Federal Court of Australia

Preston, in the matter of the Forum Group of Companies Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 953

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

14 James Street

1. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the remuneration of Jason Ireland and Jason Preston (the Receivers) in their capacities as receivers and managers of the properties at Item 1 of Annexure A (the James Street Properties) (being property formerly held by 14 James Street Pty Ltd ACN 638 449 206 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 14 James Street Unit Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $8,458 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

2. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the James Street Properties in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the James Street Properties, as approved by these orders.

3. The amount of remuneration fixed in Order 1 is in addition to the remuneration fixed in Order 12 of the orders made on 15 December 2022 (Initial Remuneration Orders).

26 Edmonstone Road

4. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 2 of Annexure A (the Edmonstone Road Property) (being property formerly held by 26 Edmonstone Road Pty Ltd ACN 622 944 129 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 26 Edmonstone Road Unit Trust) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership be fixed in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

5. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the Edmonstone Road Property in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the Edmonstone Road Property, as approved by these orders.

6. The amount of remuneration fixed in Order 4 of these orders is in addition to the remuneration fixed in Order 14 of the Initial Remuneration Orders.

5 Bulkara Street

7. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 3 of Annexure A (the 5 Bulkara Property) (being property formerly held by 5 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd ACN 630 982 160 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 5 Bulkara Street Unit Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $10,456 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

8. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the 5 Bulkara Property in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the 5 Bulkara Property, as approved by these orders.

9. The amount of remuneration fixed in Order 7 of these orders is in addition to the remuneration fixed in Order 16 of the Initial Remuneration Orders.

6 Bulkara Street

10. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 4 of Annexure A (the 6 Bulkara Property) (being property formerly held by 6 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd ACN 639 734 473 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 6 Bulkara Street Unit Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $2,200 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

11. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the 6 Bulkara Property in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the 6 Bulkara Property, as approved by these orders.

12. The amount of remuneration fixed in Order 10 of these orders is in addition to the remuneration fixed in Order 18 of the Initial Remuneration Orders.

XOXO Yacht

13. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 5 of Annexure A (the XOXO Yacht) (being property formerly held by Intrashield Pty Ltd ACN 133 426 534 (in liquidation) as trustee for the Mangusta Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $1,835 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

14. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the XOXO Yacht in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the XOXO Yacht, as approved by these orders.

15. The amount of remuneration fixed in Order 13 of these orders is in addition to the remuneration fixed in Order 20 of the Initial Remuneration Orders.

64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn

16. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 6 of Annexure A (the Berkeley Street Property) (being property formerly held by 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn Pty Ltd ACN 643 838 662 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn Unit Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 15 December 2022 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $54,104 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

17. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the Berkeley Street Property in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the Berkeley Street Property, as approved by these orders.

9 Gregory Street

18. Pursuant to r 14.24 of the Rules, the remuneration of the Receivers in their capacities as receivers and managers of the property at Item 7 of Annexure A (the Gregory Street Property) (being property formerly held by 9 Gregory Street Ouyen Pty Ltd ACN 641 392 707 (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 9 Gregory Street Ouyen Unit Trust) be fixed:

(a) for the period 15 December 2022 to 30 September 2025 in the amount of $124,657 (plus GST); and

(b) for the period 1 October 2025 to the finalisation of the receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 (plus GST).

19. The Receivers are justified in applying the proceeds of the Gregory Street Property in payment of their remuneration incurred as receivers and managers of the Gregory Street Property, as approved by these orders.

Other

20. The applicants’ costs of and incidental to this interlocutory application be paid from the proceeds of the property listed in Annexure A.

21. Order 20 is to operate on a several basis, with the costs divided in proportion to the amount of the proceeds of each property held by or on behalf of the Receivers.

22. Liberty be granted to the applicants to apply to the Court for orders discharging and releasing the applicants from their appointment as receivers and managers of each of the property listed in Annexure A on 5 business days’ notice (by sending an email to the Associate to Cheeseman J), without the requirement for any further interlocutory application.

