The Court of Appeal reduced the remuneration approved for Pierce Farrell, liquidator of Mouldpro International Limited, by 25% for three of four periods under review. It left the first period unchanged. The appeal concerned the High Court’s determination of the liquidator’s fees; the Court of Appeal did not order a forensic-accountant review or reopen payments to consultant Jim Dully.
Plastronix Investments Limited, a creditor and notice party, argued that the overall fees were excessive and that the liquidator had not provided enough detail to justify the time claimed. The liquidator opposed the appeal, relying in part on the practices in place when much of the work was done.
The court said a liquidator’s remuneration must be assessed for fairness and reasonable value, taking account of the work’s nature, complexity and importance to creditors—not simply hours multiplied by hourly rates. It also said the liquidator bears the burden of justifying the remuneration sought and that courts must scrutinise fee applications closely. The court found that the information available for the third interim application had not provided an effective challenge from a creditor with a sufficient stake in the outcome.
For the first period, from 22 July 2005 to 28 February 2006, the court left the net award of €738,449.31 unchanged. It found that most of the work was done then, during an intense phase that included continued trading and asset realisations. The court also took account of the less demanding record-keeping standards then in place.
For the second period, from 1 March 2006 to 30 September 2007, the court reduced the net award from €348,379.17 to €261,284.38. It said the liquidator had not reasonably explained the substantial increase beyond an earlier estimate that €300,000 more in fees and expenses would complete the liquidation. The court was not satisfied that the hours claimed were reasonable or necessary, given that most asset realisations and complex work had already been completed.
For the third period, from 1 October 2007 to 31 March 2009, the net award was reduced from €211,522.03 to €157,488.39, before a further €1,537.50 was deducted. That deduction followed the liquidator’s decision not to pursue charges for preparing for a professional regulatory review. The court found that the work claimed, including work related to a possible Sony claim that did not proceed to litigation, was excessive in light of its limited value to creditors.
For the fourth period, from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2011, the Court of Appeal increased the reduction from 20% imposed by the High Court to 25%, setting the net award at €130,798.12. It upheld concerns about delay and unnecessary work connected with pension claims. The court declined to direct a separate review of Dully’s €100,000 consultancy fees, saying that a review at this stage would be disproportionate. The judgment set the remuneration amounts, with VAT where applicable.