The director and shareholders of Rayland Investment Ltd (in liq) (the Company) applied to terminate the Company's liquidation. The Court found it appropriate to make that order. At issue, however, was the remuneration claimed by Mr Norrie, the Company's liquidator, which the Court reduced from $39,128 to $15,559.
Mr Norrie was not entitled to remuneration for unnecessary preliminary steps such as consenting to appointment by affidavit and carrying out property searches.
The Court held that because applications to terminate liquidation typically feature an arrangement to satisfy creditors:
"...it may no longer be necessary or efficient for a liquidator to carry on with normal liquidation tasks, once it becomes clear that the company will be taken out of liquidation."
Instead of pausing, Mr Norrie took an 'overbearing approach,' obstructing the applicants' efforts to pay creditors and terminate the liquidation. The Court held that the applicants should not bear the cost of this inefficiency.
Mr Norrie was not entitled to legal fees related to the termination of liquidation. The Court held that an experienced liquidator could respond to a proposal to terminate liquidation without legal advice. For the remuneration dispute, the Court held Mr Norrie was pursuing his own interests and should bear his own costs.
See the full case here.