The High Court fixed the remuneration of the joint liquidators of James Adams Vintners Limited at the amounts proposed by Revenue, rejecting a creditors’ representative’s argument that the liquidators were bound by earlier creditors’ meeting resolutions.
In a judgment delivered on 21 July 2020, Ms Justice Pilkington ruled on the liquidators’ application for fees covering the liquidation period from 6 September 2011 to 9 September 2019. The application sought €128,874.89 plus VAT, together with €2,321.89 in outlays. It did not include the costs of bringing the application.
Revenue had considered the requested liquidation remuneration excessive and proposed €52,000 plus VAT. It also considered the application-related liquidator and legal fees excessive, proposing a combined maximum of €10,000 plus VAT. The judge said the liquidators did not raise any strenuous objection to those figures. She fixed their remuneration in the terms of Revenue’s letter, for both the liquidation and the application.
The judgment records that, if the original fees were approved, about €61,039 would remain in the liquidation. The judge understood that would allow secured creditors to receive about 75% of their debts, with nothing for unsecured creditors. Creditors’ solicitor Michael Nugent argued that resolutions at meetings in 2013 and 2014 had set the liquidators’ remuneration at €10,000 plus VAT, with a further €3,039 for outlays in 2014. He also criticised the length and cost of the liquidation and raised concerns about the sale of the company’s premises.
The court held that it was not deciding the property sale or other complaints about the liquidation in this fee application. Those matters could not be resolved on the affidavits before it, and the judge said any legal redress concerning the disposal of property lay elsewhere. She also rejected Nugent’s request for an indemnity for his costs as a “legitimus contradictor”; the overall question of costs remained for consideration.
The judge held that section 280 of the Companies Act 1963 gave the liquidators a sufficiently broad basis to ask the court to determine their fees, notwithstanding section 269 and the earlier meeting resolutions. She noted that the liquidation was not among the more complex cases, but also that two liquidators from two firms had been appointed by creditors. The court will hear the parties on any consequential or other orders required.