In Re Nimble Holdings Company Limited [2026] HKCFI 1445, Recorder Eva Sit SC allowed the Company’s appeal and set aside a Notice of Appointment for Taxation of Bill #14 issued by the Provisional Liquidators (“PLs”).
By way of background, Bill #14 claimed the PLs’ time costs for complying with two court orders requiring them to provide discovery of documents concerning their remuneration. The main issue is whether the PLs are entitled to claim remuneration for work performed to support their own application for remuneration.
The judge held that there was an important distinction between remuneration and legal costs. Under the Maxwell principles, the PLs, as office holders and fiduciaries, must justify their remuneration by demonstrating that the work was of value to the estate. If all the office holder has done is to expend time in putting together information to enable him to claim remuneration, it is difficult to see how such work can be said to be of value to the estate. It is only of value to the office holder since he is under a duty to account and he needs to have these materials in place in order for him to discharge such duty and obtain approval from the court for his remuneration.
In the present case, the PLs’ work (i.e. compliance with discovery orders for the purpose of justifying their own remuneration) did not confer value on the Company. The judge did not find any basis for the PLs to claim remuneration for this work. Any legal costs incurred in complying with the discovery orders had already been addressed through separate costs orders in the discovery applications (which did not deal with the Liquidators’ own time-costs).
The PLs were ordered to pay the Company’s costs on a nisi basis.
Read the judgment here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=178258&currpage=T
Justin Lam acted for the Company.
