//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 972
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-08-13
Brereton J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: PNR International Pty Ltd v CII Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 972
Hearing dates: 19 June 2026
Date of orders: 13 August 2026
Decision date: 13 August 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Brereton J
Decision: See [57]
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application for approval of provisional liquidators’ remuneration – where provisional liquidators allege that work conducted is out of the ordinary and complex due to corporate structure – where plaintiffs oppose the remuneration amount sought – where plaintiffs allege the remuneration amount is not reasonable – where remuneration claimed is substantial – where remuneration claimed by provisional liquidators is reasonable and proportionate
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: ASIC v Groundhog Developments Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 263
Higgins v JSS Logistics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 1320
In the matter of Anderson Group Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 764; 20 ACLC 1607
In the matter of Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] VSC 555
In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund [2016] NSWSC 1292; 115 ACSR 581
In the matter of Karim Pty Limited (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 1678
In the matter of M & J Super Fund Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2021] NSWSC 279
In the matter of Westnet WA Infrastructure Holdings Ltd [2015] NSWSC 658; 106 ACSR 583
Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1120; 80 ACSR 11
Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr (2017) 93 NSWLR 459; [2017] NSWCA 38
Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlon (1998) 20 WAR 96
Texts Cited: N.A.
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb, of BDO Australia, as joint and several provisional liquidators of the entities listed in Schedule 1 and receivers of the entities listed in Schedule 2 of the Interlocutory Process dated 23 December 2025 (applicant)
PNR International Pty Ltd (first plaintiff)
Paul Sathio (second plaintiff)
Representation: Counsel:
M Rose (applicant)
S Scott (first and second plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Johnson Winter Slattery (applicant)
Vincent Young Lawyers (first and second plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2022/352887
Publication restriction: N.A.
Mr Andrew Sallway and Mr Duncan Clubb were appointed by this Court as provisional liquidators of Crown Group Holdings Pty Ltd (CGH) and 37 other wholly-owned subsidiaries of CGH on 11 August 2023 (together, the Crown Group). They were also appointed as receivers of the property and assets of three companies, one of which forms part of the Crown Group, on 11 October 2023. For convenience, I will refer to Mr Sallway and Mr Clubb as the Provisional Liquidators, even if I am referring to them in their capacity as receivers.
The Provisional Liquidators were appointed in circumstances where the two ultimate shareholders of the companies within the Crown Group had been engaged in a dispute giving rise to a deadlock in the Crown Group’s corporate governance. The deadlock arose from a relationship breakdown between Mr Paul Sathio and Mr Iwan Sunito, who are the founders and ultimate owners of the companies within the Crown Group. The companies within the Crown Group were (and are) solvent.
The Crown Group’s operations are diverse and complex. They were (and are) conducted through business units involved in activities including property development, hotel operations and real estate agency.
The operations of the various business units are interconnected to varying degrees, including through funding by way of intercompany loans. The hotel operations business (called the Skye Suites business), is a self-sustaining business unit within the Crown Group and is effectively treated as a separate business, utilising distinct accounting software and being funded by revenue from its own operations. The Skye Suites business did, however, provide funding to other entities within the Crown Group by way of intercompany loans.
The Provisional Liquidators were appointed to the members of the Crown Group as a solvent enterprise. A substantial amount of the work undertaken by them to date has been undertaken for the purpose of maintaining the going concern value of the Crown Group’s trading businesses. The work of the Provisional Liquidators has primarily focused on domestic matters but there has been some work concerning matters overseas. At the date of the Provisional Liquidators’ appointment, the Crown Group possessed a property portfolio valued at approximately $600m, with secured debt of approximately $350m. The Provisional Liquidators presently estimate that the Crown Group has a net asset position between $66m and $90m.