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

Annexure A

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHEESEMAN J:

INTRODUCTION

1 These reasons address an interlocutory application by Jason Ireland and Jason Preston (the Receivers) for orders under r 14.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the approval of their past and future remuneration as receivers and managers of trust assets held by entities related to the Forum Group. The Receivers also seek orders that they are justified in applying assets of the trusts in payment of that remuneration.

2 The Receivers caused the application and supporting affidavit to be provided to the solicitors for Westpac, SMBC and Société Générale, and to Mr Konfir Kabo, the director of Aksara Holdings Pty Ltd. The solicitors for Westpac, SMBC and Société Générale indicated that their clients did not intend to be heard. Mr Kabo had not responded as at 21 April 2026. No person has indicated an intention to oppose the relief sought.

3 In these circumstances, and given the nature of the application and the absence of opposition, it is appropriate to determine the application on the papers.

4 For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant relief substantially in the form the Receivers seek.

EVIDENCE

5 The Receivers rely on the following evidence:

(1) the affidavit of Mr Ireland, Partner at McGrathNicol, affirmed 31 March 2026 (except paragraph 93(g)(vi) which was not read) and exhibit JI-8 to that affidavit; and

(2) the affidavit of Christopher Michael Prestwich, Partner at Allens, sworn 21 April 2026.

6 Mr Ireland’s affidavit explains the work undertaken up to 30 September 2025 and addresses the second remuneration reports for each receivership the subject of the application which are included in exhibit JI-8.

7 Mr Prestwich’s affidavit explains the Receivers’ unreviewed work in progress (WIP) for the period 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026 and evidence as to notification of this application to creditors and interested parties of the Forum Group.

BACKGROUND

8 The background to the fraud perpetrated against four financiers in respect of what proved to be fictitious and falsified equipment finance contracts is detailed in: Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited (in liq) (Liability) [2024] FCA 1176; Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited (in liq) (Relief) [2025] FCA 882; Preston, in the matter of the Forum Group of Companies Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 883. Familiarity with these judgments is assumed.

9 Relevantly for present purposes, on 3 September 2021 the Receivers were appointed by the Court pursuant to s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act) over the following assets:

(1) nine real properties held by 14 James Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee of the 14 James Street Unit Trust (the James Street Properties);

(2) real property held by 26 Edmonstone Road Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee of the 26 Edmonstone Road Unit Trust;

(3) real property held by 5 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee of the 5 Bulkara Street Unit Trust (the 5 Bulkara Property);

(4) real property held by 6 Bulkara Street Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee of the 6 Bulkara Street Unit Trust (the 6 Bulkara Property); and

(5) a motor yacht known as the “XOXO” motor yacht formerly owned by Intrashield Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the XOXO Yacht).

10 On 9 December 2022, the Receivers brought an application for approval of their remuneration in respect of those receiverships (the First Remuneration Application).

11 On 15 December 2022, the Court made orders fixing the Receivers’ remuneration for work done up to 30 September 2022, and for future remuneration from 1 October 2022 to the finalisation of each receivership.

12 Also on 15 December 2022, the Receivers were appointed by the Court pursuant to s 57 of the FCA Act over the following assets:

(1) real property held by 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn Unit Trust (the Berkeley Street Property); and

(2) real property held by 9 Gregory Street Ouyen Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) as trustee for the 9 Gregory Street Ouyen Unit Trust (the Gregory Street Property).

13 The Receivers have not previously sought any orders approving their remuneration in relation to these additional receiverships.

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

14 The Receivers are officers of the court and are required to obtain approval for the payment of their remuneration: Cape v Redarb Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager appointed) (1991) 32 FCR 407 at 417 (Gallop, Ryan and von Doussa JJ).

