The High Court measured the official liquidator’s remuneration, fees, expenses and outlay for Custom House Capital Limited’s liquidation from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2017 at €493,515.95 plus VAT. The liquidator had sought €699,586.77 inclusive of professional fees, VAT and outlay.
In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2018, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan also refused requests by Michael Nugent, appointed as legitimus contradictor for the application, for the liquidator’s contemporaneous time sheets, inspection of the liquidator’s work files and more detailed descriptions of some work. The judge concluded those steps were not justified by their likely benefit to clients relative to the extra cost and work involved.
The judge reduced amounts claimed for stakeholder communications, communications with the Central Bank, legal and court reporting work in the general liquidation, the MiFID and directions application, client communications, and management agreement work. She allowed the claimed amount for segregated client asset work and accepted the combined amounts for reconciliation and simple reconciliation of pooled assets as reasonable. The judgment states that the allowed general and pooled client asset work amounts were €197,228.01 and €248,240.13 respectively, with €44,590 allowed for segregated client asset work.
A separate issue concerned the liquidator’s legal costs. The cost accountants had agreed a €16,500 reduction on two items. On disputed dual attendances by two solicitors at court and consultations, the judge ordered a further €11,000 deduction. She made no reduction to the hourly rate applied to work by solicitor Áine Murphy, finding that her increased experience and seniority had allowed her to take on more work and reduce the senior partner’s workload.
The judge stressed that the measurement did not decide whether any of the work qualified to be paid from client funds under an earlier ruling. That 2017 ruling had allowed for possible recourse, subject to a future court order, only to recovered misappropriated monies for reasonable expenses of necessary reconciliation, recovery and distribution work. The judge said no separate record of those expenses appeared to have been kept from August to December 2017, and the present application did not determine what work could be recovered from client monies. She said more detailed contemporaneous records would likely be required if the liquidator later sought such payment.