The Provisional Liquidators seek a determination of their remuneration for the period 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025. By an interlocutory process filed on 23 December 2025, the Provisional Liquidators seek the following relief:
an order dispensing with the requirements of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) (Rules) that notice of this application be given to the Crown Group’s creditors;
an order, pursuant to s 60-16(1)(a) of sch 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), being the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS), that their remuneration for the period from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025, in respect of their appointment as provisional liquidators of the 38 entities that make up the Crown Group, be approved and fixed in the total sum of $2,482,181 plus GST; and
an order, pursuant to r 26.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), or alternatively, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, that the remuneration of the Provisional Liquidators, in their capacity as receivers of the three receivership entities, be fixed in the amounts of $234,033.50 (in respect of Crown Eastlakes Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed); $3,844.50 (in respect of Stateland BKK Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed); and $2,511.50 (in respect of Stateland East Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (each plus GST).
This is the fourth remuneration application made by the Provisional Liquidators. If the application is granted, the combined total of approved remuneration will be $11,940,103.50 (exclusive of GST) as provisional liquidators, and $12,221,746.50 when their remuneration as receivers is added to the total remuneration. It has been an expensive provisional liquidation, and there remains much to do.
The plaintiffs in the proceedings are Mr Sathio and a company associated with him, PNR International Pty Limited. They oppose the orders for remuneration. They contend that the Provisional Liquidators have exercised no discipline in relation to costs and that they have been profligate. The defendants in the proceedings (relevantly Mr Sunito and CII Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)) do not oppose the application for remuneration.
The previous three applications for remuneration were unopposed.
The Provisional Liquidators submitted that much of the work they performed was often complex and out of the ordinary. The scope of the work carried out by the Provisional Liquidators has been extensive.
The work reflected a continuation of the tasks the subject of previous remuneration periods, as well as several new workstreams. This included continuing to trade Crown Group’s trading businesses, installing and maintaining corporate governance, managing Crown Group’s cash flow and liquidity, managing stakeholders with interests in the broader Crown Group, continuing the shareholder loan reconciliation process, preparing a distribution model analysis, undertaking defect remediation works, and ensuring Crown Group was current with its tax obligations.
Mr Sallway gave evidence that he and his staff have undertaken tasks on new workstreams relating to several discrete matters which were legally and factually complex, which required additional time to be spent as well as the involvement of senior team members with specific expertise, including:
preparing the sale of a hotel in Parramatta;
responding to information requests from Mr Sunito regarding the shareholder loan reconciliation and an associated report that was circulated to shareholders in March 2025; and
undertaking investigations into the recoverability of a $16,000,000 loan provided by CGH to a related entity incorporated in Indonesia, known as PT Crown International Indonesia (PTCII), and a subsequent joint venture between PTCII and PT Crown Sekaba Sejahtera.
The evidence in respect of the remuneration that is sought in respect of each of the entities within the Crown Group is lengthy and detailed.
Mr Sallway gave evidence of the tasks performed in relation to each workstream. Mr Sallway also provided evidence as to the involvement of various members of his staff in those workstreams.
Mr Sallway drew particular attention to the issue of the risks to the Provisional Liquidators’ firm in performing the work the subject of the remuneration claim. He directed attention to the risk that decisions taken by the Provisional Liquidators during the course of their appointment would be disputed by the ultimate owners of the Crown Group, especially in circumstances where the outcome of those decisions may be perceived by one of the shareholders to favour the other.
Mr Sallway’s evidence, which I address in more detail below, was that the work undertaken by the Provisional Liquidators has been consistent with and has achieved their overarching duty to preserve the assets of the Crown Group and has also given rise to a substantial benefit to the Crown Group at a consolidated level.
Mr Sallway was cross-examined. I permitted cross-examination having regard to the character of the plaintiffs’ objections and the size of the claim for remuneration. I considered that it was appropriate to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to test Mr Sallway’s evidence. The cross-examination did not undermine his evidence in chief.
There was no dispute about the applicable principles.
