Plaintiffs v Defendant

1. The liquidator's remuneration application is supported by the affidavits of Mr Crosbie made on 19 September 2025 and 28 October 2025, along with written submissions dated 28 October 2025.

1. On 28 May 2012, Ian Menzies Carson, David Laurence McEvoy and the first plaintiff liquidator were appointed joint and several voluntary administrators ('administrators') of Hastie and 43 subsidiaries (together, 'Hastie Group').
2. Hastie was a public company that was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. The Hastie Group carried on the business of providing mechanical, electrical and plumbing services in countries and regions including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Gibraltar and the Caribbean. Prior to the appointment of administrators, the Hastie Group had approximately 7,000 employees, an annual turnover in excess of $1.8 billion, construction work in progress of approximately $2.9 billion on over 1,000 sites, and assets with a reported book value of approximately $1 billion.
3. At the time of the appointment of the administrators, there was a banking syndicate, comprising the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, National Australia Bank Limited, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, HSBC Bank Australia Limited - Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC, BOS International (Australia) Ltd, Bank of Scotland plc and Westpac Banking Corporation (collectively, 'banking syndicate'), which was a secured creditor of the Hastie Group for approximately $529.9 million.
4. On 28 May 2012, and immediately following the appointment of the voluntary administrators, the banking syndicate appointed receivers and managers to 11 companies within the Hastie Group.
5. In June 2012, the administrators of the Hastie Group obtained orders in the Federal Court extending the convening period under s 439A of the Act and, in addition, the Court made an order dispensing with the requirement that the administrators send written reports to the creditors of the Hastie Group and instead permitted notice of meetings to be given by, among other things, email and by making the report to creditors available for publication on the administrators' website.
6. On 21 January 2013, the administrators issued their report to creditors which stated, among other things:

(a) the banking syndicate held first ranking security over almost all the Hastie Group companies and was therefore entitled to the proceeds of asset sales in priority to general unsecured creditors, but ranked behind priority creditors (i.e. employees) in relation to circulating assets;

(b) the Hastie Group's employees were owed approximately $47 million in unpaid entitlements, excluding redundancies. As at the date of the report, the administrators had paid approximately $27.4 million in priority claims from funds advanced by the Federal Government under the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme; and

(c) ordinary unsecured creditors were owed around $390 million. Any return to unsecured creditors was dependent on successful recoveries from voidable transaction claims or other actions that might be brought by the liquidator for compensation (i.e. claims against the directors or auditors).

1. There was no deed of company arrangement proposal received for any of the Hastie Group companies.

1. On 30 and 31 January 2013, the administrators were appointed as joint and several liquidators of the second to twelfth plaintiffs ('liquidators') at concurrent meetings of creditors pursuant to s 439A of the Act. By May 2021, Mr Carson and Mr McEvoy had retired as liquidators of the relevant companies and the first plaintiff became the sole liquidator.
2. Since the appointment of the liquidators until around 28 October 2021, the remuneration of the liquidators, and later the sole liquidator, has been approved by committees of inspection. However, in or around November 2023, the members of the committees of inspection retired and there has been no effective committee of inspection for any of the liquidations since then.

1. As at 31 August 2025, the cash balance, number of creditors and approximate value of creditor claims for each of the plaintiff companies is as follows:

ACN 001 702 594 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Austral Refrigeration Pty Ltd) (in liq)

Border Stainless Steel Pty Ltd (in liq) ('Border Stainless Steel')

Hastie Services Pty Ltd (in liq) ('Hastie Services')

ACN 121 276 168 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Heyday Group 981) (in liq)

Sharp & Pendrey Pty Ltd (in liq) ('Sharp & Pendrey')

1. The position in relation to the other subsidiary companies comprising the broader Hastie Group is very similar; there being significant claims in the millions of dollars and only several tens of thousands of dollars in available assets.