15 The Court should only allow remuneration which is fair and reasonable: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Linchpin Capital Group Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 44; 142 ACSR 193 at [7] (Derrington J). In conducting that assessment, the question of proportionality is important: Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137; 108 ACSR 545 at [32]-[34] (Besanko, Middleton and Beach JJ).

16 A summary of the relevant principles is found in In the matter of Say Enterprises Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 396 at [6], where Brereton J (as his Honour then was) set out the following propositions by reference to the equivalent rule of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (citations omitted):

(1)    A receiver is entitled to the costs, charges and expenses properly incurred in the discharge of the receiver’s ordinary duties, or in the performance of extraordinary services that have been sanctioned by the Court.

(2)    The ultimate question is what amount of remuneration is ‘reasonable’, and this involves considering whether the work in respect of which remuneration is claimed was reasonably undertaken in the due course of the receivership, and whether the amount claimed for it is a fair and reasonable reward for it. The objective is to award a sum or devise a formula which will reasonably and fairly compensate the receiver for the time and trouble expended in the execution of his or her duties and the responsibility he or she has assumed.

(3)    The receiver bears the onus of justifying the reasonableness and prudence of the tasks undertaken for which remuneration is sought, and the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed for them.

(4)    Remuneration may be allowed on the basis of a fixed salary, a commission on receipts, or a quantum meruit having regard to the time, trouble and responsibility involved. It is a matter for the Court to determine what basis is appropriate in the particular case, having regard to the principle that the remuneration must be reasonable.

(5)    If a time-based approach is adopted, the Court is guided by professional scales of charges, with emphasis on the broad average or general rate charged by persons of the relevant status and qualifications who carry out the relevant type of work. The Court will usually act on time sheets created in the receiver’s office, provided that they do significantly more than merely detail the total number of hours spent by the receiver and officers of particular grades on his or her staff.

(6)    By analogy, the task involves consideration of the matters referred to in Corporations Act, s 425(8), which applies to receivers appointed under an instrument, namely:

(a)    the extent to which the work performed by the receiver was reasonably necessary;

(b)    the extent to which the work likely to be performed by the receiver is likely to be reasonably necessary;

(c)    the period during which the work was, or is likely to be, performed by the receiver;

(d)    the quality of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the receiver;

(e)    the complexity (or otherwise) of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the receiver;

(f)    the extent (if any) to which the receiver was, or is likely to be, required to deal with extraordinary issues;

(g)    the extent (if any) to which the receiver was, or is likely to be, required to accept a higher level of risk or responsibility than is usually the case;

(h)    the value and nature of any property dealt with, or likely to be dealt with, by the receiver;

(i)    whether the receiver was, or is likely to be, required to deal with:

(i)    one or more other receivers; or

(ii)    one or more receivers and managers; or

(iii)    one or more liquidators; or

(iv)    one or more administrators; or

(v)    one or more administrators of deeds of company arrangement;

(j)    the number, attributes and behaviour, or the likely number, attributes and behaviour, of the company’s creditors;

(k)    if the remuneration is ascertained, in whole or in part, on a time basis:

(i)    the time properly taken, or likely to be properly taken, by the receiver in performing the work; and

(ii)    whether the total remuneration payable to the receiver is capped;

(l)    any other relevant matters.

(7)    Many of those factors — in particular, pars (d)–(e) and (g)–(h) — have as their unifying theme the concept of proportionality (being the relationship of the work done and the remuneration claimed to the value of the estate), which is an important consideration in determining reasonableness.

(8)    It will rarely be appropriate for a Judge to review a decision of a Registrar on remuneration on an item-by-item basis.

(9)    In respect of disbursements, no Court approval or specific order is necessary in the absence of a challenge, although receivers should scrutinise them to ensure that they are reasonable and properly payable, and the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to review receivers’ disbursements as they are officers of the Court. However, a receiver may seek a direction that he would be justified in paying certain disbursements in order to obtain prior protection in respect of such a disbursement.

