Case Digest No. 16 · Contentious insolvency
Evidence required for approval of liquidators’ remuneration
Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v CL Financial Ltd [2025] UKPC 41
The Privy Council declined to approve remuneration because the liquidators had not supplied enough task and staffing analysis to show that the work was reasonably undertaken.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
[2025] UKPC 41
September 2025
Decision at a glance
The question, answer and consequence.
- Legal question
- The central issue was evidence required for approval of liquidators’ remuneration.
- Court's answer
- The Privy Council declined to approve remuneration because the liquidators had not supplied enough task and staffing analysis to show that the work was reasonably undertaken.
- Practical consequence
- The Privy Council emphasised the evidence needed before substantial liquidators' remuneration can be approved. The case offers a practical framework for office-holders preparing fee applications and stakeholders scrutinising them.
Factual background
CL Financial Ltd (“the Company”), a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago, is the holding company of a group of companies with interests in a range of diverse international businesses. When the Company encountered financial problems in 2008, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (“the Government”) provided financial support to prevent its collapse. The Company subsequently tried to realise its investments in some subsidiaries, with a view to reducing its liabilities to the Government. However, the group continued to operate in five areas of business in several companies, with some 24 active subsidiaries. In July 2017, the Government presented a petition to wind up the Company. The Company was wound up by the Court on 15 September 2017 on the grounds of insolvency. The Company applied to the court for the approval of the remuneration of its liquidators for the calendar year 2019 and the application was opposed by the Attorney General on behalf of the Government, the largest single creditor of the Company. The
Issue
The central issue was evidence required for approval of liquidators’ remuneration.
Procedural history and reasoning
approved the remuneration, but its decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. ISSUE The sufficiency of the information provided by liquidators in support of their application for approval of their remuneration. FIRST INSTANCE High Court The Judge APPROVED the remuneration, expenses and fees paid to the corporate directors of the subsidiaries, as asked for in the Liquidators’ application, and made an order to that effect. The Judge announced his decision in an email to the parties and gave very brief reasons for his decision. The Judge then gave full written reasons in a High Court Judgment including the following (paras 34-36): “the Court must strike a fine balance between properly compensating experienced professionals and their authorised staff and preventing a ‘feeding from the trough’ scenario’” “A proper reading of the authorities does not suggest that a line by line time sheet is required, but rather sufficient information so that the court can ascertain the work done and by whom.
The remuneration report in the court’s view provides this information” “The GORTT submitted that in a complex liquidation such as this, more detail is required and therefore, greater particularisation should be provided. With respect, the Court does not accept this submission…The GORTT submits that it is impossible to assess the reasonableness of the charges without these itemised particulars, but the Court is of the view that they can be reasonably particularised without necessarily providing every item” “In the circumstances, while the sums claimed by the liquidators are indeed substantial, the Court is not persuaded that they are unreasonable or that they have not been reasonably justified in the materials provided by the JLs in their report and affidavits” FIRST APPEAL Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal OVERLOOKED the High Court Judgment and, as a result, set aside the Judge’s order principally on the grounds that the Judge had not given a proper judgment and had failed to analyse the evidence or provide cogent reasons for his decision.
Therefore, the principal ground for the Court of Appeal’s decision was WRONG (para 22 of the Privy Council Judgment). Despite this, notably, the Board noted that the Court of Appeal said that the Judge’s reading of the authorities was wrong and that those authorities “suggest that an exercise akin to a line by line examination is necessary if the choice is made by the JLs to engage in a time approach rather than a job or piece approach to their task” (para 23(2) CA Judgment). THE REMUNERATION REPORT (paras 119-122 PC Judgment) The main supporting evidence filed by the Liquidators was their Remuneration Report for the year 2019. This comprised a narrative section of 11 pages and four appendices. The first page refers to the April 2018 Order and the charge out rates for partners and staff specified in that order. The middle eight pages contained a narrative account of the work undertaken by the Liquidators in 2019, divided into eight work streams. The total number of hours and the resulting charge shown for each work stream.
Decision and key points
The Privy Council declined to approve remuneration because the liquidators had not supplied enough task and staffing analysis to show that the work was reasonably undertaken.
- The Board could not approve the remuneration requested by the liquidators as they had to provide a fuller analysis of the tasks undertaken, and the levels of staff by whom they were undertaken, so as to put the court in a position to be satisfied that the work was reasonably undertaken.
- A line by line examination by the court is not necessary, but rather sufficient information so that the court has a clear view of the work done and by whom.
- The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size of the insolvency and to the cost of preparing the information.
Why this decision matters
The Privy Council emphasised the evidence needed before substantial liquidators' remuneration can be approved. The case offers a practical framework for office-holders preparing fee applications and stakeholders scrutinising them.
Particularly relevant to: Liquidators, creditors, remuneration committees and insolvency courts practitioners.
Official court materials
Case page and hearing archive
View the Court's case overview, appeal details, judgment materials and archived hearing sessions.
Open the official Judicial Committee of the Privy Council case page