Section 60-16 of the IPS provides that a provisional liquidator is entitled to receive remuneration, by way of percentage or otherwise, as determined by the Court. In determining the amount of such remuneration, the Court must have regard to the matters specified in s 60-12 of the IPS. Those matters relevantly include:
(a) the extent to which the work by the external administrator was necessary and properly performed; (b) the extent to which the work likely to be performed by the external administrator is likely to be necessary and properly performed; (c) the period during which the work was, or is likely to be, performed by the external administrator; (d) the quality of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the external administrator; (e) the complexity (or otherwise) of the work performed, or likely to be performed, by the external administrator; (f) the extent (if any) to which the external administrator was, or is likely to be, required to deal with extraordinary issues; (g) the extent (if any) to which the external administrator was, or is likely to be, required to accept a higher level of risk or responsibility than is usually the case; (h) the value and nature of any property dealt with, or likely to be dealt with, by the external administrator; (i) the number, attributes and conduct, or the likely number, attributes and conduct, of the creditors; and (j) if the remuneration is worked out wholly or partly on a time‑cost basis—the time properly taken, or likely to be properly taken, by the external administrator in performing the work.
Rule 9.3 of the Rules provides for the process to be adopted in an application for approval of a provisional liquidator’s remuneration, and for the kind of evidence that is required in support of the application. See also s 60-10 of the IPS and Form 6 at sch 1 of the Rules.
[12] First, the onus is on the liquidator to establish that the remuneration claimed is reasonable. It is the function of the Court under s 60–10(1) to determine the remuneration by considering the material provided and bringing an independent mind to bear on the relevant issues: Sakr at [54].
[13] Second, the factors in s 60–12(d)-(e) and (g)-(h) can be seen to have as their unifying them the concept of proportionality. The question of proportionality in terms of work done as compared with the size of the property the subject of the insolvency administration or the benefit to be obtained from the work is an important consideration in determining reasonableness: Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137; 108 ACSR 545. The work done must be proportionate to the difficulty and importance of the task in the context in which it needs to be performed. As stated in Sakr at [55], this is what is encompassed in assessing the value of the services rendered.
[14] Third, the mere fact that the work performed does not lead to augmentation of the funds available for distribution does not mean the liquidator is not entitled to be remunerated for it. Provided it was reasonable to carry out the work and the amount charged is reasonable, there is no reason a liquidator should not recover remuneration for undertaking the work: Sakr at [57]–[58].
While the decision in Sanderson was concerned with the now-repealed s 473(10) of the Corporations Act, it is well-established that authorities based on that provision (and its predecessors) remain useful for making remuneration determinations for liquidators under the IPS: Higgins v JSS Logistics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 1320 at [16] (Jackson J).
In the ordinary course, the process of determination comes down essentially to ensuring that the work upon which the claim was based was work undertaken in the due course of administration and that the amount claimed for having done that work is a fair and reasonable reward for it.
This is a useful touchstone.
The Court’s role is not to undertake a line-by-line review of the relevant time narratives of the insolvency practitioner, although the Court may review the narratives in a broad way to see that they support the other evidence led in respect of the claim for remuneration: In the matter of Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd as trustee for Super Save Superannuation Fund [2016] NSWSC 1292; 115 ACSR 581 at [58] (Black J); Higgins at [20].
If there is inappropriate and inefficient allocation of work across the hierarchy of staff within an external administrator’s office, it may suggest that the work was not properly performed: In the matter of Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] VSC 555 at [66] (Hetyey AsJ).
The plaintiffs relied on Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93, where Besanko J expressed the view (on an application for the determination of the fixing of remuneration under s 449E(1)(c) and s 511 of the Corporations Act) in relation to a report that followed the ARITA guidelines but also contained subcategories of work:
[74] It seems to me that ordinarily, at least, the two matters which would be of principal concern to creditors in assessing the reasonableness of the administrators’ proposed remuneration are that the tasks being carried out are necessary and proper and that the tasks being carried out are being carried out at an appropriate level of seniority. In other words, a creditor will want to guard against unnecessary work or work being carried out at a higher rate than is required by the nature of the work.
