Re Hastie Group Limited (in liq) (No 2) [2025] VSC 838 (28 November 2025)

1. In his originating process, the liquidator also sought orders fixing his remuneration in respect of the third to twelfth plaintiff companies ('Hastie subsidiaries') for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 January 2025, together with ancillary orders dispensing with the requirement that he serve a notice of his intention to apply for remuneration and a copy of his originating process on the creditors of the second to twelfth plaintiffs.
2. On 30 October 2025, I made orders dispensing with the requirement for notice to creditors and others found in r 9.2(2) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2023 (Vic) ('Corporations Rules 2023'), or alternatively in r 9.4(3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 (Vic), in relation to the Hastie subsidiaries. I then fixed the remuneration of the liquidator in respect of each of the Hastie subsidiaries in the total sum of $71,261 (excl GST). However, given the vast majority of the liquidator's remuneration claim related to work performed in the external administration of Hastie, I declined to completely dispense with the notice requirements for that remuneration claim. Instead, I ordered that strict compliance with the notice requirements in the Corporations Rules 2023 be dispensed with. In lieu of those notice requirements, I ordered that there be a modified notice regime so that the primary material relied upon by the liquidator in his remuneration application be served upon the members of a banking syndicate[1] ('banking syndicate'), which was a secured creditor of Hastie and its 43 subsidiaries (together, 'Hastie Group'), together with the three largest unsecured creditors of Hastie (measured by amount of debt), but excluding the Commonwealth of Australia through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations ('representative creditors').
3. The Court's reasons for the orders made on 30 October 2025 were given ex tempore and have been published as a ruling ('earlier ruling').[2]
4. There is affidavit evidence before the Court confirming there has been compliance, or at least substantial compliance, with the orders made on 30 October 2025 and that the banking syndicate has been provided the originating process, relevant affidavit material and the orders of 30 October 2025 via its authorised representative. The three largest unsecured creditors of Hastie (being Telstra Group Limited, Optus Billing Services Pty Ltd and Greenstone Partners Pty Limited) have also been provided with the relevant documents. On the basis of this evidence, the Court is satisfied that these representative creditors have been duly served.
5. None of the representative creditors have given notice to the liquidator of any objection to the remuneration claim made in respect of Hastie and no objections have been received. In addition, by letter dated 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 a litigation funding agreement.
6. The liquidator's remuneration application for Hastie is supported by:

(a) the affidavits of Mr Crosbie sworn on 19 September 2025 and 28 October 2025 (including confidential exhibit CDC-1);

(b) the affidavit of Stephen Lloyd, solicitor, affirmed 10 October 2025;

(c) the affidavits of service of Joseph Khoury, process server, sworn 7 November 2025 and 10 November 2025; of John William Stewart, process server, sworn 10 November 2025; and of Dennis Domaille, process server, sworn 10 November 2025;

(d) the affidavit of Kalinda Scheef, solicitor, affirmed 25 November 2025;

(e) the affidavit of Carl Hoerner, accountant, affirmed 28 November 2025; and

(f) written submissions dated 28 October 2025.

1. The background to the administration, and then liquidation, of Hastie and its 43 subsidiaries (together, 'Hastie Group') is extensively set out in the earlier ruling[3] and need not be repeated. I will, however, recite the most pertinent facts.
2. Hastie was a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and the broader Hastie Group carried on the business of providing mechanical, electrical and plumbing services in countries and regions including Australia, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Kazakhstan, Gibraltar and the Caribbean. On 28 May 2012, Hastie and its 43 subsidiaries entered voluntary administration. Prior to the appointment of administrators, 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, over 1,000 sites, and assets with a reported book value of approximately $1 billion.
3. As regards the creditors of the broader Hastie Group:

(a) the banking syndicate is a secured creditor of the Hastie Group for approximately $529.9 million;

(b) the Hastie Group's employees were owed approximately $47 million in unpaid entitlements, excluding redundancies. At the time of a report to creditors dated 21 January 2013, the administrators had paid approximately $27.4m 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.