1. Details of the past and current remuneration of the liquidator for each of the plaintiff companies is contained within Mr Crosbie's first affidavit, including copies of remuneration approval reports for each respective company exhibited to his affidavit. In the case of:

(a) AFA Air Conditioning:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $198,729.55 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $6,557 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(b) Airducter:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $126,168.26 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,293 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(c) Austral Refrigeration:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $12,665.66 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,633 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(d) Borders Stainless Steel:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $24,488.93 has been approved for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,514 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(e) Hastie Services:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $85,154.35 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,244.50 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(f) Heyday Group:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $490,580.96 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $9,872 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(g) M&H Air Conditioning:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $111,796 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,098 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(h) QAL:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $19,929.02 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $5,117.50 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(i) Sharp & Pendrey:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $140,547.08 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $11,405 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025;

(j) Watters Electrical:

(i) past remuneration in the sum of $626,652.89 has been approved for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 August 2021; and

(ii) current remuneration in the sum of $11,527 is now claimed for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025; and

(k) Hastie:

(i) for the period 30 January 2013 to 31 December 2022, remuneration in the sum of $7,890,026.72, inclusive of future remuneration, was approved; however, only the sum of $6,162,278.76 in remuneration was accrued, being the value of the work that was ultimately performed. Furthermore, only $4,958,746.36 of that sum was paid to the liquidator, meaning the liquidator has not been paid a significant sum of past remuneration; and

(ii) in respect of the current remuneration claim made for remuneration accrued for the period 1 January 2023 to 31 January 2025, the amount sought for Hastie is $711,497.50.

1. As earlier mentioned, the liquidator has prepared remuneration reports setting out the claim for remuneration in respect of each company in the Hastie Group, which is the subject of this application. The liquidator has also provided timesheets of the work performed in each administration.

1. The timesheets of the work performed in each administration provided by the liquidator have been filed on a confidential basis. The Court is informed that confidentiality is claimed over the timesheets because they may tend to reveal information concerning ongoing litigation and potential confidential communications, including settlement discussions in relation to that litigation. I will deal with the confidentiality regime in respect of those timesheets later in my ruling.

Dispensation of notice requirements under Corporations Rules

1. In his first affidavit, Mr Crosbie estimates that the cost of giving written notice to each creditor would be approximately $11.40, comprising the cost of printing, postage, etc. Mr Crosbie says that in the absence of committees of inspection, he has formed the view that it is not in the interest of creditors or any other stakeholder in the liquidation of the Hastie Group that a meeting of creditors be called to either approve his remuneration, or appoint a new committee of inspection, because the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. He also says that absent a committee of inspection or a resolution of creditors, it is necessary to make this present application for approval of remuneration. In Mr Crosbie's opinion, the costs associated with making this application are likely to be less than the cost of convening a meeting of creditors of each of the plaintiff companies, whether that meeting was to appoint a new committee of inspection, to approve remuneration, or both.
2. I accept that evidence. Furthermore, in the circumstances, I consider that it has been necessary for the liquidator to bring the present application rather than seek approval of his remuneration through the primary avenues of approval, namely a meeting of creditors or committees of inspection.
3. Before considering the remuneration claims further, I will deal with the preliminary question of notice, which has occupied some time at the hearing, and in respect of which there appears to be an answer.

Notice provisions, Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and legal principles

1. Rule 9.2 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2023 (Vic) ('Corporations Rules') requires a liquidator to give notice of his or her intention to apply to the Court for a remuneration determination by serving a notice in accordance with Form 16 of the applicable Corporations Rules.
2. There are predecessors to this rule, including r 9.4 of the 2003 and 2013 versions of the Corporations Rules, which were in equivalent terms. Given the time at which the liquidations commenced, it may well be that the predecessor versions of the rules are the applicable rules here. At any rate, the Court has power to dispense with the notice requirement where it is fair and just to do so, for example, where all interested parties were on notice of the remuneration application and had ample time and opportunity to respond,[4] or where no useful purpose would be served by the notice.[5]
3. Relevantly, r 1.3 of the Corporations Rules provides:

(2) The other Rules of the Court [i.e. the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic), and its predecessor versions] apply, so far as they are relevant and not inconsistent with these Rules.

1. The predecessors to that rule were in similar terms. Rule 2.04(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic) ('General Procedure Rules') provides:

(1) The Court may dispense with compliance with any of the requirements of the Rules, either before or after the occasion for compliance arises.

1. The predecessors to that rule were in similar terms.
2. Further, r 1.14 of the General Procedure Rules relevantly provides:

(1) In exercising any power under these Rules the Court -

(a) shall endeavour to ensure that all questions in the proceeding are effectively, completely, promptly and economically determined;

(b) may give any direction or impose any term or condition that it thinks fit.