[75] The present question is not whether unnecessary work has been carried out in this case or work done at an inappropriate level of seniority. The question is whether the creditors were given sufficient information to make an informed assessment about the reasonableness of the proposed remuneration. In my opinion, the remuneration report, schedule of hourly rates and summary of fees and disbursements, describes the work at such a high level of generality that it falls well short of meeting this requirement.
See also Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1120; 80 ACSR 11 at [57] ff (Barrett J).
This document was in very general terms. It identified in an all-embracing fashion certain tasks that were performed, but did not specify who performed them, and how long each task took. Furthermore, many of the tasks were described in such a way that it was impossible to discern why they were necessary, what precisely was involved in performing them, and what level of complexity or responsibility attached to them. The descriptions tended more to conceal this kind of detail rather than reveal information essential to the court's function of determining whether the remuneration charged was fair and reasonable.
The plaintiffs contended that the same is true of the application in this case.
While recognising that it is the responsibility of the person seeking remuneration to establish that the remuneration is reasonable, in the case of a large and complex administration, such as this one, it is not an easy task for a judge to assess the merits of the application. It is necessary to place some trust in the person propounding the claim. While a provisional liquidator has strict obligations, it cannot be forgotten that they do not perform the work merely out of public duty; they are professional persons who work for profit. They have an obligation to ensure costs are reasonable but at the same time have some incentive for costs to be high. There may be instances where it would be appropriate for an independent insolvency practitioner to undertake a review of the remuneration that is claimed. Of course, it has to be recognised that such a step will itself add to the cost: see In the matter of Westnet WA Infrastructure Holdings Ltd [2015] NSWSC 658; 106 ACSR 583 at [25]-[26] (Young AJA).
The Court’s power to determine a claim to remuneration for work conducted by receivers comes from r 26.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Williams J observed in In the matter of M & J Super Fund Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2021] NSWSC 279 at [16] that there is no material difference between the substance of the principles which apply to the determination of the remuneration of a receiver and manager, and the determination of a liquidator’s remuneration pursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction. In fixing the remuneration of Mr Sallway and Mr Clubb as receivers, I have applied the same principles that I have applied to their application for remunerations as provisional liquidators.
The plaintiffs do not submit that the Provisional Liquidators did no work that warrants remuneration.
The plaintiffs contend that while the Provisional Liquidators have adopted the conventional course of using the ARITA categories in their remuneration report, that has the effect of obfuscating the ready identification of time spent on specific issues. They contend that it is not possible to identify whether work has been performed by a person of appropriate seniority (with the risk of work being undertaken by a person of unnecessarily high seniority) or precisely what work has been performed, or whether the work was necessary.
The evidence relied upon by the Provisional Liquidators is detailed. Mr Sallway gives evidence of the claim for remuneration of each entity within the Crown Group, broken down into various work streams. He gives evidence of the tasks performed in each work stream and the involvement of the members of his staff in those work streams.
The remuneration report included a schedule comprising some 163 pages that provided information about work done by particular staff members by date, entity, period of time taken, and a brief narration of the work performed. The narrations included information such as “Bank Reconciliation” and “tax return”, among many others. Generally, the narrations are very brief. The schedule includes codes that link to the work streams.
Mr Sallway’s evidence was that:
based on his experience as an insolvency practitioner, his knowledge of the Crown Group, and the work performed by the Provisional Liquidators and their staff for which the remuneration claimed is sought, he was satisfied that:
(a) the length of time spent by the Provisional Liquidators and their staff on tasks carried out for each Crown Group entity was reasonably necessary for the nature of the work that was carried out; (b) all of the work performed was carried out by professional staff who were appropriately qualified and experienced, having regard to the level of risk, responsibility, urgency and complexity of the work required to be performed; (c) all of the work in respect of which remuneration is claimed was carried out in a timely fashion, to a consistently high standard and without unnecessary duplication; (d) all of the work performed was reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the provisional liquidation; and (e) the work was performed by the Provisional Liquidators and their staff at the rates set out in the Provisional Liquidators’ schedule of rates.
