Page v Conneely, in the matter of Shyzi Pty Ltd (Final relief) [2026] FCA 294

This decision sits at the end of a longer Federal Court fight about disputed receiver appointments. The important procedural point is that the 2026 judgment was a final-relief decision. The court was not starting again or rehearing the whole commercial dispute. Instead, Cheeseman J was deciding what declarations, accounting orders, delivery-up orders, ASIC rectification orders and costs orders should be made to give effect to reasons delivered on 19 December 2025.

The dispute involved several companies and several appointments. CLAH had appointed receivers to Shyzi Pty Ltd and Ohmut Pty Ltd. It had also purported to appoint receivers to Tallywalker Pty Ltd. The court explained that the earlier reasons had already resolved the core validity questions. The Shyzi and Ohmut appointments were valid on the proper construction of the relevant security agreements. The Tallywalker appointment was not.

That left a practical but very important question for the 2026 hearing: once those findings had been made, what should happen next? The answer was different for each company. For Shyzi and Ohmut, the court allowed the process to move into asset realisation and a formal taking of accounts. For Tallywalker, the court moved to unwind the consequences of an invalid appointment.

The judgment says the dispute about final orders reduced to a series of specific issues. The biggest one was whether the declarations for Shyzi and Ohmut should include express quantification of the debt said to be owing to CLAH at the dates the receivers were appointed. CLAH wanted the declarations to state specific amounts. The plaintiffs opposed that approach.

The court refused to include exact debt figures in the declarations. Cheeseman J said the earlier inquiry had been directed to the existence of indebtedness, not its precise reconciliation or quantum. In the earlier reasons, the court had rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that there was no relevant debt and had also rejected their contention that advances were governed by enforceable offset or trust arrangements. But that did not mean the final orders should lock in a precise debt figure at this stage.

The court also had to decide how the accounting process should work, whether the Registrar should be prevented from revisiting issues already decided, what relief should follow from the invalid Tallywalker appointment, whether the Tallywalker receivers should receive protective relief, and what costs orders should be made where no side had succeeded completely.

The Registrar plays a central role in the orders for Shyzi and Ohmut. This is one of the most practical parts of the judgment for businesses and advisers. The court ordered that, once the listed assets of Shyzi and Ohmut were sold and the net proceeds paid into court, the taking of accounts arising from each receivership would be referred to a Registrar of the Court.

For Shyzi, the Registrar must determine the correctness of the accounts as between the parties, identify and quantify any interest chargeable on any debt owed by Shyzi to CLAH, identify and quantify all fees, remuneration, commissions, charges, costs and disbursements claimed or drawn by the Shyzi receivers and the basis for Shyzi’s liability, identify and quantify all fees, charges, costs and expenses claimed by CLAH in relation to Shyzi’s debt and the basis for the claim, identify and quantify monies received by the receivers, and identify and quantify payments made and liabilities, outgoings and preservation costs incurred.

The same structure applies to Ohmut. The Registrar must work through the correctness of the accounts, interest, receiver remuneration and expenses, CLAH’s charges and expenses, monies received, and payments and preservation costs.

Just as important is what the Registrar cannot do. The orders expressly say the Registrar is not to revisit the validity of the appointments, the construction of the contractual instruments, or issues of liability already determined by the court, including the existence of specific debts at particular points in time. The Registrar can, however, give directions for efficient case management, require documents, receive affidavit evidence, hear evidence on oath or affirmation, and then provide a written report. Parties may object to that report within 21 days, and there is liberty to apply back to the court.

The court declared that CLAH validly appointed the Shyzi receivers on 11 September 2020 under clause 14.1 of the General Security Agreement between Shyzi and CLAH for the purposes of section 418A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It also declared that CLAH validly appointed the Ohmut receivers on 30 July 2020 under clause 14.1 of the General Security Agreement between Ohmut and CLAH for the same statutory purpose.

The court discharged earlier interlocutory injunctions that had restrained dealings with property and made the Shyzi and Ohmut receivers at liberty to sell, dispose of or otherwise deal with the relevant property and assets. There were also undertakings noted by the court that temporarily limited sale steps for certain Shyzi assets until April 2026, while still allowing preservation, insurance, valuations, marketing inquiries and applications to vary the undertaking.

For each receivership, the court ordered that the receivers were liable in their capacity as receivers to render an account. The taking of accounts would occur after sale of the listed assets and payment of net proceeds into court. The listed Shyzi assets included several properties, a Mercedes-Benz, number plates and a 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale. The listed Ohmut asset was property at 60 Harriett Street, Waratah NSW.

The court also ordered that any application for an inquiry into loss suffered by the Shyzi receivers, the Ohmut receivers and CLAH by reason of earlier interlocutory injunctions was to await the outcome of the taking of accounts. That means the accounting process may affect later questions about loss caused by interim restraints.

For businesses, the practical point is that a valid appointment can open the door to enforcement and sale, even though the final money position still needs to be worked out carefully and under court supervision.

The Tallywalker part of the case shows the consequences of an invalid appointment in concrete terms. The court declared that the purported appointment by CLAH of the Tallywalker receivers on 30 July 2020, said to have been made under clause 13.1 of a purported General Security Agreement, was not validly made and was of no legal effect, including for the purposes of section 418A of the Corporations Act.