17 These principles have been cited with approval in this Court in relation to remuneration approval applications brought under r 14.24 of the Rules: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v A One Multi Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1100; 166 ACSR 26 at [18] (Downes J); Hutchins, in the matter of Ardenberg Pty Ltd (in liq) (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2020] FCA 1424 at [17] (Yates J); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Caddick [2021] FCA 1443; 395 ALR 481 at [396] (Markovic J); Griffiths (Receiver and manager, and liquidator) of Samandac Pty Ltd (in liq) v Trustee for Chrisamanda Trust (No 2) [2018] FCA 1832 at [13] (Gleeson J).

18 The function of the Court is not to hypercritically assess the day by day activities or tasks undertaken in a complex administration over a lengthy period of time with the benefit of hindsight: Park & Muller (liquidators of LM Investment Management Ltd) v Whyte No 2 [2017] QSC 229; [2018] 2 Qd R 413 at [163] (Jackson J).

19 A receiver will not be disentitled to remuneration for work done which does not lead to augmentation of the funds in the receivership (for example, to meet statutory obligations), or which involves an unsuccessful attempt to recover assets, if the work was reasonable to be carried out and reasonably charged: A One Multi Services at [22].

20 The power to fix remuneration includes the power to fix future remuneration: A One Multi Services at [24]; Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1114 at [55] (Williams J). The relevant considerations include whether the work done to date has been undertaken in a reasonable and proper manner, whether the future tasks have been identified with reasonable specificity, whether estimates have been given for the likely cost of those tasks, whether the likely duration of the receivership has been identified, and whether the prospective remuneration is capped: A One Multi Services at [26].

21 The Receivers also seek orders that they are justified in applying the proceeds of the receiverships in payment of their remuneration. The Receivers have identified that orders to this effect were made in In the matter of Australasian Barristers Chambers Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 799 (Brereton J), but they have not been able to locate a relevant authority explaining why such an order is necessary in connection with a receiver’s remuneration (cf authorities which explain why such orders are made in respect of the payment of “expenses” rather than remuneration). I will return to this aspect of the present application below.

CONSIDERATION

22 The Receivers rely upon remuneration reports which provide for two buckets of remuneration:

(1) remuneration for work done up to 30 September 2025; and

(2) “future” remuneration from 1 October 2025 to the end of the receiverships. Approval is sought for a capped amount of $20,000 plus GST for each receivership.

23 The reason that the reports contemplate “future” remuneration from 1 October 2025, a date which predates the commencement of this application, is because this application was initially intended to be commenced in late 2025. With a view to avoiding the costs of preparing new remuneration reports to bring the work done up to a date closer to the date of this application, the Receivers rely on their remuneration reports to explain their work done to 30 September 2025 and have filed further evidence of their unreviewed WIP for the period 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026. The unreviewed WIP for the period 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026 is not an additional amount. It forms part of the capped future remuneration of $20,000 plus GST sought for each receivership.

24 Because the quantum of remuneration for work done differs in respect of each receivership for work done up to 30 September 2025, I will first outline the remuneration that is sought in respect of each receivership before considering whether the evidence establishes that the remuneration is fair and reasonable. I will then turn to consider the future remuneration from 1 October 2025 to the end of the receiverships.

Remuneration to 30 September 2025

14 James Street

25 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2025 in relation to the 14 James Street receivership is $8,458 (plus GST). The Receivers’ fees for the period total $14,820 plus GST (inclusive of $6,362 plus GST in undrawn fees which have already been approved by the Court).

26 The remuneration sought relates to steps taken to receive the proceeds of the sale of the James Street Properties, the Receivers’ compliance with statutory requirements, and administration costs, as well as reporting to secured creditors and their representatives.

27 In addition, the Receivers caused an application to be made in these proceedings for directions concerning the distribution of proceeds of assets of the Forum Group (Distribution Application), including the property the subject of this application. Part of the Receivers’ remuneration relates to steps taken to make the Distribution Application and liaise with creditors regarding the distributions of the remaining proceeds of the James Street Properties.

