Alammc Developments – Federal Court Refuses Additional Legal Funding

The Federal Court of Australia has delivered a further judgment in the ongoing ASIC proceedings concerning ALAMMC Developments and associated entities. While the decision in ASIC v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 725 deals with a procedural funding issue, it is highly relevant for investors seeking reassurance about how remaining funds are being managed.

Background to the Decision

The broader proceedings involve multiple companies connected to ALAMMC projects, many of which are now in receivership or liquidation. Independent Receivers are responsible for controlling and safeguarding assets with the goal of maximising returns to creditors and investors.

Two individuals associated with the projects, David McWilliams and Laura Fullarton, are currently facing contempt of court charges. These allegations relate to:

• Breaches of court-imposed freezing orders (restricting movement of funds), and
• Failures to comply with disclosure obligations.

To ensure they could properly respond to those charges, the Court previously approved limited access to receivership funds for legal costs, with a total of approximately $102,350 allocated under strict conditions.

The Recent Application

The individuals applied to the Court seeking:

• An additional ~$96,500 in legal funding, and
• Permission to submit another interim legal costs bill before the hearing.

This application was opposed by ASIC and the Receivers.

The Court’s Decision

The Court refused the application in full. No additional funding was allowed, and the request for further interim billing was also denied.

Why This Matters for Investors

Although the issue relates to legal costs, the decision is important because it confirms how carefully the Court is overseeing the use of funds that ultimately belong to creditors and investors.

1. Protection of Remaining Funds

The Court determined that the amount already set aside for legal costs was sufficient when assessed properly. It rejected attempts to increase funding based on higher private legal billing rates.

This means:

• Receivership funds are not being eroded unnecessarily, and
• The pool of available funds is being preserved for distribution.

2. Strict Cost Controls Are Being Enforced

A key point in the decision is that all legal costs must be assessed using the Federal Court scale, rather than private fee agreements between lawyers and clients.

This ensures:

• Costs are standardised and reasonable, and
• Investors are not indirectly funding inflated legal expenses.

3. Close Judicial Oversight

The Court undertook its own assessment of the likely legal costs and concluded that:

• Total expected costs fell within the existing funding already approved, and
• Some of the additional claimed costs were excessive or unsupported.

This demonstrates that the Court is actively:

• Scrutinising financial claims, and
• Preventing unnecessary depletion of receivership assets.

4. Focus Remains on Recovery for Investors

By refusing additional funding, the Court reinforced that the primary focus remains on:

• Preserving assets, and
• Supporting an orderly process to recover and ultimately distribute funds.

Key Takeaway

For investors, this decision is a positive development. It shows that both the Court and the Receivers are taking a cautious and disciplined approach to how funds are used.

If you would like to discuss the judgement delivered by the Federal Court of Australia with one of our team please reach out to us on 8525 2700 or click here to request an appointment.