SANDRA MAY BANNING as administratrix of the estate of MARTIN BANNING v GRAEME TREVOR LEAN (in his capacity as Receiver) [No 3]

[2019] WASCA 30

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Receivers
3. › Court-appointed receiver
4. › Remuneration
5. › Assessment of remuneration
6. › Whether work reasonably and prudently undertaken
7. › Onus on receiver to establish reasonableness
8. › Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 86
1. Equity
2. › Receivers
3. › Court-appointed receiver
4. › Duties
5. › Fiduciary obligations
6. › Duty to act independently
7. › Whether receiver acted at behest of judgment creditor
8. › Whether failure to bring independent mind to sale process
1. Corporations
2. › Constitution
3. › Pre-emptive provisions
4. › Share transfers
5. › Whether court-appointed receiver bound by pre-emptive provisions in company constitution
1. Equity
2. › Receivers
3. › Court-appointed receiver
4. › Misfeasance
5. › Set-off against remuneration
6. › Whether misfeasance claim must be brought in proceedings in which receiver appointed
7. › Jurisdiction of master to determine misfeasance claim

Quick Take

A court-appointed receiver over a share in a company is bound by pre-emptive provisions in the company's constitution and must investigate such provisions before proceeding with a sale. The onus is on the receiver to establish that work claimed was reasonably and prudently undertaken, and work done in disregard of constitutional provisions or at the behest of the judgment creditor will not be remunerated. A misfeasance claim against a receiver must ordinarily be brought in the proceedings in which the receiver was appointed, and a master has no jurisdiction to determine such a claim without consent of the parties.