Does CIP remuneration provide value for money?

Abstract

Australian public's perception of Corporate Insolvency Practitioners (CIPs) continues to be assailed by criticism of CIP Remuneration. To determine if the Australian public and particularly creditors can be assured that CIP Remuneration is "value for money" this article considers two research questions: Who should assess if the CIP provides value for money and how to assess if the CIP provides value for money? Using a case study analysis, the article identifies the main criticisms of the current court review process of CIP remuneration. Central to such criticisms are the practical difficulties of judicial officers applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in reviewing CIP remuneration claims. In answering the two research questions, CIP remuneration reforms outlined in the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016, as well as alternative review measures, are considered.