When an objection is objectionable

In a decision handed down by Brown J on 20 May 2022 in Michaela Manicaros v Commercial Images (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 83, the Queensland Supreme Court provided useful guidance on when a liquidator may recover their legal costs of a remuneration application from a creditor objecting to the application (Objector).
Her Honour indicated that generally, Courts should be hesitant to make costs orders against Objectors, as this might discourage them from legitimately raising concerns in remuneration applications. However, her Honour recognised that costs orders against Objectors could be made in exceptional circumstances and that such orders can be on a standard or indemnity basis.
The Court found that exceptional circumstances existed in this case for the Objector to pay the liquidator’s costs on a standard basis. This was because of the following:
- The Objector conducted himself as an adversary rather than as a mere objector in the application. This was because the Objector made unsubstantiated claims against the liquidator with no evidence filed to justify them.
- The Objector withdrew their opposition to the remuneration application well after the matter had been set down for hearing.
However, as the Objector’s conduct did not amount to serious and unjustifiable trouble and harassment and there was found to not have a predominant motivation which was for an ulterior purpose, the liquidators’ costs were not ordered to be paid on an indemnity basis.
Read more articles from the The Annual Return: 2022 in Review
Keep up to date with our legal insights and events
Sign upRecent articles

‘Jack’ and ‘Mac’ recognisably different: McDonald’s loses trade mark beef with Hungry Jack’s
By Georgia Hunt, Robert Gregory
McDonald’s has failed in its trade mark claim against Hungry Jack’s for the sale of its ‘Big Jack’ burger.

Inquiry into the drivers of philanthropic giving in Australia
In May 2023 we noted the Productivity Commission had commenced an inquiry into the Drivers of philanthropic giving.

New point of law: What can be considered as a protected document?
By Patrick Ibbotson, Susanne Rakoczy
A look at Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2023] NSWLEC 119.

Applications to replace trustees in bankruptcy: Insights for trustees from the bankrupt estate of Salim Mehajer
By Marelda Hibberd & Michael Wells
The Court’s judgment and insights to assist trustees navigate difficult estates and deal with recalcitrant bankrupts.
Partner
Melbourne