A Queensland trustee in bankruptcy who landed a large and complex estate in early 2021 is now fighting to retain the appointment after one unsecured creditor lost patience and commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia seeking orders that the trustee be removed.
Whether the creditor’s impatience is justified however is something the court will have to decide.
The estate involves rural properties in central Queensland valued at more than $15 million but attempts by the bankrupt husband and wife owners to comprise their debts have been frustrated by a lack of agreement among creditors.
Throw in receivers from Cor Cordis who only resigned January this year, liquidator David Clout and a creditor associated with Port Macquarie-based pre-insolvency luminary Geoff Shannon and it’s not hard to see why Robson Cotter principal Roland Robson has attracted unfriendly fire.
In this case the irate creditor is rural business broker Peter Queitzsch, whose Beachmount Pty Ltd won a sizeable judgment against the husband and wife bankrupts in the Supreme Court of Queensland back in 2017.
Courtesy of penalty interest Queitzsch’s claim has swelled to in excess of $1.6 million
iNO’s mail is that Queitzsch’s 2017 claim had the backing of litigation funders associated with his lawyer on the case, Mills Oakley Brisbane partner Dale Cliff.
Cliff is also acting for Queitzsch in the proceedings seeking Robson’s removal and we understand the application also has the backing of litigation funders linked to Mills Oakley.
Documents obtained by iNO also show that Robson has significant doubts about a proof of debt for more than $6 million lodged by Sun Asia Rural Solutions Pty Ltd (SARS), a company to which Shannon was director appointed until December, 2021.
Further complicating the bankruptcy has been the existence of so-called “consent caveats” lodged by the bankrupts’ sons who have lived and worked on the properties for significant periods for little or no wages, thereby establishing their own claims. A hearing date is to be advised.
This sounds to be like a matter that a trustee might think it is best to be out of because all of the “distractions” will interfere with the proper administration and fulfilment of duties. It would be interesting to know in relation to the “consent Caveats” lodged via PEXA what documents the “Subscriber” may have had when each the Caveat’s were lodged other than the mere consent?