1. The predecessors to that rule were also in similar terms.
2. Lastly, at the hearing, I made reference to s 47 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ('CPA') which is in these terms:

(1) Without limiting any other power of a court, for the purpose of ensuring that a civil proceeding is managed and conducted in accordance with the overarching purpose,[6] the court may give any direction or make any order it considers appropriate, including any directions given or orders made -

(a) in the interests of the administration of justice; or

(b) in the public interest.

Evidence and submissions on requirement of notice

1. As stated earlier, the liquidator seeks an order dispensing with the requirement to serve a copy of the originating process and affidavit in support on the creditors of the second to twelfth plaintiffs and further orders that the remuneration of the liquidator in respect of the liquidations of the second to twelfth plaintiffs be fixed.
2. The liquidator deposes that, in respect of Hastie, the only funds available to meet the remuneration claims are funds that were advanced by the Commonwealth pursuant to a litigation funding agreement. The Court understands that the Commonwealth paid around $401,771 ('indemnity funds') for the liquidator's remuneration accrued in the period 1 January 2023 to 31 January 2025 (i.e. $711,497.50).
3. According to the remuneration report prepared for Hastie, under the terms of the Commonwealth litigation funding agreement (which the Court does not have before it today), payment of the indemnity funds has first priority in the distribution of any debt or recoveries from any and all of the relevant Hastie Group companies.
4. The liquidator deposes that there are no remaining assets held by Hastie and, accordingly, the shortfall of the indemnity funds, which is around $309,726 (being the difference between the extent of his remuneration claim ($711,497.50) and the indemnity funds themselves ($401,771), will not be paid. However, the company has just over $729,000 cash on hand, including the indemnity funds.
5. In his second affidavit, Mr Crosbie goes into some discussion about the cash on hand in response to communications sent to his solicitors by the Court when this application was being listed for hearing. On 14 October 2025, my Associate sent an email to the instructing solicitors with a number of queries in relation to this aspect of Mr Crosbie's evidence and those queries were sought to be addressed in the second Crosbie affidavit.
6. In that affidavit, Mr Crosbie explains that of the cash on hand, the sum is broken down according to: the indemnity funds that I have already mentioned; GST payable on the liquidator's remuneration of around $40,177; GST recovered from the Commonwealth funding of around $31,968; Commonwealth litigation funding of around $55,000 which is being held for another law firm, under review by the Commonwealth; Commonwealth litigation funding received for the liquidator's remuneration for the period 1 February 2025 to 31 July 2025, totalling $10,558.90 (incl GST); and the balance of around $189,000 (which the liquidator terms, 'unallocated funds'), the entitlement to which remains in question due to a potential claim by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations ('Department'). Mr Crosbie says he has agreed with the Commonwealth to hold the unallocated funds until the entitlement to those funds has been clarified.
7. Further, Mr Crosbie says that the Commonwealth has paid the indemnity funds in respect of his remuneration for the period 1 January 2023 to 31 January 2025 and that the shortfall of approximately $309,726 will not be paid. He says, by way of clarification, the only portion of the surplus funds that could potentially be available to creditors is the unallocated funds (i.e. $189,000). However, he deposes that those funds will either be paid to the Commonwealth, through the Department, or they will be applied to earlier approved but unpaid remuneration, depending on the determination of the outcome of the entitlement to the unallocated funds. Mr Crosbie maintains that the unallocated funds will not be available to creditors of Hastie regardless of the outcome of the application.
8. I have already noted that there is a shortfall in terms of remuneration that has been approved and accrued by Mr Crosbie and the remuneration that he has actually drawn down upon.
9. On 20 May 2025, the liquidator notified the Commonwealth, through the Department, of his intention to seek Court approval to pay the liquidator's remuneration sought in this application. On 8 August 2025, the Department notified the liquidator that the Commonwealth consented to the application insofar as it concerned Hastie and the amounts funded by the Commonwealth under the litigation funding agreement. The Department also stated that it neither consented to nor opposed the remuneration application insofar as it relates to the Hastie subsidiaries. The Department has since been served with the originating process and supporting affidavit, being Mr Crosbie's first affidavit, together with Mr Crosbie's second affidavit.