26 Edmonstone Road

28 No further retrospective remuneration is sought in respect of the 26 Edmonstone Road receivership. The Receivers seek only approval of future remuneration from 1 October 2025 to finalisation, capped at $20,000 plus GST. The evidence is that approximately $990 of previously approved remuneration remained undrawn, and that the further work required is of the same general kind as the future work required across the other receiverships, namely statutory and administrative compliance, taxation issues, reporting to stakeholders, receipt and preservation of sale proceeds, and steps necessary for distribution, and steps to retire the Receivers. I address this below when dealing with future remuneration.

5 Bulkara Street

29 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2025 in relation to the 5 Bulkara Street receivership is $10,456 (plus GST). The Receivers’ fees for the period total $17,554 plus GST (inclusive of $7,098 plus GST in undrawn fees which have already been approved by the Court).

30 Since the First Remuneration Application, the Receivers have liaised with secured creditors regarding the net outcome of the sale process owing to the Receivers and paid those amounts into a controlled moneys account, prepared and finalised the Distribution Application, complied with statutory requirements (including by making Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) lodgements, preparing taxation returns and liaised with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) regarding a private ruling) and provided reports to stakeholders in relation to the progress of the receivership.

6 Bulkara Street

31 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2025 in relation to the 6 Bulkara Street receivership is $2,200 (plus GST). The Receivers’ fees for the period total $9,882 plus GST (inclusive of $7,682 plus GST in undrawn fees which have already been approved by the Court).

32 Since the First Remuneration Application, the Receivers have liaised with secured creditors (obtaining the release of security over the 6 Bulkara Property), complied with statutory requirements (including by making ASIC lodgements, preparing taxation returns and liaised with the ATO regarding a private ruling) and provided reports to stakeholders in relation to the progress of the receivership.

XOXO Yacht

33 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2025 in relation to the XOXO Yacht is $1,835 (plus GST). The Receivers’ fees for the period total $5,629 plus GST (inclusive of $3,794 plus GST in undrawn fees which have already been approved by the Court).

34 Since the First Remuneration Application, the Receivers have prepared and finalised the Distribution Application, complied with statutory requirements (including by providing ASIC lodgements and taxation returns) and provided reports on the receivership to stakeholders.

64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn

35 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 15 December 2022 (being the date of the Receivers’ appointment) to 30 September 2025 in relation to the 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn receivership is $54,104 (plus GST), comprising:

(1) $29,840 relating to the sale process for the Berkeley Street Property (including the commencement of proceedings for possession and distribution of the proceeds of that property);

(2) $8,184 relating to liaising with secured creditors and providing reports to Westpac Banking Corporation, SMBC Leasing and Finance Inc and Société Générale (the Financiers) in relation to the progress of the receivership; and

(3) $16,080 relating to compliance with statutory obligations and administrative work (including ASIC lodgements and taxation returns).

36 The Receivers undertook work to engage with sales agents, valuers and solicitors for the sale of the Berkeley Street Property. In circumstances where the property was occupied by Mr Vincenzo Tesoriero and Ms Samantha Pagano at the time of their appointment, the Receivers were required to commence possession proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

37 On 15 February 2023 (after the Receivers’ appointment), Judo Bank assigned its loan and mortgage in respect of the property to GI 500 Pty Ltd (Gemi), and on 24 February 2023, Gemi appointed Greengate Advisory as joint receivers and managers of the Berkeley Street Property. Gemi sold the property as mortgagee in possession for the sum of $9,360,000. The Receivers were paid $1,009,794.86 from the sale proceeds.

38 Following the appointment of Greengate, the Receivers continued to engage with Gemi and Greengate regarding the sale of the Berkeley Street Property and the ultimate sale proceeds, prepared the Distribution Application in respect of distribution of those proceeds and provided reports on the receivership to the Financiers.