The court went further. It declared that from 30 July 2020 the Tallywalker receivers had no authority to take possession of, control, or deal with Tallywalker’s property in reliance on the purported appointment. That is a strong statement about legal authority and control of company property.

To unwind the position, the court ordered the Tallywalker receivers to deliver up to Tallywalker’s possession and control items 1 to 30 in Annexure C within 14 days, and items 31 and 32 within 28 days, together with any further items or property identified and agreed as having been held as Tallywalker property. The annexure included drilling equipment, trailers, a forklift, compressors, workshop tools, a utility vehicle, a boat, a mower, a water cart and a mast for a second drill rig.

The court also ordered the Tallywalker receivers within 14 days to provide all books and records created or obtained during the purported receivership relating to Tallywalker property, and a written account of all receipts and payments relating to that property. Once those delivery-up obligations were met, an earlier order from 7 October 2020 would be discharged.

Tallywalker was given leave to apply for an order that, despite the invalidity of the appointment, the Tallywalker receivers render an account of all property received and all dealings undertaken pursuant to the purported appointment, with that leave to be exercised within 7 days of the making of the orders.

The court refused to grant broader protective relief sought by the Tallywalker receivers. Cheeseman J said that kind of relief should be brought on notice and supported by evidence, and it was not appropriate to make it prophylactically in this proceeding.

The court made two governance-related orders concerning Tallywalker. First, under section 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act, it ordered that acts, matters or things purportedly done by Nathan Brooks as sole director of Tallywalker during the period 5 April 2017 to 18 March 2019 were not invalid merely because of a constitutional clause requiring Tallywalker to have at all times a minimum of two directors. Second, under section 1322(4)(b), the court ordered ASIC’s register to be rectified to reflect that Nathan Brooks was appointed director on 12 March 2017, that Anthony Miskiewicz and Rahul Goyal were not appointed as receivers and managers of Tallywalker on 30 July 2020, and that the company was not under external administration on and from that date.

The court also noted that this rectification order did not prevent Tallywalker from bringing a further application to correct ASIC’s register under leave previously granted on 5 March 2026.

Another important practical point is that the court did not decide compensation for Tallywalker in this judgment. Order 33 required that any claim for compensation Tallywalker may bring against any person, including the Tallywalker receivers and CLAH, by reason of the invalid appointment, must be commenced by separate proceeding. So the invalidity finding was not the end of the matter. It created the platform for possible later litigation.

On costs, the court ordered that the plaintiffs on one side and the Shyzi receivers, Ohmut receivers, Tallywalker receivers and CLAH on the other bear their own costs of the proceeding. There were no costs orders to date as between Tallywalker and the other parties. The judge said neither side had succeeded completely, the issues were closely interwoven, and principal witnesses on each side had been found dishonest in material respects, making an issue-based or proportionate costs order neither just nor practicable.

There was also a related proceeding involving Andrew John Scott in his capacity as receiver and manager of the Parkway One Unit Trust. In that proceeding, the determination of any account as between Mr Scott and CLAH was deferred pending completion of the taking of accounts in the main proceeding. Mr Scott was not to be treated as an accounting party in the main accounting process, but he had to provide reasonable assistance as directed by the Registrar.

This case is best read as a practical map of what can happen after a contested receivership dispute reaches court. It does not say that every secured creditor can enforce despite messy records, and it does not say that every challenge to a receiver appointment will succeed. Instead, it shows that courts separate gateway questions from accounting questions. If the appointment is valid, the court may let enforcement continue and send the detailed money exercise to a Registrar. If the appointment is invalid, the court may order restoration steps and register corrections, while leaving compensation for another day.

For businesses with related entities, trusts or informal internal funding, the judgment is a warning that courts will look closely at the legal documents and the reliability of the records. The judge referred to rejected contentions about offset or trust arrangements and to unreliability in large parts of the documentary evidence. That is a reminder that internal understandings and rough bookkeeping can become serious weaknesses in litigation.

For directors and founders, the Tallywalker orders show that governance details matter. Director appointments, constitutional requirements and ASIC records can all become part of the remedy. For secured creditors and insolvency practitioners, the case shows the importance of making sure the appointment pathway is legally sound before taking control of assets.

If your business is borrowing against assets, granting security, or operating through multiple entities, the practical steps are straightforward: know what security has been granted, keep debt ledgers current, document advances and repayments, record who owns each asset, and make sure ASIC records and internal governance documents match reality. Those steps will not prevent every dispute, but they can materially improve your position if one arises.

This page is based on the Federal Court of Australia judgment in Page v Conneely, in the matter of Shyzi Pty Ltd (Final relief) [2026] FCA 294, dated 19 March 2026, together with the judgment's own description of the earlier reasons in Page v Conneely, in the matter of Shyzi Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1646.

The 2026 judgment is detailed about the final orders and the accounting framework, but it is still a final-relief decision. Readers looking for the full commercial background should also consider the earlier 2025 reasons, because the 2026 judgment assumes familiarity with that earlier decision.