1. In relation to Hastie specifically, as at 31 August 2025, there were 62 creditors with $471,838,447 worth of claims and only $729,237.52 cash on hand.
2. In June 2012, the administrators of the Hastie Group obtained orders in the Federal Court of Australia extending the convening period under s 439A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ('Act'). No deed of company arrangement proposal was received for any of the Hastie Group companies.

1. In 2017, the liquidators of Hastie and various Hastie subsidiaries commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia ('Federal Court proceedings') seeking to recover property and to assert rights against 29 debtors, comprising a number of construction companies that had separately entered into agreements with Hastie and various Hastie subsidiaries in respect of certain construction projects. In addition to seeking to recover over $60 million in receivables, the plaintiffs also alleged the respondents had impermissibly drawn on $63.5 million in performance guarantees (also referred to as bank guarantees or performance bonds) which were purchased by the relevant Hastie entities and provided to each of the respondents as an alternative to the retention of monies from progress payments under the relevant subcontracts. The Federal Government (through what was then the Department of Jobs and Small Business ('DJSB')) agreed to fund the Federal Court proceedings on the basis that a favourable determination would assist the recovery of circulating assets, which would ultimately benefit the DJSB through its right of subrogation in respect of employee entitlements it had paid.
2. In 2022, the trial of the Federal Court proceedings took place before Middleton J. A key issue at trial was whether the plaintiff companies owned certain bank guarantees, or the funds drawn on the bank guarantees, as a matter of law. The plaintiffs did not initially contend that the respondents were contractually obliged to return any surplus in their hands if the guarantees were called upon. However, during the course of the trial, efforts were apparently made to introduce a new claim based on an obligation to account, as opposed to solely a proprietary claim, but the pleadings themselves were not amended. On 2 November 2022 and on 22 December 2022, his Honour gave judgment dismissing the whole of the plaintiffs' case concerning bank guarantees which had been conducted on an 'all-or-nothing' basis in relation to proprietary claims only.[4] An application for leave to appeal the decision was then dismissed on 21 May 2024.[5]
3. The judgment in the Federal Court proceedings did not resolve all issues and the proceedings remain on foot in respect of seven of the original 29 respondents in relation to the claims for receivables.[6]

Previous remuneration approvals and extent of current remuneration claim

1. Since the appointment of the liquidators until around 28 October 2021, the remuneration of the liquidators has been approved by committees of inspection. However, in around November 2023, the members of the committees of inspection retired. Since then, there has been no effective committee of inspection for any of the liquidations, including Hastie.
2. ln respect of Hastie, the total approved remuneration to date is $7,890,026.72, inclusive of future remuneration for particular periods but only $6,162,278.76 in remuneration was accrued, being the value of the work that was ultimately performed. Further, only $4,958,746.36 was in fact paid to the liquidator, meaning the liquidator has not been paid for a significant portion of his previously approved remuneration.
3. As already stated, the liquidator's remuneration claim is made for remuneration accrued for the period 1 January 2023 to 31 January 2025 ('relevant period') totalling $711,497.50. The Federal Government advanced $401,771 ('indemnity funds') pursuant to a litigation funding agreement for the specific purpose of payment of the liquidator's remuneration for the relevant period. However, as discussed in the earlier ruling, because there are no remaining assets held by Hastie (aside from the remaining claims in the Federal Court proceedings and around $729,000 cash on hand which is largely allocated), an expected shortfall of approximately $309,726 of the total remuneration claim after application of the indemnity funds will not be paid.[7]
4. In the earlier ruling, I accepted the liquidator's evidence that it is not in the interest of creditors or any other stakeholder in the liquidation of Hastie 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.[8] It has therefore 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 through committees of inspection. Further, where a liquidator holds an amount for their remuneration which has been remitted in accordance with a funding agreement but not drawn upon, as is the case here, it would seem prudent for the liquidator to seek approval for that remuneration in order to account for the work performed and the amount claimed for that work.[9]

