Conflicted VA denied a percentage of indemnity

While the Keybridge Capital Limited brouhaha continues to be an active dispute with an appeal hearing imminent, administrator-in-limbo Gideon Rathner has escaped most of the blast in respect of last week’s costs orders.

“I do not consider that all of the Administrator’s costs of the proceeding were “reasonably and properly incurred”, and am satisfied there should be a proportionate reduction in his right to be indemnified from Keybridge’s property in respect of those costs, to reflect the extent to which his defence of the proceeding went beyond a position of essential neutrality.” Justice Scott Nixon.

NSW Supreme Court judge Scott Nixon ruled on the costs generated by the litigation between the factions fighting for control and the Lowe Lippmann partner’s participation in that fight in the lead up to his judgement of April 14, 2025, in which he confirmed that a February meeting at which resolutions were passed installing new directors – apart from incumbent Antony Catalano – were valid.

While an appeal of that April 14 judgment is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, iNO readers may find much of interest In the matter of Keybridge Capital Limited (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 423, in which Justice Nixon had to determine how much recourse to indemnity or lien Rathner was entitled to.

In his April 14 judgment Justice Nixon ordered that the administration end with immediate effect but stayed the orders to allow those who installed Rathner time to consider an appeal.

Last week he found Rathner should be entitled to be indemnified from Keybridge’s property with respect to no more than 85 per cent of his costs (including legal costs, expenses and remuneration) of and incidental to the proceeding.

“I do not consider that all of the Administrator’s costs of the proceeding were “reasonably and properly incurred”, and am satisfied there should be a proportionate reduction in his right to be indemnified from Keybridge’s property in respect of those costs, to reflect the extent to which his defence of the proceeding went beyond a position of essential neutrality,” the judge said.

“The Plaintiffs submitted that the appropriate reduction was “at least 75 per cent of Keybridge and Mr Rathner’s total costs of the proceeding”.

“I do not consider that a reduction of such an extent is warranted, given that I am satisfied that the Administrator adopted an appropriate position of neutrality from 3 March 2025 onwards, including at each of the March Hearing and the April Hearing.

“Instead, having regard to the matters set out in paragraph [331] of the March Judgment, I consider that the reduction should be 15%,” he said.