Richards v Macquarie Bank Limited (No 6) [2015] FCA 299

Richards v Macquarie Bank Limited (No 6) [2015] FCA 299

The proposed fees and charges were approved because they struck the Court as reasonable, the legal expenses had been vetted by an independent person, ASIC had been notified and did not seek to be heard, and the administration of the Second Settlement Scheme was expected to yield a higher return than anticipated when the scheme was approved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Class Action Settlement Scheme Administration / Application Pursuant to S 33 V(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) for Approval of Administrator's Costs, Fees and Disbursements
Outcome
Application granted; Administrator's professional fees, disbursements and further Administration Costs approved.
Legal Topics
['settlement Scheme Approved Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' "administrator's Costs" 'class Action Settlement Administration']
['practice and Procedure'] ['settlement Scheme Approved Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' "administrator's Costs" 'class Action Settlement Administration']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class Action Settlement Scheme Administration / Application Pursuant to S 33 V(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) for Approval of Administrator's Costs, Fees and Disbursements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should approve the Administrator's professional fees and disbursements incurred up to 9 March 2015." "Whether the Court should approve Administrator's costs to be incurred after 9 March 2015." 'Whether the Court should approve a further sum as Administration Costs under clause 46 of the Second Settlement Scheme.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed fees and charges were approved because they struck the Court as reasonable, the legal expenses had been vetted by an independent person, ASIC had been notified and did not seek to be heard, and the administration of the Second Settlement Scheme was expected to yield a higher return than anticipated when the scheme was approved.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Administrator's professional fees, disbursements and further Administration Costs approved.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 33V(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) the Administrator's professional fees and disbursements incurred up to 9 March 2015 in the sum of $16,283.28 be approved for payment in accordance with clause 45A of the Second Settlement Scheme approved by the Court on 20 December...