(a) the level of experience, seniority and professional qualifications of each member of the Provisional Liquidators’ staff who carried out work; (b) the nature and complexity of the work required to be carried out; (c) the responsibilities and risks associated with that work; and (d) the costs incurred by the Provisional Liquidators’ firm in performing that work.
Given the way the material has been presented, it is not straightforward to work out, with any ease, precisely what was done and by whom in relation to particular activities. It is possible, for example, by searches to gather information about who worked on a particular tax return and how long they spent on the exercise, but it is not possible to piece together every step of that work.
Nevertheless, as a general observation, I am satisfied that Mr Sallway’s evidence as a whole provides a sufficient basis for the remuneration that is claimed. I accept that Mr Sallway has given appropriate consideration as to how accounting and reporting functions are to be undertaken in a manner that is both fit for purpose and proportional in relation to the costs incurred, avoiding wasteful or unnecessary costs.
There are limits to what can reasonably be expected from a provisional liquidator in seeking remuneration, including because the costs incurred in preparing a claim for remuneration will themselves become exorbitant. The Provisional Liquidators have recorded the work performed in a conventional way. It is possible to ascertain with precision the amount of work performed by individual staff members (down to 6 minute intervals) with a brief narration of the work. The work is overseen by the Provisional Liquidators with a view to ensure that the work that is performed is necessary and undertaken by the appropriate persons.
The plaintiffs’ written and oral submissions focussed on the following matters:
it was said that there was duplication of work between the Provisional Liquidators and the finance team employed by CGH;
there was some complaint about charging in relation to taxation matters for the Crown Group; and
it was said that there was overcharging for project administration.
I will consider these matters in turn.
The plaintiffs contend that there was duplication in the preparation and maintenance of accounts, which resulted in costs that were not reasonable.
CGH has its own finance team that oversees the accounting systems to manage and record matters concerning accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, bank reconciliation and financial reporting. That team uses various software systems or platforms, including Levesys. The Provisional Liquidators use different software, called Insol6, to manage banking and payroll functions, including to process a large volume of invoices and receipts, processing ad hoc payments, intercompany transfers and internal bank transfers and to undertake reconciliation work. Much processing occurs manually and has required significant amounts of time.
There is overlap in the work undertaken by CGH’s finance team and that of the Provisional Liquidators. The result is that, broadly speaking, there are parallel accounting activities being undertaken. The plaintiffs complain about the duplication and also contend that the Provisional Liquidators are having staff, who are charged out at high hourly rates, undertake hundreds of hours of relatively menial data entry work. Mr Andrew Lee, the current chief financial officer of Sathio Group Pty Ltd, gave evidence of the duplication and expressed the view that work undertaken by staff of the Provisional Liquidators could have been performed by members of CGH’s finance team under the supervision of the Provisional Liquidators.
Mr Sallway gave evidence and was cross-examined about these matters. His evidence was that while there are, effectively, two sets of accounts, the output and the purpose of the two systems is very different. His evidence was that the Provisional Liquidators concluded that the data from Levesys did not meet the requirements for the reporting of cash receipts and payments for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, or the Court. His evidence was that his firm had tried, over a period of many months, to find a way to use Levesys to extract the data they required but were unable to do so.
Mr Sallway rejected the proposition that it would have been appropriate to permit CGH’s staff to undertake the data entry and other work associated with the Insol6 software used by his firm. His evidence was that due to confidentiality obligations he could not give CGH’s staff access to the Insol6 accounts or delegate responsibilities to persons without insolvency experience. He also rejected the suggestion that data entry work was being undertaken by persons whose seniority (and charge out rates) were too high for the work being performed. His evidence was that given the complexity of the work and the risks associated with the function (including by reason of the shareholder dispute which heightened the need for vigilance), work was undertaken by persons of an appropriate level of seniority. His evidence was that his junior staff handled data entry tasks and that his more senior staff performed checks.
