Judgment summary
Global Management NSW Pty Ltd was wound up in insolvency by a Registrar's orders of 1 October 2025, on the application of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (DCT), who had filed a statutory demand for $3,050,555.69 for unpaid taxes, superannuation guarantee charges, and interest [2]. Peter Krejci and Jonathon Keenan of BRI Ferrier were appointed as liquidators (the BRI liquidators) [1].
Raymond Zeaiter, sole director and shareholder of Global, together with Global, brought an amended interlocutory application seeking removal of the BRI liquidators under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS), or alternatively a review of the Registrar's appointment decision under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) [1].
The applicants argued that the BRI liquidators had shown a 'predisposition' against Global by initially proposing to join it as the 46th defendant in related Federal Court proceedings (NSD 194 of 2025) concerning an alleged tax evasion scheme involving Sam Cassaniti and Teddy Panella, before instead having Global joined as a plaintiff [19]-[27].
Burley J held that the conflict of interest raised was theoretical rather than real, that the BRI liquidators' consent to act for Global predated the proposed defendant joinder, and that the later joinder of Global as a plaintiff removed any actual conflict [36]-[46]. The amended interlocutory application was dismissed [1], [54], with costs to be determined on the papers.
Background
Global Management NSW Pty Ltd was wound up in insolvency by orders of a Registrar of the Court on 1 October 2025, on the application of the DCT, who had filed a statutory demand for $3,050,555.69 for unpaid taxes, superannuation guarantee charges, and interest on both [2]. Peter Krejci and Jonathon Keenan, principals at BRI Ferrier, were appointed as Global's liquidators [1].
Mr Krejci and Mr Keenan were already liquidators of four other companies, Sydney Exotic Aquariums Casula Pty Ltd, Richmond Lifts Pty Ltd, United Lifts Technologies Pty Ltd and Financial Advisory Australia Pty Ltd, which the liquidators termed the 'Richmond Group', linked to Teddy Panella and Sam Cassaniti, the latter having previously been convicted of tax fraud offences.
On 2 October 2025 the BRI liquidators brought an interlocutory application to join Global as a defendant in related proceedings, NSD 194 of 2025, concerning an alleged tax evasion scheme. Following further investigation, the liquidators instead sought to join Global as a plaintiff to pursue claims against Mr Cassaniti, and orders joining Global as a plaintiff were made by Moore J on 11 February 2026.
Mr Zeaiter, sole director and shareholder of Global, and Global brought an amended interlocutory application seeking removal of the BRI liquidators under s 90-15 of the IPS, or alternatively a review of the Registrar's appointment decision under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the basis of apprehended bias arising from the liquidators' earlier proposed adverse position against Global.
Core dispute
The central dispute was whether the appointment of the BRI liquidators should be reviewed, or the liquidators removed, on the ground of apprehended bias, given their prior consideration of joining Global as a defendant in the NSD 194 proceedings and their role as liquidators of other companies within the 'Richmond Group' [8].
The applicants contended that the BRI liquidators had shown a predisposition against Global evidenced by a draft amended Statement of Claim of 5 November 2025 naming Global as the 46th defendant, and by the BRI Report's characterisation of the Richmond Group's involvement in creditor-defeating transactions.
The DCT and the BRI liquidators submitted that any conflict was merely theoretical, that Global had since been joined as a plaintiff rather than a defendant in the NSD 194 proceedings, and that retaining the same liquidators across the related companies promoted efficiency and cost savings, a position supported by the other unsecured creditors.
Court findings
Burley J applied the 'double might' test from Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, as adapted to liquidators in Shaoxing Newtex Imp & Exp Co Ltd, in the matter of Mosaic Brands Limited (in liq) v Strawbridge [2025] FCA 1479 at [137]-[142], requiring identification of a matter that might lead the liquidator to act other than in the best interests of the liquidation, and a logical connection to a feared deviation.
The Court found that the BRI liquidators' consent to act for Global was given on 16 July 2025, before any proposal to join Global as a defendant in NSD 194, and that any predisposition to conflict was obviated when Global was instead joined as a plaintiff by orders of Moore J on 11 February 2026.
The Court accepted the DCT's submission that generally one liquidator, or set of liquidators, should be appointed across companies in a group where possible without a real conflict of interest, citing Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 135 and Re Chilia Properties Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) [1997] FCA 209.
Burley J distinguished Krejci (liquidator) v Panella, in the matter of Richmond Lifts Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2025] FCA 1114, where the liquidators had been removed as provisional liquidators of Marginata Securities Pty Ltd and Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd because they were acting on both sides of the same litigation, an actual conflict not present here, and also distinguished Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Nararra Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 730, where any conflict had been addressed by an undertaking.
The Court held that the supporting letters from the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue and the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer, both opposing removal of the BRI liquidators, reflected the genuinely held views of those creditors and should be accepted at face value. The Court also noted the complexity and scale of the NSD 194 proceedings, a four-week trial listed for May 2027, and the costs and disruption that would result from replacing the liquidators.
The Court concluded that the case did not rise above a theoretical possibility of conflict and that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the BRI liquidators could not bring an independent mind to the liquidation of Global.
Outcome
The Amended Interlocutory Application dated 8 December 2025 was dismissed [Order 1]. The Court had separately granted leave for the extension of time to bring the review application, given Mr Zeaiter's explanation of ill health, which the DCT did not oppose [7]. The question of leave for Mr Zeaiter to act as director in bringing the application was resolved by the BRI liquidators' consent under s 198G(3)(b) of the Corporations Act, making a court order unnecessary [6].
The parties were directed to file written submissions on costs, limited to four pages, by 27 August 2026, with submissions in response by 10 September 2026, the question of costs to be determined on the papers [Orders 2-4].
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Registrar's decision to appoint Peter Krejci and Jonathon Keenan as liquidators of Global should be reviewed under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
- Whether the liquidators should be removed under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) on the ground of apprehended bias.
- Application of the Ebner 'double might' test for apprehended bias to the independence of liquidators.
- The significance of the liquidators' initial proposal to join Global as a defendant in the NSD 194 proceedings, later reversed by joining Global as a plaintiff.
- Whether efficiency and cost savings from retaining common liquidators across the related 'Richmond Group' companies outweighed any apprehended conflict.
- The weight to be given to supporting letters from other creditors, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue and the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer, opposing removal of the liquidators.
- Distinction of the case from Krejci (liquidator) v Panella (No 3), where an actual conflict warranted removal of provisional liquidators, and from Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Nararra Developments Pty Ltd, where conflict was resolved by undertaking.