Remunerating Corporate Insolvency Practitioners in the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore: The Roles of Courts

Abstract

Insolvency practitioner remuneration is a vexed topic globally and the role of courts in fixing and reviewing remuneration is controversial. This article compares and contrasts the approaches adopted by the courts in United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore to the issue of fixing and reviewing corporate insolvency practitioners’ remuneration. The analysis considers the factors which the courts in the three jurisdictions consider in deciding remuneration claims including reasonableness, proportionality and the need for insolvency practitioners to justify their claims. Measures taken in each of the jurisdictions to facilitate predictability in time-based remuneration, whether through legislation, professional codes or judicial development, are examined. Various initiatives towards greater participation of external experts in deciding remuneration claims are also considered. The analysis finds that the three jurisdictions share some similarities despite jurisdictional differences but also differ in some important aspects. The article argues that courts have taken the initiative in each jurisdiction to fill a perceived regulatory gap where legislation provides little or ambiguous guidance, or where the judiciary believes that legislation and regulation have not kept up with community expectations. The results also highlight the cross-pollination of ideas in these jurisdictions.

Keywords: Remuneration, insolvency practitioners, role of courts, Australia, Singapore, United Kingdom