Under sections 90-15 and 90–20 of Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), a liquidator may apply to the court for directions and judicial advice in winding up.

Purpose of Judicial Advice

The purpose of judicial advice was to give the liquidator advice as to the proper course of action to take in the liquidation, as noted by Goldberg J in Re Ansett Australia Ltd and Korda [2002] FCA 90 (Ansett).

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently delivered judgment in the case of Kitay v Frigger [No 2] [2024] WASC 113. The Court held that some, but not all, long-term costs agreements and retainers entered into by a liquidator required court approval.

Key Takeaways

Track record of insolvency – implications for licensing

A recent decision of the Tribunal, affirming a licensing decision under the Home Building Act 1989 (HB Act) of the regulator to refuse an application to renew a qualified supervisor certificate, reveals the keen focus of the regulator on using its licensing powers to clean up the industry.

The applicant before the Tribunal was the director, secretary and controlling mind of a company licensed under the HB Act and was its nominated supervisor.

What is the Doctrine of Exoneration?

The doctrine of exoneration concerns the issue of a loan against a jointly-held property. It will apply when the borrowed funds secured against the property are only for the benefit of one party. Thus, this doctrine is able to change the respective interests in property ownership when an interest in the asset is created by one party.

Fact Scenario Example

This article considers the New South Wales Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to proceed against non-appearing foreign defendants, which were in foreign insolvency proceedings.

There has been a significant growth of litigation in Australia where there is at least one foreign defendant. This is unsurprising given the growing number of international agreements under which the parties govern their contract under Australian law and expressly agree to Australian court jurisdiction, and the volume of global trade with Australia and foreign direct investment.

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Mandalinic v Stone (Liquidator) [2023] FCAFC 146 which provides useful guidance as to the ability of a director to challenge an insolvent company’s PAYG liability.

Key takeaways

On 22 Sept 2023, the Australian government responded to the Whittaker Review, releasing the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill 2023 for public consultation until 17 Nov 2023.

Overview of the Whittaker review and Government's response

Insolvency practitioners and other potentially affected stakeholders, such as company directors and corporate trustees, should watch this space carefully to keep abreast of any changes to their obligations.

This week's issue has a strong risk focus. We cover speeches from ASIC Chair Joe Longo and Minister for Home Affairs Clare O'Neil to the AFR Cyber Summit. On the financial services front, the FAR Bills received Assent and the ABA's new Banking Code is anticipated to be in place in 'early 2024' (subject to ASIC approval).

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Morgan & Ors v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] HCATrans 122, a decision to grant special leave, paving the way for the High Court to clarify the law with respect to pooling orders.

Key takeaways