $50,000 (inclusive of GST).

35    As to the additional costs now sought, Mr Hamilton, in his affidavit at [39], provides an estimate of the fees in the following terms:

a.    reviewing the affidavit of David Lalic to be received, and considering any potential claim for legal privilege; includes liaising with counsel and preparing any potential claim against the material contained in the affidavit – 1 full day: $3,135 (including GST);

b.    if required, prepare for and appear at any application brought by ASIC in response to any claim for legal privilege over the affidavit of David Lalic – 1 day preparing and 1 day appearance: $6,270 (including GST);

c.    further conferences with the 14th and 15th Defendants and counsel – 3 full days: $9,405 (including GST);

d.    preparation for the hearing of the Contempt Application including reading and considering ASIC’s submissions – 1 full day for each day of the hearing: $3,135 (including GST) per day, with a range being between $3,135 and $15,675 (including GST);

e.    attendance at the Contempt Application to instruct counsel: $3,135 (including GST) per day, with a range being between $3,135 and $15,675 (including GST);

f.    incidental attendances necessary for the preparation and conduct in relation to the Contempt Application – 2.5 days = $7,837.5 (including GST); and

g.    liaising as necessary with the solicitors for ASIC and the solicitors for the Receivers in relation to the conduct of the proceeding of the Contempt Application – 1.5 days = $4,702.5 (including GST),

Total: $62,700 (Further Anticipated Fees)

36    As to each of those claims, ASIC submits that:

(a)    the costs estimate in [39(a)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit may be accepted insofar as that item is concerned;

(b)    the amount claimed in [39(b)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit refers to applications brought by ASIC. No applications have been bought, such that nothing should be allowed for that item;

(c)    as to [39(c)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit, is not clear why 3 days of conferences are required and no explanation is given as to why that time is required. ASIC submits further that on 27 March 2026, Mr McWilliams was put on notice that evidence from Mr Lalic, his former solicitor and former solicitor for Ms Fullarton, was in contention;

(d)    as to [39(d)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit, clearly, the first day of the hearing was anticipated in any event. On the basis of three days, that sum becomes $9,045 (inclusive of GST).

(e)    as to [39(e)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit, the same point arises, the first day was always anticipated such that the amount is reduced to $9,045 (inclusive of GST); and

(f)    as to [39(f) and (g)] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit, there is no explanation as to what comprises the incidental attendances said to be necessary with the solicitors for ASIC. The solicitors for the Receivers are unlikely to be involved in any hearing such that no sum should be allowed for that eventuality. Nonetheless, accepting the matters to which Mr Hamilton deposes, I am prepared to accept the cost estimates in both those subparagraphs giving a total of $12,539 (inclusive of GST).

37    The consequence is that the amount claimed at [39] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit is reduced to approximately $34,000 (inclusive of GST). ASIC submits further that the estimated sum is in accordance with the Costs Agreement between Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton and Stone Group Lawyers such that that sum should be further reduced to Scale which is likely to amount to $30,000 (inclusive of GST).

38    I am prepared to accept ASIC’s submission as to the likely quantum of costs in [34] of Mr Hamilton’s affidavit, which although necessarily considered at a high level, appears reasonable in the circumstances.

39    As to Counsel fees, originally Counsel had estimated costs between $17,875 and $24,750 (exclusive of GST) based upon a one-day hearing. That estimate has now increased by an additional $16,500 to $22,000 (exclusive of GST). That additional sum is based on a further 4 days of hearing and an additional 2 to 4 days of preparation. Taking a mid-point of between $16,500 and $22,000 that sum becomes $19,250 (exclusive of GST), that amounts to $4,812.50 per day, which over 3 days totals $14,437.50 (exclusive of GST) or $15,881.25 (inclusive of GST), say $15,900.

40    If that amount is added to the $30,000 (inclusive of GST) to be incurred by Stone Group Lawyers, the total is $45,900 (inclusive of GST), say $46,000 (inclusive of GST), which, when added to the current figure claimed when assessed at the relevant scale at an estimated $50,000 (inclusive of GST and including Counsel fees), totals $96,000 (inclusive of GST). That sum is less than the sum which has been paid into Court by the Receivers.

41    Whereas I accept that these are necessarily high-level estimates, the exercise has been complicated by Stone Group Lawyers not claiming costs in accordance with the relevant Scale, but on the basis of a Costs Agreement. The Costs Agreement is a matter between Stone Group Lawyers and their clients and as between Stone Group Lawyers and Counsel, although insofar as Counsel is concerned, I have accepted the GST inclusive estimate based on the Costs Agreement between Counsel and Stone Group Lawyers, but taking a midpoint.

Conclusion

42    It is for these reasons that Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton’s application for an increase of funding of $96,496.35 (inclusive of GST) over and above the sum already paid into Court is dismissed.

43    So too, the application by the defendants that Stone Group Lawyers be at liberty to file a second interim Bill of Costs for assessment prior to the contempt hearing is also dismissed.

44    I will hear the parties on the question of the costs of this application.

Associate:

Dated:    11 June 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES