Court approves the post-VA fees creditors rejected

While there may be a perception that courts too often side with creditors when insolvency practitioners are on the other side, Federal Court judge Darren Jackson has handed down a decision certain to rejuvenate jaded morale.

“….. while the former administrators properly brought to my attention correspondence from the liquidators raising certain concerns about the former administrators’ remuneration claim, the liquidators have indicated that they did not wish to appear”. Justice Darren Jackson.

In Trpcevski (Administrator), in the matter of Trisquare Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 1511 the judge agreed that remuneration for work done post-appointment should be paid, even though the creditors who’d ousted the original appointees voted to prevent it.

That’s right. The majority of creditors in number and by value didn’t want Jirsch Sutherland pair Jimmy Trpcevski and Greg Prout appointed in the first place and after ditching them sought to deny the ex-administrators their fees.

That the pair were entitled to the remuneration incurred during the period they were formally appointed was never in doubt.

What was a little special about Trpcevski and Prout’s application was that they sought payment for work performed after their removal, and we don’t mean the work involved in preparing a remuneration application.

We mean work performed in response to requests from their successors Bob Jacobs and Andrew Smith of Auxilium Partners.

This involved making payments to contractors and employees and assisting with transfers of funds to the account set up by Jacobs and Smith.

Two aspects assisted the former administrators in persuading the judge to approve their application.

First, Jacobs and Smith made the requests for assistance, meaning an implied contract was established.

Secondly it was work requiring urgent attention and at the time they were asked to perform it Trpcevski and Prout were self-evidently best placed to undertake it.

Jacobs and Smith also declined to be heard on the application and while unspecified concerns they had about the post-appointment fees were brought to the attention of the judge by the applicants, they didn’t appear to bother his honour.

” … while the former administrators properly brought to my attention correspondence from the liquidators raising certain concerns about the former administrators’ remuneration claim, the liquidators have indicated that they did not wish to appear to adduce evidence or make submissions to the Court,” the judge said.

What those concerns may be was not articulated and the judge referred the matter to a registrar for the job of assessing whether the amounts claimed were properly and reasonably incurred. Jolly good.

This story is published for the benefit of iNO Priority holders and must not be shared, copied, reproduced or otherwise distributed without the written permission of the publisher.