1. As with the applications for remuneration in respect of the Hastie subsidiaries, the application in respect of Hastie is made under the now repealed s 473(3) of the Act because the liquidator was appointed prior to 1 September 2017, which was the deferred 'commencement day' for the repeal of ss 473(3) and 473(10) of the Act and the introduction of replacement provisions concerning remuneration found in Div 60 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) ('IPS'), being Sch 2 to the Act.[10]
2. In the earlier ruling, I set out the relevant provisions and principles in determining remuneration claims under the repealed provisions of ss 473(3)(b) and 473(10) of the Act, which have largely found their way into the replacement provisions in Div 60 of the IPS without significant material difference.[11] I adopt what I said there and emphasise that the ultimate question for the Court in making a remuneration determination is whether the amount claimed by a liquidator is reasonable.[12] Such determination by the Court is not a 'rubber-stamping' exercise.[13] The Court's function is to 'independently consider the nature and the extent of the remuneration claimed and 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 undertake a line-by-line review of the billing record provided. It can, however, 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]

Consideration of Hastie remuneration application

1. As noted, the present remuneration claim is made for remuneration in relation to work undertaken in the liquidation of Hastie for the period 1 January 2023 to 31 January 2025, totalling $711,497.50 (exl of GST). Of this amount, $620,606.50 relates to the collection of assets. In particular, the majority of work to which the remuneration claim relates concerns the collection of debtors' claims on behalf of various subsidiaries of Hastie. These claims comprised a pool of approximately $70 million in progress claims and tens of millions in bank guarantees, said to be owing to the subsidiary companies, and formed the basis of the Federal Court proceedings that I referred to earlier. All of the liquidator's remuneration claim relevant to the Federal Court proceedings has been allocated to Hastie. As a consequence, Hastie is, in turn, the recipient of the litigation funding and indemnity funds from the Commonwealth, which are intended to be applied towards the work undertaken in connection with that litigation.
2. The liquidator has prepared a remuneration report setting out his claim to remuneration in respect of Hastie. The liquidator has also provided confidential timesheets recording the time spent by him and his staff on specific tasks performed during the relevant period. There were 1,398 hours in total spent during the relevant period on tasks concerning the liquidation of Hastie. The Court has accepted the timesheets on a confidential basis having regard to the liquidator's evidence that they may tend to reveal information concerning ongoing litigation and potential confidential communications, including in relation to settlement discussions in connection with that litigation.
3. In the circumstances, the Court considers the use of a time-based method for determining the remuneration to be appropriate and the narrations contained within the timesheets to be meaningful. The work has been allocated according to the following distinct categories: 'Assets', 'Creditors' and 'Administration'. Appendix A to the Hastie remuneration report sets out each person who performed the work, their position, and the total time billed by each person with the corresponding cost according to work category. Appendix B to the remuneration report describes the major tasks performed according to the work categories in detail.
4. The work undertaken on the Assets category largely comprises tasks in connection with the Federal Court proceedings, and is said to include the following:

(a) consideration of draft orders and submissions to the Court in connection with the Federal Court proceedings;

(b) attending directions hearings and preparing for and attending seven mediations;

(c) providing instructions in relation to the appeal and attending the appeal;

(d) preparing financial models to analyse loss claims, along with scenario analysis for potential settlement outcomes;

(e) providing instructions to solicitors in relation to settlements; and

(f) ongoing liaison with the Commonwealth and solicitors in relation to litigation strategy.

1. As earlier mentioned, the work undertaken in connection with the Federal Court proceedings has been funded by the Commonwealth. However, there is also other work included in the remuneration work allocated to 'Assets' but not funded by the Commonwealth.
2. Work undertaken in connection with 'Creditors' for the amount of $12,226 (37.3 hours) has included correspondence with creditors and the committee of inspection and responding to inquiries from the banking syndicate. 'Administration' work for the amount of $59,754 (174.7 hours) has entailed 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; and conducting file management.
3. As will be discussed, having regard to the work performed, the complexity of the liquidation and the time period to which the remuneration claim relates, I consider that the claims are reasonable, subject to the exceptions below.
4. In my view, the liquidator has established a prima facie entitlement to his claim for remuneration on the basis of the material relied upon. Set out below are a series of general rulings and observations I have made in relation to the remuneration application. In making these rulings and observations, I have had regard to the principles and statutory provisions which I have referred to and adopted in my reasons.