9 Gregory Street

39 The professional fees sought to be approved in the period from 15 December 2022 (being the date of the Receivers’ appointment) to 30 September 2025 in relation to the 9 Gregory Street receivership is $124,657 (plus GST), comprising:

(1) $82,036 relating to the sale process for the Gregory Street Property and distribution of the proceeds of that property;

(2) $8,184 relating to liaising with secured creditors and providing reports to the Financiers in relation to the progress of the receivership; and

(3) $16,080 relating to compliance with statutory obligations and administrative work (including ASIC lodgements and taxation returns).

40 The Gregory Street Property was a non-operational petrol station. At the time of appointment, the property was leased to a third party. The property was also encumbered by a registered mortgage to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ), and an equitable charge or equitable mortgage to Aksara.

41 Mr Ireland gives evidence of the significant work undertaken by the Receivers to maintain the Gregory Street Property and conduct three separate sales processes in respect of it. That work included the following:

(1) an initial sales process requiring the Receivers to liaise with sales agents, review marketing materials and expressions of interest and review a contract of sale. The process resulted in an exchange of sales contracts, and work was performed to prepare for discharge of the security over the premises. Although the sales process did not complete, the Receivers claimed the deposit paid by the prospective purchaser;

(2) a second sales process requiring the Receivers to again liaise with sales agents, engage with previously interested parties and re-engage a valuer to provide an updated valuation.  That sales process was ultimately terminated due to a lack of market interest; and

(3) a third sales process (which did complete) requiring the Receivers to again liaise with sales agents, negotiate with interested parties, and prepare a sales contract. Further work was involved to organise the removal of ANZ and Aksara's encumbrances in respect of the property, by the date of settlement.

Disposition

42 Applying the principles set out above, I am satisfied that the remuneration sought for work undertaken to 30 September 2025 is fair and reasonable. In reaching that conclusion, I have had regard to the necessity, nature and complexity of the work, the time taken, the value of the property dealt with, the Receivers’ responsibilities, the involvement of secured creditors and other receivers, and proportionality.

43 First, the remuneration has been calculated by reference to McGrathNicol’s hourly rates as at the commencement of the relevant receiverships. Those rates have not been increased since the Receivers’ appointment in 2021 for the 14 James Street, 26 Edmonstone Road, 5 Bulkara, 6 Bulkara and the XOXO Yacht receiverships, or since their appointment in 2022 for the 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn and 9 Gregory Street receiverships. I accept that the use of those historical rates supports the conclusion that the rates applied are reasonable.

44 Secondly, I place weight on Mr Ireland’s review of the WIP and his evidence that amounts have been written off so that remuneration is claimed only for necessary and proper work. The write-offs are material. They are $5,302 for 14 James Street, $2,751 for 5 Bulkara Street, $1,506 for 6 Bulkara Street, $985 for the XOXO Yacht, $5,742 for 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn, and $6,637 for 9 Gregory Street. The write-offs principally relate to general administrative matters, training, remuneration preparation and other non-chargeable time.

45 Thirdly, I am satisfied that the work undertaken was reasonably required by the continuation and finalisation of the receiverships. In the case of 14 James Street, 5 Bulkara Street, 6 Bulkara Street and the XOXO Yacht, the receiverships could not be finalised until the outcome of the Financier Proceedings was known and the Distribution Application had been determined. The work undertaken in that period was directed to matters including statutory and administrative compliance, taxation issues, reporting to stakeholders, receipt and preservation of sale proceeds, and steps necessary for distribution.