1. Having regard to the authorities and the language of the relevant notice provisions, dispensation with the notice requirements should only occur in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where they serve no useful purpose or operate to the detriment of the external administration of the company. Even where a creditor may not ultimately stand to receive a dividend in an external administration, they may nevertheless seek to object to the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed and act as a contradictor to the application.
2. In relation to the Hastie subsidiaries, the liquidator submits, and I accept, that for each of those companies, the individual remuneration claims are so modest that the cost of complying with the notice requirements would be disproportionate and prohibitive. I consider that it is both fair and just, and consistent with the overarching purpose in s 7 of the CPA, that the liquidator be relieved from complying with the relevant notice requirements for this application in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries. Such an order will be made in accordance with the rules I have mentioned.
3. However, the position in relation to Hastie is different. The remuneration claim is substantial. While the Department is a creditor with a financial interest in the outcome of the application and indeed consents to the application for remuneration in Hastie, I do not accept the earlier submission of the liquidator that there are no other creditors who have an interest in the outcome. There remains some prospect, at least, of recoveries in seven ongoing Federal Court of Australia proceedings against various debtors. There is potential value in those claims. In addition to Hastie, all of the Hastie subsidiaries, except for the fifth, sixth and tenth plaintiffs, are plaintiffs in such litigation.
4. As regards what the liquidator terms the unallocated funds, being $189,000, I note his explanation and opinion that the unallocated funds will not be available to creditors of Hastie regardless of the outcome of this application. However, at this stage, that is just an opinion. It is also not entirely clear to me on the available evidence the nature of the claim by the Commonwealth in respect of those unallocated funds.
5. In relation to Hastie, pursuant to the relevant rules and s 47 of the CPA, I will dispense with strict compliance with the notice requirements but require an alternative notice regime and timetable the matter for objections and relist the matter as soon as possible. What I broadly have in mind is for the originating process and Mr Crosbie's supporting affidavit, except for the timesheets which are claimed to be confidential, to be served on the three largest creditors of the Hastie Group, together with the members of the banking syndicate (together, 'representative creditors') over the next week. Those representative creditors can then give notice to the liquidator of any objection within a further week and then put on any material, in support of any objection, within two weeks of being served. The liquidator could then file any responsive material and the matter can come back for further hearing on 28 November 2025.
6. As I have dispensed with the notice requirements in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries, it is appropriate to then turn to the remuneration claims in respect of the liquidation of those companies.

Remuneration claim in respect of Hastie subsidiaries

1. I have already set out how much is claimed for each of the Hastie subsidiaries, in the context of what has previously been claimed. I have already mentioned that the application for remuneration is brought under the old and now repealed provision of s 473(3) of the Act.
2. A further repealed provision is s 473(10) of the Act, which sets out the matters that a court may take into consideration when determining the remuneration of a liquidator. They include the extent to which the work performed by the liquidator was reasonably necessary; the period during which the work was performed by the liquidator; the complexity (or otherwise) of the work performed; the extent (if any) to which the liquidator was required to deal with any extraordinary issues; the value and nature of the property dealt with; and so on.
3. The criteria are well known. They have largely found their way into s 60-12 of the IPS without significant material difference. Indeed, the current factors are largely the same as set out in the legislative predecessor and so, the authorities which were relevant to the application of the now repealed provision of s 473(10) apply equally to remuneration claims made under either the old provision or the new provision.
4. In the case of Re Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq),[7] I identified the process and principles applicable to assessing a liquidator's claim for remuneration and I will adopt what I said there.[8] I will just note the following matters by way of summary of the legal principles in that case and other principles of relevance:

(a) the onus is on the liquidator to establish that the remuneration claimed is fair and reasonable;[9]

(b) if the liquidator establishes a prima facie case on the basis of the material put forward, the Court should then consider the validity of any objections;[10]

(c) in the absence of a determination by members, creditors or a committee of inspection, the ultimate question for the Court in making a determination is whether the amount claimed by the liquidator is reasonable;[11]

(d) reasonableness is the 'touchstone of the provision';[12] and

(e) the remuneration determined by the Court is not a 'rubber-stamping' exercise.[13] The court must independently consider the nature and extent of the remuneration claimed to make an assessment of its reasonableness, having regard to the work performed and the particular features of the external administration,[14] but the court is not required to take a line-by-line review of the billing record provided. It can review the narrations in a broad way and satisfy itself that they support the other evidence led in respect of the claim for remuneration.[15]