Whether work was necessary and properly performed, quality of work performed and applicable rates

1. The evidence given by Mr Crosbie suggests the work undertaken during the relevant period was, with minor exception, both necessary and properly performed. That is particularly so having regard to the complexity of the liquidation and the time period to which the remuneration claim relates. The evidence also suggests the work has, in the main, been undertaken efficiently, satisfactorily and competently. The rates charged are within the range typically charged by insolvency practitioners and are fair and reasonable given the nature of the liquidator's appointment and the features of the company and its liquidation. I note that the scale of fees applicable to the liquidator and his staff has apparently remained constant since 1 January 2023.
2. Regarding the quality of the work performed, I accept the submission by counsel for the liquidator that the fact work performed did not lead to the augmentation of funds available for distribution does not necessarily mean that the liquidator is not entitled to be remunerated for it.[16] Although the Federal Court proceeding has not been successful to date, it is difficult to criticise the process and methodology of the liquidator in pursuing this course. The liquidator had a statutory obligation to investigate and, where appropriate, pursue claims for the benefit of Hastie and the relevant Hastie subsidiaries. Significantly, the Federal Court proceeding was funded by the Commonwealth which has not taken issue with the quality of the work performed by the liquidator and his staff during the relevant period. Nor have any of the representative creditors who were notified as part of this remuneration application raised any objection.
3. Of the 1,398 total hours spent during the relevant period, the majority or approximately 46 per cent of the work was performed by Mr Hoerner, director (637 hours at $625 per hour, excl GST), and approximately 24 per cent of the work was performed by Mr Hugh Duffy, senior consultant (332 hours at $424 per hour, excl GST). However, the material suggests there were a number of opportunities for the delegation of less complex and administrative tasks. In particular, there were a number of tasks undertaken by Mr Hoerner that could have been more efficiently undertaken by others within the organisation at a lower charge-out rate. For example, on 23 June 2023, Mr Hoerner charged one hour for 'File management, task update review, filing emails' which does not appear to be a task that should be charged for at the rate of $625 per hour (excl GST). In his capacity as a director, Mr Hoerner spent 54.4 hours on 'Administration' work during the relevant period, totalling $34,000. Similarly, Ms Sylvia Young, manager, spent 23.2 hours on 'Administration' tasks at $510 per hour (excl GST), equating to $11,832. This was out of 23.4 hours in total time spent by Ms Young in the liquidation. By contrast, Mr Duffy as a senior consultant only spent 1.8 hours on 'Administration' work out of 332 hours in total time spent by him in the liquidation. Having regard to the general description of administration work and the nature of the entries in the timesheets, it does not appear such work has been efficiently allocated. For example, had the 'Administration' work undertaken by Mr Hoerner and Ms Young been performed by Mr Duffy, or another senior consultant, at a rate of $424 (excl GST), the total charge for such work would only have been $32,980, instead of $45,832. There were also other personnel including consultants at $425 per hour and administrative support personnel at $160 per hour who would have been better suited to that work.
4. Further, during the relevant period, certain meetings, modelling, drafting, and legal documentation review were attended to, and conducted by, multiple employees, including a consultant (at $350 per hour, excl GST), two senior consultants (at $395 per hour, excl GST), one director (at $625 per hour, excl GST) and one appointee/partner (at $720 per hour, excl GST). Between 19 June 2023 and 28 June 2023, Mr Jonathon Cole and Mr Duffy (both senior consultants) together spent approximately 90 hours working on 'settlement models'. Without further context in relation to the nature of the work being conducted, it is difficult to determine whether this allocation of resources was reasonable or excessive in all the circumstances.

