Who should bear the risk and ultimately the financial burden of insolvent wrongdoers when determining the liability of defendants to a plaintiff?  The defendants, or the plaintiff?

The Law Commission revisits this question in an Issues Paper, published last week, after recommending in 1998 to retain the traditional position.¹ 

A recent Western Australia decision in the receivership and liquidation of a construction company may have overturned the hitherto accepted view that set-off remains effective against a receiver.

The case in question could cost the principal tens of millions of dollars and is under appeal. The finding is potentially relevant in New Zealand because the provisions relied on are materially identical to those in our Companies Act and Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).

Failing to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) - a simple and straightforward exercise - can be costly.

This was amply demonstrated recently when General Electric's attempt to argue that its $60 million wind turbines were exempt from the operation of the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) was rejected by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The case

After failing to sell Dick Smith as a going concern, receivers Ferrier Hodgson are now trying to sell the company’s New Zealand and Australian assets, including customer databases.  But does the Privacy Act 1993 allow it?

The legal position

A receiver or liquidator is bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993.

Australia has an Insolvency Law Reform Bill in Parliament and plans for more change further down the track in the form of recommendations from the Australian Productivity Commission, which the Australian Government has signalled it will adopt.

These developments will be of interest to New Zealand insolvency practitioners, company directors and creditors.  We summarise the proposed changes and comment briefly on the possibility of similar reform in New Zealand.

Insolvency Law Reform Bill

Successive court decisions in Australia are emphasising the enforceability of receivers’ liens in a clear statement to the market about the primacy of insolvency practitioners’ fees.  This is a trend that we expect will shape policy here.

​As New Zealand inches sloth-like toward a more regulated regime through the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, introduced in April 2010 and yet to have its third reading, Australian court decisions may become more relevant here.

After regulation, our two systems will still be different but less so than they are now, and already Australia provides a pointer to some of the issues which may arise here.

With that in mind, we have identified the top six insolvency law developments in Australia as we see them.

​It has become our recent practice to dust off the crystal ball and look ahead to what we expect will be the ‘big five’ insolvency issues.   

Below is a retrospective assessment of how we did last time and our best guess as to what will dominate the next 12 months.

The big issues for 2013

Our ‘top five’ picks for last year were:

The first significant decision¹ under the Australian Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 has followed New Zealand and Canadian law.

The case involved competing claims by a general security holder and a lessor to three civil construction vehicles located in the Northern Territory.

The relationship between the parties

It is quite a thing for the law to remove from owners the rights normally associated with ownership and to confer them on receivers. 

Which is why, although receivers are allowed considerable discretion in the exercise of their duties, they are also subject to oversight by the courts.

So how much freedom of manoeuvre do they have, and when will the court intervene?  We look at a recent decision¹  in the Australian Federal Court and consider its relevance for New Zealand insolvency practitioners.