1. I have already set out the background to the external administration. I have also mentioned the material that has been provided to the Court in support of the claims made for remuneration in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries. The remuneration reports broadly describe the major tasks that were necessary to perform during the relevant period of time for the remuneration claims, which is from 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025. The tasks include preparing, reviewing and lodging statutory forms; lodging Business Activity Statements with the Australian Taxation Office; electronic filing of documents; requesting bank statements and preparing bank account reconciliations; preparing, reviewing and approving receipt and payment vouchers; conducting file management; and preparing the relevant underlying remuneration reports.
2. I accept the liquidator's written submission that the liquidator has performed the minimum amount of work possible to keep the subsidiary companies in administration while the litigation concerning the collection of debtors continues in the Federal Court. I also accept the submission that the remuneration sought for each of the subsidiary companies is modest and mostly falls within the description of administration tasks.
3. In an exchange with counsel at the hearing, I observed that the remuneration schedules provided in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries included a category of operator called 'administration support', which has been charged out at $310 per hour (excl GST), but that when regard is had to the remuneration schedule provided in the remuneration report for Hastie itself, the charge out rate for that class of personnel is only $160 per hour (excl GST). Counsel submits he is instructed that any discrepancy would be as a consequence of the Commonwealth litigation funding agreement. I accept there is no obvious error in terms of how the remuneration schedules have been set out and that the administration support cost of $310 per hour is the correct amount that has been charged.

1. Having regard to the statutory criteria, I consider the work that has been performed was reasonably necessary in respect of each of the subsidiary companies. I consider the work has been undertaken to the requisite level of quality. While the work was not complex, it was necessary and consistent with keeping the external administrations going while the litigation in the Federal Court continued.
2. I am otherwise satisfied that the 'touchstone' of reasonableness has been met here; the remuneration claimed for each of the subsidiary companies is reasonable in all of the circumstances.
3. I will make orders pursuant to the now repealed provision of s 473(3) of the Act (again, which was in force at the time of the appointment of the liquidator) that the liquidator's remuneration be determined in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries, being the third to twelfth plaintiff companies, in the amounts that are claimed in the originating process.

IN THE MATTER of HASTIE GROUP LIMITED (ACN 112 803 040)

CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE SECOND TO TWELFTH PARTIES & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)

1. The Court's ruling and reasons for the following orders were given ex tempore and are recorded in the transcript of the proceeding.
2. This Order is authenticated by the Associate Judge pursuant to r 60.02(1)(b) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic) ('General Rules 2025').

1. Pursuant to r 28.03.3 of the General Rules 2025 and subject to further order, the exhibit marked "Confidential Exhibit CDC 2" to the affidavit of Craig Crosbie sworn 28 October 2025 (referred to in the affidavit of Mr Crosbie as "Confidential Exhibit CDC-3) be treated as confidential and shall not be inspected by any person without leave of the Court.
2. Pursuant to r 2.04 of the General Rules 2025, alternatively r 2.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) ('General Rules 2005'), the notice requirements in r 9.2(2) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2023 (Vic) ('Corporations Rules 2023'), alternatively in r 9.4(3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 (Vic) ('Corporations Rules 2003') in relation to the remuneration application of the first plaintiff ('liquidator') filed on 23 September 2025 in respect of the third to twelfth plaintiff companies be dispensed with.
3. Pursuant to s 473(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (as in force at the time of the appointment of the liquidator), the liquidator's remuneration for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025 be determined in the following amounts in respect of the following plaintiff companies:

(a) in respect of the third plaintiff (AFA Air Conditioning (in liquidation)), $6,557 plus GST.

(b) in respect of the fourth plaintiff (Airducter Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $5,293 plus GST.

(c) in respect of the fifth plaintiff (ACN 001 702 594 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Austral Refrigeration Pty Ltd) (in liquidation)), $5,633 plus GST.

(d) in respect of the sixth plaintiff (Border Stainless Steel Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $5,514 plus GST.

(e) in respect of the seventh plaintiff (Hastie Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $5,244 plus GST.

(f) in respect of the eighth plaintiff (ACN 121 276 168 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Heyday Group Pty Ltd) (in liquidation)), $9,872 plus GST.

(g) in respect of the ninth plaintiff (M & H Air Conditioning Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $5,098 plus GST.

