Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Jessup v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

 

[2003] QSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JONES J

No 464 of 2002

IAN DAVID JESSUP as receiver for Drury Management Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed)

Applicant (Respondent)

and

 

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Respondent (Applicant)

CAIRNS

DATE 04/03/2003

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Ian David Jessup as the receiver of the respondent companies. Mr Jessup was appointed receiver pursuant to an application made by Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

The application is for the approval of the receiver's remuneration for work done in respect of his office and also for directions as to the manner in which future claims for approval of remuneration ought to be dealt with.

The order appointing Mr Jessup as a receiver was made by the Honourable Justice Moynihan on 27 September 2002, and it provided by paragraph 5 that the receiver's remuneration be calculated, “as determined by the Court on the basis of the time occupied respectively by the receiver, the receiver's partners and the receiver's employees, in addition to payment or reimbursement of such expenses and disbursements shall be incurred or made in due course of the receivership.”

The approach taken by the receiver in this instance has been to serve a copy of his accounts on the respondent, Australian Securities and Investment Commission at Townsville. Those accounts were presented in December of 2002.

It appears that ASIC is unconcerned about the quantum of the remuneration sought and has indicated that it does not wish to be heard on the present application.

There is no other person who it would appear has a right to be heard on the question of the remuneration.

As events occurred, the application was made to the Registrar of this Court to approve the remuneration claim and the Registrar purported to make an order allowing the remuneration on the 21st of January 2003.

The Registrar made that order in the belief that he was acting in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Those rules however, do not apply in the circumstances of this case and the order therefore is of no force and effect.

I have perused the accounts presented by the receiver. Fortified by the fact that ASIC does not wish to be heard in relation to that remuneration (and ASIC is the party most interested) and fortified further by the fact that the Registrar has at least perused the accounts and found them in order.

I will now myself order that the receiver's remuneration be allowed in the amounts set out respectively in Exhibits IDJ1, IDJ2, IDJ3 and IDJ4 to the affidavit of Ian David Jessup, filed on the 10th of December 2002.

I give directions that future applications for remuneration by the receiver be served on the office of ASIC at Townsville at least 21 days prior to application being made to this Court for their approval.

HIS HONOUR: I further order that the applicant be entitled to recover its costs of and incidental to this application as part of the receiver's remuneration.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Ian David Jessup v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Jessup v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

  • MNC:

    [2003] QSC 70

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Jones J

  • Date:

    04 Mar 2003

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status