Court of Appeal Clarifies the Tension Between Disclaimed Property and State Based Laws
On 9 March 2018, the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the controversial first instance decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Linc Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation).[1]
The Court of Appeal’s judgement is significant, as it clarifies the position regarding:
Liquidators will generally be pretty happy if a court finds that a transaction was both an uncommercial transaction and an unfair preference and dismisses any defence. Unfortunately for the liquidator in Re Cyberduck Software Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2018] VSC 122 you can still fail.
In Cyberduck:
Key Points:
Throughout 2016 a series of judgments were delivered that gave conflicting guidance to practitioners about what they should consider when accepting a voluntary administration appointment.
In a decision of interest to both secured creditors and liquidators, the High Court has now overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria that found a liquidator was not entitled to an equitable lien to secure his reasonable costs in obtaining a settlement sum.
Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 sets out the circumstances when a 'trustee' (which is defined to include a liquidator and a receiver) must account to the Commissioner, out of the proceeds of sale, for any capital gains tax (CGT) liability that would result as a consequence of the sale. Justice Logan of the Federal Court of Australia1 last Friday found that a liquidator does not have any obligation to pay under section 254 unless and until an assessment has been issued. A similar analysis would also apply to a receiver.