The plaintiffs submitted that the Provisional Liquidators could have used ASIC’s excel template spreadsheet Form 5602 for data entry, which would have obviated the need to use Insol6 for data entry. It was put to Mr Sallway during cross-examination that he could have instructed CGH’s staff to use the ASIC template. He rejected this suggestion. He accepted that, in theory, there were various ways by which the Provisional Liquidators could lodge the Form 5602 annual administration return (which is required to be lodged as structured data through the ASIC liquidator portal). Mr Sallway said during cross-examination that the Provisional Liquidators did not adopt alternative courses in relation to this task for a number of reasons. These reasons were not drawn out and challenged by the plaintiffs’ counsel.
I accept that it was incumbent upon the Provisional Liquidators to give careful consideration as to whether the work they intended to perform would involve unnecessary duplication and whether this work could properly be undertaken by CGH’s staff at a cost that was less than the cost that would be incurred by having the work performed by the Provisional Liquidators. I also accept that, at face value, the amounts that appear to have been charged with respect to accounting functions appear to be high (the plaintiffs calculated nearly $500,000 for recording receipts and payments).
However, based on Mr Sallway’s evidence, I am satisfied that the Provisional Liquidators have approached their task in relation to accounting matters with diligence and have been mindful to fulfill their obligations without undertaking any unnecessary work, and without appointing senior persons to undertake work that could properly be undertaken by more junior persons.
I do not accept that the plaintiffs have demonstrated that there would be alternative avenues open to the Provisional Liquidators that would have enabled them to fulfill their obligations at a lower cost.
The plaintiffs observe that CGH and its wholly owned subsidiaries are consolidated for tax purposes. They note that, historically, the CGH finance team has prepared trial balances and draft financial statements before sending these statements to the Crown Group’s external accountants, known as Maxim. Maxim have been the external accountants for the Crown Group since 2004. The plaintiffs point out that the Provisional Liquidators used Maxim in relation to the preparation of the Crown Group’s financial statements and tax return for 2023, but for the years following they have engaged their own team, including their own tax team, to prepare accounts and returns. The plaintiffs identified $180,000 which, they say, appears to have been recorded by the Provisional Liquidators’ tax team in relation to the relevant remuneration.
Mr Sallway gave evidence during cross-examination that the reason why the Provisional Liquidators did not continue to use Maxim was because Maxim had demonstrated an inability to prepare tax returns to a standard that his firm’s tax team expected. He said that it was a “risk issue”. In his affidavit evidence in reply, Mr Sallway provided examples of tax “issues” that his firm had identified.
As to the taxation work, I am satisfied that the remuneration claimed by the Provisional Liquidators is justified on this application.
There is evidence from Mr Jonathan Benjamin (who was the chief financial officer of Sathio Group until September 2025) that his review of the timesheets prepared in relation to the remuneration application include 127.5 hours for work performed by Ms Vigneswaramoorthy in April 2025 at a charge-out rate of $530 per hour.
Mr Sallway’s evidence is that this was work undertaken by Ms Vigneswaramoorthy to review over 9000 individual time entries in timesheet reports for the purposes of ensuring the time was correctly recorded as against the correct stream and correct entity in the Crown Group and in order to prepare the third remuneration approval report. Mr Sallway’s evidence is that Ms Vigneswaramoorthy’s work is reviewed by another member of the staff of the Provisional Liquidators before the final timesheet reports and remuneration approval report is reviewed by Mr Sallway prior to the application for approval. The work has been described by the solicitors for the Provisional Liquidators as work to review all timesheets and to ensure that tasks are allocated to the correct entities and phase codes.
The plaintiffs submit that the provisional liquidators have “seen fit to seek approval of the costs of correcting mistakes or ‘cleaning-up’ their own time recording”. They submit that this time is not work properly performed and is not reasonable.
