This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in which an unfair preference claim was defended on the basis that the liquidators had been invalidly appointed and lacked standing to continue the proceeding.

Key takeaways

Commercial landlords are exposed to a range of risks from the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. One new risk to be confronted will come from the increased prevalence of rental deferrals and interaction with the Australian insolvency regime over ‘unfair preferences’.

Why is rent ‘protected’ in normal trading conditions?

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in KASH Aboriginal Corporation ICN 108 (Administrators Appointed) No 2 [2012] FCA 789 confirms that an administrator of a company who acts honestly and reasonably may be protected from personal liability for any debts incurred while carrying out an administration.

Background

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Re National Personnel Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] VSC 508 confirms that the Court will take a broad approach in determining the true employer where the employer-employee relationship is confused and the liquidator is in doubt as to the identification of the employer.

Background

The recent Federal Magistrate’s decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2012] FMCA 1082 reminds us that leaving a jurisdiction does not mean leaving your business behind, including the business of paying debts.

Background

Mr Oswal guaranteed a loan of $27 million from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd (Garuda) for the purchase of a jet plane.  Mr Oswal was, and remains, a director of Garuda.

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege.  A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Lofthouse v Environmental Consultants International Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] VSC 416 outlines the factors the Court will take into account when considering whether to make a pooling order and considers when a liquidator may be remunerated out of the assets of pooled companies.

Background

Before the recent decision in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (In liq) and another v AE Grant [2012] UKSC 46 (the joint appeal of two earlier cases) (the Rubin/New Cap Appeal), an insolvency judgment obtained in an Australian court could be enforced in the UK despite falling outside of the traditional common law enforceability rules.

The Rubin/New Cap Appeal has now removed this special treatment afforded to foreign insolvency judgments and the old common law rules once again apply.

On 29 August 2012, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in SingTel Optus Pty Limited v Weston (Costs) [2012] NSWSC 1002.  The decision confirms that a liquidator who is removed from their position will be entitled to an indemnity for costs incurred in defending the removal proceedings, unless they act improperly in those proceedings.

Background

On 7 December 2011, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in In the matter of Nugisi Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1512, clarifying the circumstances in which courts will allow the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

Facts