Australian Securities & Investment Commission v Piggott Wood & Baker

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Piggott Wood & Baker (a firm) [2006] FCA 1774 I upheld the Liquidator's claim for remuneration for work done and expenses incurred in responding to requests by ASIC for information as to the progress of the winding up. I directed the parties to file written submissions on costs. Notwithstanding the very tight time frame dictated by the onset of the long vacation, the parties have provided concise and well argued submissions, for which I thank them. 2 Because the Liquidator has succeeded in obtaining the relief claimed there will be an order that he recover his costs of and incidental to the interlocutory applications dated 22 September and 5 December 2006 out of the Guarantee Fund. These are part of his costs and expenses in terms of the Winding Up Order as amended. 3 While it is true that the Liquidator failed in his primary submission that the District Registrar's confirmation of the remuneration and expenses in question was final and conclusive, the making of that submission did not significantly increase costs. The hearing was disposed of in a day. 4 The payment of the Liquidator's costs out of the Guarantee Fund is consistent with the terms of the Winding Up Order as amended and s 108(2)(a)(iii) of the Legal Profession Act 1993 (Tas). Payment out of the proceeds of the winding up is not appropriate. I am informed that there is no present fund against which costs orders could operate and there is no guarantee that there will be any further funds in fact recovered. Moreover, the fund derived from recovered monies is not a pooled fund and there would be great practical difficulty in apportioning the costs across individual loans. 5 Counsel for ASIC undertakes on behalf of his client not to seek or otherwise procure payment of costs. I should note in this context that nothing in my substantive decision should be taken as criticism of ASIC, which has been acting properly in performance of its statutory functions and, through its counsel, provided the Court with helpful submissions. 6 The Solicitors' Trust was given leave to be heard, read affidavits and made submissions opposing the Liquidator's application. It was reasonable for it to do so in order to protect the integrity of the Guarantee Fund. 7 As I read its counsel's submissions, the Trust does not seek any costs order for itself. Presumably this is because its costs will be recovered from the Guarantee Fund as an ordinary cost of administering the Fund. If there is any doubt about this, I would be prepared to make such an order. 8 However, the Trust did seek an order that ASIC should pay a "substantial proportion" of the Liquidator's costs since the Liquidator's application was brought as a result of ASIC's stance. I do not propose to make such an order. ASIC has not acted unreasonably. In substance this was a case where both the Liquidator and ASIC were seeking the advice and directions of the Court in the course of a winding up by the Court. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.