What is a Court-Appointed Receiver?

Speaker: Dr Steven Elliot KC, National University of Singapore

Commentator: Dr Ben Kremer, Banco Chambers, Sydney

Chair: The Hon Justice James Edelman AC, High Court of Australia

Register via the Queensland Bar Association

This paper will explore and attempt to explain the jural characteristics of court-appointed receivers. Such receivers are used for two broad purposes: to hold assets pending disputes, and to permit enforcement where conventional execution is difficult or impossible. The appointment of receivers is an ancient equitable remedy, but has received virtually no attention in the literature, notwithstanding the fact that English courts have significantly enlarged its practical potential in recent years in cases such as Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 303; [2009] QB 450 CA; Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd [2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm); [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 336; and JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin [2020] EWCA Civ 1337; [2021] 1 WLR 434 at [75]. Some of the questions considered in this paper include: (i) What kind of remedy is a receivership order? (ii) How do court-appointed receivers differ from, and compare to party-appointed receivers? (iii) How do they differ from, and compare to trustees? (iv) How do receivership orders alter third party rights and powers? (iv) Who owns the assets controlled by a court-appointed receiver, and (v) why can receivers only be sued with the permission of the court, when they are accountable to the parties?