$1.3 million fee bid won’t proceed without words

Nice try Parky but no go. Asking a court to approve $1.3 million in remuneration without your lawyers opening their mouths was a bit much.

Sure, we know FTI Consulting’s Head of Corporate Finance & Restructuring – Australia John Park was just trying to save the long suffering creditors of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QN) a bit of coin.

“Complexity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and lawyers who have a deep understanding of a matter can sometimes not appreciate that their understanding of the case will not easily be conveyed without the benefit of an oral hearing.” Justice Glen Martin.

And lord knows they’ve forfeited enough over the years as Park and colleague and joint & several QN liquidator Kerry-Ann Trenfield have despatched HWL Ebsworth again and again to argue in pursuit of some claim against QN’s wealthy and combative director Clive Palmer, or in defence of some allegation or counter-claim Palmer’s pressed.

But when it comes to an application for approval of a hefty $1.3 million in liquidators’ fees without an oral hearing, well, a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland this week didn’t express his opposition sotto voce.

“The submissions in support of the application extend to 73 paragraphs and the material in support is some hundreds of pages,” Justice Glen Martin said in Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2024] QSC 15.

“The applicants say that all relevant parties have been served and that no objections have been raised.

“But this is not a cut and dried case. Because I have formed the view that the application is inappropriate for decision without an oral hearing, I will not go into the detail.”

Not cut and dried? Certainly barrister Nic Derrington, who acted for the liquidators on the application and has acted for them in multiple instances before must’ve thought it was, but Justice Martin had a warning for lawyers and counsel whose familiarity with a matter is substantial.

“The purpose of the “on the papers” procedure is to allow matters which can be considered without any further information or argument to be decided without incurring the cost of an oral hearing,” he said.

“It will, generally, be inappropriate to use this procedure where the application is factually or legally complex.

“Complexity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and lawyers who have a deep understanding of a matter can sometimes not appreciate that their understanding of the case will not easily be conveyed without the benefit of an oral hearing.”