Complexity of work performed and level of risk

1. I accept the submission that the liquidation of Hastie has been complex, particularly work falling within the description of 'Assets'. That is evident from the Federal Court proceeding itself. The complexity of some of the tasks has, generally speaking, necessitated an appropriate level of involvement by the liquidator and senior personnel within the liquidator's office, particularly in relation to the work category of 'Assets'. However, my general impression from the timesheets and the remuneration report itself is that the work has, at times, been disproportionately allocated to more senior members of the team.
2. I also accept the submission that the liquidation of Hastie has involved a higher than usual level of risk. For example, the Federal Court proceedings were initiated against 29 respondents which exposed the liquidators to an increased level of litigation risk, although that risk has been somewhat ameliorated by the existence of the litigation funding agreement with the Commonwealth. Additionally, the liquidation of Hastie has been underway for over 12 years and the remuneration the subject of this application spans approximately two years. As a consequence, the liquidator and his staff have performed a significant amount of work for which payment of their remuneration was delayed. Despite having insufficient property available, the liquidator has continued to perform the necessary work. He has done so in circumstances where he will likely face a significant shortfall of $309,726.50 in relation to the payment of his remuneration the subject of this claim.

1. Having regard to the available evidence and the nature of the Federal Court proceedings and subsequent appeal, I consider the work undertaken appears to have been proportionate to the size of the external administration, the benefit sought to be obtained from the work, and the difficulty and importance of the task itself.[17]

1. Having regard to the foregoing matters, it is appropriate and efficient to apply a global discount of 7 per cent (or $49,804.82) in respect of the liquidators' total remuneration claim of $711,497.50 (excl GST). The remuneration claim for Hastie will therefore be allowed in the total sum of $661,692.68 (excl GST) in respect of the relevant period.

CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE SECOND TO TWELFTH PARTIES

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

AIRDUCTER PTY LTD (ACN 130 035 380) (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)

HASTIE SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 096 628 125) (IN LIQDUIDATION)

ACN 121 276 168 PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HEYDEY GROUP PTY LTD ACN 121 276 168) (IN LIQUIDATION)

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

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

SHARP & PENDREY PTY LTD (ACN 006 378 123) (IN LIQUIDATION)

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

[1] 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.

[2] Re Hastie Group Limited (in liq) [2025] VSC 837 ('Re Hastie Group Limited (in liq)').

[4] Hastie Group Limited (in liq) (ACN 112 803 040) & Ors v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) & Ors (No 3) [2022] FCA 1280; (2022) 410 ALR 531 (Middleton J); Hastie Group Limited (in liq) (ACN 112 803 040) & Ors v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) & Ors (No 4) (2022) 165 ACSR 287.

[5] Hastie Group Limited (in liq) v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) (Leave to Appeal) [2024] FCAFC 61 (Perram, Stewart and Button JJ).

[6] In addition to Hastie, all of the plaintiff companies, save for ACN 001 702 594 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Austral Refrigeration Pty Ltd) (in liq), Hastie Services Pty Ltd (in liq) and QAL Refrigeration (WA) Pty Ltd (in liq) are plaintiffs in the Federal Court proceedings.

[7] Re Hastie Group Limited (in liq) [36], [39].

[9] See Re Aus Streaming Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 182, [25] (Hetyey AsJ), there referring to an externally funded special purpose liquidator.

[10] For a discussion of the transition machinery, see In the matter of Allston Homes (in liquidation) [2017] VSC 500 [8]-[11] (Hetyey JR, as his Honour then was). See also Morgan, in the Matter of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 2029 [7]-[11] (McKerracher J) and Re Tuscan Property Development Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 511, [22] (Matthews JR, as her Honour then was).

[11] See Re Hastie Group Limited (in liq) [48]-[51], citing Re Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] VSC 555, [32]-[33] (Hetyey AsJ) ('Re Barokes') and the other authorities referred to there.

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

[13] Ibid, citing In the matter of Graziers' Investment Company Limited (in Liquidation) and GIC Holdings Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] VSC 8, [28] (Hetyey JR, as his Honour then was).

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

[16] See Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38; (2017) 93 NSWLR 459, 471 (Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Gleeson and Barrett JJA, and Beach AJA agreeing).