I do not accept the plaintiffs’ submission. The work of the Provisional Liquidators is extensive and covers many entities. It is not surprising that steps are taken to check time entries in order to ensure that time is being properly recorded. This seems to me to be a prudent task and helps to enable the Court to make an informed assessment that the remuneration is reasonable.
Rule 9.3(3) of the Rules provides that at least 21 days before an application to determine the remuneration of a provisional liquidator is filed, and where there is no committee of inspection and where no meeting of creditors has been held, the provisional liquidator must serve a Form 16 notice of their intention to apply for determination of their remuneration on each of the five largest (measured by amount of debt) creditors of the company, and each member of the company whose shareholding represents at least 10% of the issued capital of the company. These requirements have not been satisfied.
The Provisional Liquidators seek an order, pursuant to r 1.8 of the Rules, dispensing with the requirements of r 9.3. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that there be dispensation in circumstances where: (a) all the entities in the Crown Group are solvent; (b) it is clear on the evidence that there will be a substantial surplus paid to the ultimate shareholders; and (c) notice has been given to the ultimate shareholders of the Crown Group.
For these reasons, I make the following orders:
To the extent necessary, there is dispensation from the requirements of r 9.3 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW).
Pursuant to s 60-16(1)(a) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS) in sch 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), the remuneration of Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb in their capacities as joint and several provisional liquidators of the entities listed in item 1 of Schedule 1 (Provisional Liquidators) in the period from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025 be fixed in the amounts specified in item 2 of sch 1 for each of those entities.
Pursuant to rule 26.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) or, alternatively, pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the remuneration of Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb in their capacities as joint and several receivers of the property of Crown Eastlakes Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) (Receivers & Managers Appointed), Stateland BKK Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed), Stateland East Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (Receivers) for the period from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025 be fixed as follows:
(a) for Crown Eastlakes Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) (Receivers & Managers Appointed) in the amount of $234,033.50 (exclusive of GST); (b) for Stateland BKK Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) in the amount of $3,844.50 (exclusive of GST); and (c) for Stateland East Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) in the amount of $2,511.50 (exclusive of GST).
| Item 1- Company | Item 2 - Remuneration Amount claimed (exclusive of GST) ($AUD) | | Crown Group Holdings Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 1,135,483.50 | | CGBM Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 3,093.00 | | CMGT Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 40,772.00 | | Crown 175 Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,129.50 | | Crown AVI Finco Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 17,282.00 | | Crown Capital Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,508.50 | | Crown Central Developments Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,839.00 | | Crown Central Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 214,065.00 | | Crown Dev Mgt Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 34,247.50 | | Crown Eastlakes Developments Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 4,475.00 | | Crown Eastlakes South Development Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,803.50 | | Crown Global Capital Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,022.50 | | Crown Green Square Developments Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 4,271.00 | | Crown Green Square Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,789.50 | | Crown Group Construction Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 213,264.50 | | Crown Group Properties Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 44,576.00 | | Crown GS Retail Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 108,282.00 | | Crown Landmark Development Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,719.50 | | Crown Landmark Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 59,759.00 | | Crown Mkt Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 8,302.50 | | Crown Mount Hunter Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 7,997.00 | | Crown North Developments Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 3,8000 | | Crown North Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 4,891.50 | | Crown Property Agency Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 83,969.00 | | Crown Sturt Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 23,971.50 | | Crown Top Ryde City Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,302.00 | | Crown Top Ryde Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 3,125.00 | | Crown W Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 3,675.50 | | Crown W1 Developments Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 4,019.00 | | Crown W1 Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 6,226.00 | | Crown W48 Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 16,694.00 | | Crown West End Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 13,424.50 | | Skye Suites Arc Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 185,801.50 | | Skye Suites Infinity Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 15,246.00 | | Skye Suites Mgt Pty Limited (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 69,985.00 | | Skye Suites PPE Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 2,033.00 | | Skye Suites V Pty Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) | 124,832.50 |
*********
PNR International Pty Ltd
CII Group Pty Ltd