46 Fourthly, the remuneration claimed for 14 James Street, 5 Bulkara Street, 6 Bulkara Street and the XOXO Yacht is proportionate when assessed against the value of the property realised and the nature of the work required. The total remuneration claimed represents approximately 4% of the sale price obtained for the James Street Properties, approximately 5% of the sale proceeds for the 5 Bulkara Property, approximately 1% of the sale proceeds for the 6 Bulkara Property, and approximately 11% of the sale proceeds for the XOXO Yacht. Although the percentage for the XOXO Yacht is higher than for those other receiverships, the amount now sought is small and largely reflects necessary statutory and administrative work while the receivership remained on foot.

47 Fifthly, I am satisfied that the remuneration claimed for 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn is reasonable and proportionate. The work included engagement with sales agents, valuers and solicitors, steps to obtain possession from the occupiers, dealings with Judo Bank, Gemi and Greengate, and work associated with the eventual sale and distribution of proceeds. In particular, after Judo Bank assigned its loan and mortgage to Gemi, Gemi appointed Mr John Chand and Mr Patrick Loi of Greengate as receivers and managers of the Berkeley Street Property. The Receivers then had to liaise with Gemi and Greengate about the mortgage, Greengate’s appointment, the sale of the property by Gemi, and the proceeds of sale. That work is an example of the need to deal with another receiver or manager, a matter relevant to the assessment of remuneration. Although Gemi ultimately sold the property as mortgagee in possession, the Receivers’ earlier work to prepare the property for sale was undertaken consistently with their duties. The total remuneration claimed is proportionate, whether measured against the total sale price or against the proceeds ultimately paid to the Receivers.

48 Sixthly, I am satisfied that the remuneration claimed for 9 Gregory Street is reasonable notwithstanding that it represents a comparatively high proportion of the $500,000 sale price of the Gregory Street Property. The property was a non-operational petrol station, was leased to a third party, and was subject to security interests held by ANZ and Aksara. The Receivers were required to maintain the property, deal with the tenant, conduct three sale processes, and arrange for the removal of encumbrances. Those matters adequately explain the level of remuneration claimed.

49 Standing back, I am satisfied that the remuneration sought is proportionate. That conclusion does not depend on a mechanical comparison between remuneration and sale proceeds. The appropriate assessment is broader. It requires attention to the work reasonably required, the complexity of the receiverships, the value and nature of the assets, the need to deal with secured creditors and other receivers, the statutory and administrative obligations of the Receivers, and the fact that material amounts have been written off. Viewed in that way, the remuneration claimed for work undertaken to 30 September 2025 bears a reasonable relationship to the work performed and the outcomes achieved.

50 For those reasons, I find that the remuneration sought for work performed to 30 September 2025 was incurred for work reasonably undertaken in the due course of the receiverships and is a fair and reasonable reward for that work.

Remuneration from 1 October 2025 to end of the receiverships

51 Applying the principles set out above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to fix future remuneration for each receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 plus GST. The amount is a cap, not a fixed fee. The Receivers will be entitled to draw only remuneration actually incurred for work properly undertaken in finalising the receiverships.

52 The evidence identifies, with sufficient specificity, the work required to complete each receivership. That work comprises: first, attending to the distribution of proceeds in accordance with the Court’s orders made in connection with the Distribution Application; secondly, undertaking this remuneration application and a further application for orders permitting the Receivers to retire; and thirdly, completing final statutory, taxation, banking, reporting and administrative tasks. I am satisfied that those tasks are necessary and proper receivership work required to bring each receivership to an orderly conclusion.

53 The estimated amount of $20,000 plus GST for each receivership is broken down as $10,000 for distribution work, $5,000 for this application and the further application for the Receivers’ retirement, and $5,000 for final statutory and administrative tasks. The estimate is sufficiently particularised. The evidence also explains why the same cap is sought for each receivership: the steps required to finalise the receiverships are, for the most part, common to each receivership.

