In July 2023, I reported the cancellation of a liquidator’s registration by a disciplinary committee in relation to unauthorised drawings of remuneration and failure to lodge documents with ASIC and an ultimate finding that he was not a fit and proper person to be a liquidator. Cancellation of a liquidator’s registration – Murrays Legal
Tribunal review
Mr Auricht successfully applied for a review of that committee decision on 26 July 2023 to what is now the Administrative Review Tribunal. The matter was heard over two years later, on 4 and 5 September 2025.
The ART essentially agreed with the findings of the committee but imposed instead a period of suspension of registration for 5 years (pursuant to s 40-55(b) IPSC) in light of the fact that Auricht had not been the subject of previous disciplinary action in connection with his work as a liquidator or otherwise.
Mr Auricht was a sole practitioner, having been registered as a liquidator in 1996. The case here involved a 2013 liquidation. He had not taken a new appointment since 2018 and he had few insolvency administrations remaining. Necessarily, these had to be transferred to other liquidators, if any were willing to take them.
The factual details are drawn out and are not covered here but as to one example, as to remuneration, and delay, the ART said that significant amounts were overdrawn in relation to the 2013 administration and that
“on multiple occasions from February 2015 until the 2016 Court Approval on 28 January 2016. Then, significant amounts [were] overdrawn on multiple occasions from 12 June 2016 until 10 March 2017 which totalled more than $118,000. Approval in respect of these later drawings was not sought from the court until an application was lodged in 2022, more than 5 years later (and more than 4 years after the creditors meeting), approval being obtained from the Court on 8 February 2023 when the 2023 Court Approval was made”.
See Auricht and A Committee Convened under s 40-45 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) [2026] ARTA 23.
Comment
In a recent article, Dr Catherine Robinson[1] has evaluated whether there has been efficiency and certainty in the disciplinary committees’ decision-making over the 8 years of the committee process operating. That process had in fact operated for some years in personal insolvency, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 bringing corporate insolvency up to the same level, based on the merits of a committee assessment process. It replaced liquidator registrations ‘on the papers’, and disciplinary hearings by the then CALDB, now the CADB.
It seems from the article that more non-publication orders in corporate insolvency prevented a final assessment of that committee process. As to time taken, Dr Robinson said there were justifiable reasons for the delay in matters, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to allow more time for the practitioner to provide additional information. Her study showed that the former AAT reviews of committee decisions materially increased the time for the matter to be resolved.
Delay
But if one looks at the time taken for a disciplinary issue to be identified and then for the show cause and committee process to be resolved the length of time does not look good. In this matter we are talking about misconduct that occurred in 2015 only finally resolved subject to any appeal in 2026.
There was unexplained and extreme delay between the filing of the application to the then AAT and the hearing of the matter over 2 years later, which the ART did not explain. The ART did in the end give a prompt decision.
But the delay is often more in the detection of the misconduct, some months or years later, acknowledging that misconduct like fee withdrawals without approval can be hard to detect; as we know, in a criminal law context, from the matter of Amos. Nevertheless, the ILRA 2016 put in place such a comprehensive overlay of regulatory oversight – regulatory bodies everywhere [2] – we might question its overall effectiveness. Who knows what role the law societies and bar associations play.
Dr Robinson refers to the unnecessary duplication of resources given that most trustees are also registered liquidators and she suggests
“optimising supervisory functions and reducing complexity for vulnerable debtors in the system who are dealing with separate regulators”.
Apart from debtors’ interests, there are economic and legal efficiency issues involved.
Single insolvency practitioner regulator
She says this could be achieved by a single insolvency regulator whose approach should be modelled on “AFSA’s best practice and good relationship with the regulated population”.
I have raised the need for a single insolvency regulator for some time, going back at least to 2009[3] and it was the subject of recommendation by the 2010 Senate Committee report, and ignored; but it has been raised for consideration by the 2023 PJC Report.
One regulator of itself would not have detected the problem with Mr Auricht. One approach would be focus on sole practitioners who have no partners to co-sign the accounts; or on those administrations that remain unfinalized for a long time.
That level of focus both for Mr Auricht and Mr Amos, who were in that category, might have detected problems earlier.
As to which, as to AFSA, see Monitoring and inspection of bankruptcy trustees and debt agreement administrators – IGPS 11 and AFSA’s focus on
“mismanagement of trust funds ranging from unauthorised payment of fees through to reckless, fraudulent or deliberate misappropriation of funds for personal gain”.
ASIC may have a different focus and approach. Then there are the industry bodies, including ARITA, CAANZ and CPA.
AI
In any event, AI will eventually solve the problem of the need for close monitoring of insolvency administrations, or the conduct of them.
========================
[1] Efficiency and Certainty in Decision-Making: An Evaluation of the Insolvency Practitioner Disciplinary Committees (2025) 47 Sydney Law Review 19975
[2] Bodies everywhere — the role of professional bodies in regulating insolvency practitioners (2018) BCLB [351]
[3] The alignment of the laws of personal and corporate insolvency — (2009) 9(5) INSLB 102; Reform of practitioner regulation — (2012) 12(5) INSLB 106; A miscellany of insolvency issues current and upcoming — (2011) 11(5) INSLB 86. And more recently “The Regulation of Insolvency Practitioners: a UK/Australian perspective”, Moffatt, Mason and Murray.
