The High Court has handed down its long-awaited decisions in Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] (Badenoch) HCA 2 and Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (Morton) providing guidance on common defences to unfair preference claims that may be brought by liquidators. The key takeaways for insolvency practitioners are:

We are pleased to present our first edition of the Annual Return, reporting on landmark cases, legislative reform, and the implications for your practice.

Uncharted waters

The liquidators of Intellicomms applied to the Court for relief in relation to a sale agreement entered into between Intellicomms and a related company for the sale of business assets, claiming it was a creditor-defeating disposition and a voidable transaction.

The amendments follow the recent high profile decision in The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v EPA & Anor [2021] VSCA 294 (TASCO Judgment). Insolvency practitioners should be aware that the amendments are aimed at preventing liquidators from disclaiming liability for environmental clean-up costs.

TASCO Judgment

The Supreme Court of Victoria is the first Australian court to test creditor-defeating disposition laws designed to defeat illegal phoenix activity: In this latest article, Maddocks Insolvency & Restructuring team unpack illegal phoenix activity, summarise the key takeaways from the recent case Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228 (Re Intellicomms), and consider implications for insolvency practitioners, companies and directors.

What is phoenix activity and why is it illegal?