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
New VCAT decision in relation to outsourcing under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic)
A recent decision provides clarity and reassurance for the Victorian Government regarding liability under the PDP Act.
Our top 8 tips for carrying out product recalls
We offer our ‘top tips’ for conducting a voluntary product recall.
Merger control in Australia to become mandatory
From 1 January 2026, the current regime will be replaced by a mandatory pre-merger notification regime.
The LiveBetter case: $1.8m civil penalty for NDIS provider
We unpack the learnings from LiveBetter’s $1.8m civil penalty following the death of an NDIS participant
Partner
Melbourne