54 I have considered whether the proposed cap is proportionate, including in circumstances where, for some receiverships, the proposed cap for future remuneration exceeds the additional remuneration now sought for work performed to 30 September 2025. That comparison does not lead me to conclude that the proposed future remuneration is disproportionate. The correct comparison is not simply between past additional remuneration and the proposed future cap. The question is whether the capped amount bears a reasonable relationship to the work likely to be required to complete the receiverships, having regard to the nature of that work, the value and character of the property, the Receivers’ responsibilities, the need to make final distributions, and the safeguards that limit the risk of overpayment.

55 There are several matters which support the proportionality of the proposed cap.

56 First, the amount is capped.

57 Secondly, it includes WIP already incurred between 1 October 2025 and 31 March 2026. That WIP is not an additional amount. It is to be counted against the capped amount for each receivership. The WIP already incurred is $6,750 for 14 James Street, $7,799 for 26 Edmonstone Road, $6,911 for 5 Bulkara Street, $7,905 for 6 Bulkara Street, $7,534 for the XOXO Yacht, $6,355 for 64-66 Berkeley St Hawthorn, and $3,265 for 9 Gregory Street. Those amounts reduce the amount remaining available within each cap.

58 Thirdly, the proposed future work includes discrete finalisation tasks which were not necessarily reflected in the comparatively modest additional remuneration sought for some earlier periods. Those tasks include final distributions, final statutory and taxation work, banking and reporting tasks, this remuneration application, and an application for permission for the Receivers to retire. I accept that those tasks are necessary to complete the receiverships and that they may properly involve costs notwithstanding that the preceding period involved relatively modest additional remuneration in some receiverships.

59 Fourthly, the Receivers intend to consolidate tasks common to the receiverships where possible, including by using a common model for distributions and apportioning the costs of common work across the receiverships. That approach is likely to produce economies of scale and is a relevant proportionality safeguard.

60 Fifthly, the work will be charged at the same historical rates that have applied since the commencement of the relevant receiverships.

61 Sixthly, if fees exceed the capped amount, the excess will be written off rather than made the subject of a further approval application.

62 Having regard to those matters, I am satisfied that the proposed future remuneration is proportionate. The cap bears a reasonable relationship to the identified work required to complete the receiverships, the WIP already incurred within the capped period, the economies expected from common work, and the need to bring each receivership to finality without further unnecessary cost.

63 For those reasons, I find that the future remuneration sought is for work likely to be reasonably necessary to finalise the receiverships, that the estimate is adequately particularised and capped, and that the amount sought is fair, reasonable and proportionate. I will fix the Receivers’ future remuneration for each receivership in the amount of up to $20,000 plus GST.

Application of proceeds to approved remuneration

64 The Receivers also seek orders that they are justified in applying the proceeds of the receiverships in payment of their approved remuneration. I accept that, strictly, such orders may be unnecessary once the Court has fixed remuneration under r 14.24 of the Rules, because the fixing of remuneration determines the amount that is fair and reasonable. The Receivers properly drew this to the Court’s attention.

65 I am nevertheless satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought. The application concerns multiple concurrent receiverships, separate property pools and a proposed several allocation of costs. In those circumstances, the orders provide practical protection and clarity as to the source from which the approved remuneration may be paid. They are consistent with the Court’s conclusion that the remuneration is fair, reasonable and proportionate.

COSTS

66 The applicants’ costs of and incidental to this application should be paid from the proceeds of the property listed in Annexure A to the orders that I will make, on a several basis and in proportion to the proceeds of each property held by or on behalf of the Receivers. The application was necessary to obtain approval of the Receivers’ remuneration and to progress the finalisation of the receiverships.

CONCLUSION

67 For these reasons, I will make orders substantially in the form sought by the Receivers, including orders fixing past and future remuneration, permitting payment of approved remuneration from the relevant receivership proceeds, and providing for the costs of the application.

68 I am also satisfied that liberty to apply for orders discharging and releasing the Receivers on five business days’ notice is appropriate. That course is likely to avoid the cost of a further interlocutory application while preserving notice to interested parties.

Associate:

Dated:    21 July 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES