Recovery of cost of proceedings denied as a result of belated s477(2B) applications

Articles Written by Christopher Beames (Partner), Toni Vozzo (Partner), David Proudman (Consultant)

In circumstances where the number of retrospective applications made by liquidators under section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act for Court approval to enter into agreements of more than 3 months in duration appears to be increasing, the recent decision of Lindgren J of the Federal Court in Chamberlain v RG & H Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] FCA 26 is a decision to be noted.

The decision concerned a liquidator who had entered into two indemnity agreements in October 2007 and September 2008 respectively without obtaining any of the necessary approvals under s477(2B), notwithstanding his solicitors' view that approval was required. The Court concluded that the liquidator had therefore deliberately contravened s477(2B).

Approval from the Court was not sought until August 2009. The Court gave its retrospective approval for the liquidator's entry into the agreements and the liquidator sought that the costs of the application be paid out of the assets of the company as costs of the liquidation. A creditor objected to such an order being made to the extent that the costs arose from the liquidator's delay in seeking the Court approval.

Although the costs involved were relatively minor (a few thousand dollars for the preparation of two affidavits seeking to explain the liquidator's delay), the Court found that the liquidator had not satisfactorily explained the delay and declined to order the costs arising from the delay be paid out of the liquidation.

Circumstances may well be different where there is some honest doubt as to whether s477(2B) is applicable to a particular agreement or there are other good reasons for not seeking approval prior to entering into an agreement (or very soon thereafter). However, this decision illustrates that a liquidator does potentially prejudice his or her ability to recover the costs of a belated s477(2B) application if a conscious decision is made not to seek approval when the agreement is entered into and in circumstances where the section is clearly applicable.

Important Disclaimer: The material contained in this article is comment of a general nature only and is not and nor is it intended to be advice on any specific professional matter. In that the effectiveness or accuracy of any professional advice depends upon the particular circumstances of each case, neither the firm nor any individual author accepts any responsibility whatsoever for any acts or omissions resulting from reliance upon the content of any articles. Before acting on the basis of any material contained in this publication, we recommend that you consult your professional adviser. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation (Australia-wide except in Tasmania).

Related insights Read more insight

Court Rejects Proposed Appointment of Special Purpose Liquidators

In its recent judgment in Re Jabiru , the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied principles governing the appointment of Special Purpose Liquidators (SPL) in rejecting the Plaintiffs’ application...

Anything you say (to the ACCC) can be used against you (many years later) in court

The Federal Court recently held that submissions and internal documents provided by a party to the ACCC to support or oppose a transaction pursuant to the ACCC’s informal clearance process could be...

To the Brink and Back: In the matter of Merchant Overseas Logistics Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 154

In a recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in which we acted for the successful liquidators, the Court made various orders to enable the company to complete an ultra-efficient, streamlined...