(h) in respect of the tenth plaintiff (QAL Refrigeration (WA) Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $5,117.50 plus GST.

(i) in respect of the eleventh plaintiff (Sharp & Pendrey Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $11,405 plus GST.

(j) in respect of the twelfth plaintiff (Watters Electrical (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation)), $11,527 plus GST.

1. Pursuant to rr 1.14 and 2.04 of the General Rules 2025, alternatively rr 1.14 and 2.04 of the General Rules 2005, further or alternatively s 47 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic):

(a) strict compliance with the notice requirements in r 9.2(2) of the Corporations Rules 2023, alternatively in r 9.4(3) of the Corporations Rules 2003 in relation to the liquidator's remuneration application filed on 23 September 2025 in respect of the second plaintiff company, Hastie Group Limited (in liquidation) ('Hastie Group') be dispensed with; and

(b) in lieu of those notice requirements, the liquidator shall by 4:00pm on 6 November 2025 serve:

(i) a copy of the originating process dated 23 September 2025;

(ii) the affidavits of Mr Craig Crosbie sworn 19 September 2025 and 28 October 2025, save for confidential exhibit CDC 2; and

(iii) a sealed copy of this order

on the members of the banking syndicate as defined in para 9 of the affidavit of Mr Crosbie of 19 September 2025, together with the three largest unsecured creditors of Hastie Group (measured by amount of debt), but excluding the Commonwealth of Australia through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations ('representative creditors').

1. By 4:00pm on 13 November 2025, any of the representative creditors may give notice to the liquidator of any objection to the remuneration claim made in respect of Hastie Group.
2. By 4:00pm on 20 November 2025, any of the representative creditors who have given notice of objection in accordance with para 5 above must file any affidavit and submissions in opposition to the remuneration claim.
3. By 4:00pm on 25 November 2025, the liquidator file any affidavit and submissions in reply.
4. The hearing of the liquidator's remuneration claim made in respect of Hastie Group be adjourned to 28 November 2025 at 11:00am.
5. Costs reserved.
6. Liberty to apply, including to the representative creditors.

AFA AIR CONDITIONING PTY LTD (ACN 132 180 584) (IN LIQUIDATION)

ACN 001 702 594 PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AUSTRAL REFRIGERATION PTY LTD ACN 001 702 594) (IN LIQUIDATION)

BORDER STAINLESS STEEL PTY LTD (ACN 130 035 399) (IN LIQUIDATION)

ACN 121 276 168 PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HEYDAY GROUP PTY LTD ACN 121 276 168)

M & H AIR CONDITIONING PTY LTD (ACN 115 325 089) (IN LIQUIDATION)

QAL REFRIGERATION (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 009 365 137) (IN LIQUIDATION)

WATTERS ELECTRICAL (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 128 370 570) (IN LIQUIDATION)

[1] [2017] VSC 500, [8]-[11] (Hetyey JR as his Honour then was).

[2] [2018] FCA 2029, [7]-[11] (McKerracher J).

[3] [2018] VSC 511, [22] (Matthews JR as her Honour then was).

[4] Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Starpicket Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 699, [12]-[13] (Gordon J as her Honour then was).

[5] Re Hayes, in the matter of Henry Walker Eltin Group Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) (No 2) [2014] FCA 30, [13] (Yates J).

[6] Defined in s 7 of the CPA to be the just, efficient, timely and cost‑effective resolution of the real issues in dispute.

[7] [2020] VSC 555 ('Re Barokes').

[9] Re ACN 004 323 184 Pty Ltd v Spark [2002] VSC 353, [31] (Dodds-Streeton J, as her Honour then was) citing Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan; Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan; Johnson v Conlan [1998] WASCA 273; (1998) 20 WAR 96.

[10] Ibid [31], cited in Re Tauro Capital Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] VSC 69, [18] (Caporale JR).

[11] Re Barokes [33] citing Re Twenty-Seventh Android Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 563, [21] (Matthews JR, as her Honour then was).

[12] Re Graziers' Investment Company Limited (in Liquidation) and GIC Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 8, [23] (Hetyey JR, as his Honour then was).

[15] Re Sakr Nominees Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 668, [29] (Black J); Re Fearndale Holdings Pty Ltd (admin apptd) (recs & mgrs apptd) [2020] NSWSC 901, [38] (Black J).