The New South Wales Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal following a finding that certain documents relating to attempts to secure litigation funding were not privileged.

On 23 March 2017, Justice Robson of the Supreme Court of Victoria declined to follow the Victorian Court of Appeal decision of Re Enhill, finding that the decision was not binding with respect to different legislation (the Companies Act 1961 (Vic) as opposed to theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)).

Background

Since the early 1980s, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion in the decisions of Re EnhillPty Ltd [1983] 1 VR 561 and Re Suco Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) (1983) 33 SASR 99.

On 9 March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38, unanimously allowing the liquidator’s appeal against a decision of Brereton J applying principles of proportionality and ad valorum to reduce the liquidator’s outstanding remuneration from the $63,000 claimed by the liquidator to $20,000.

If you are in the sticky situation where you need to recover debt from a company in liquidation, you will inevitably have a lot of questions. Can I even pursue the company? Will I receive any money back? What can I do? This article will explore how the liquidation process works, what process you need to follow to recover your debt, and what you need to prove to make a successful claim.

How Does Liquidation Work?

The Federal Government has released the Exposure Draft for the much anticipated introduction of:

Assets held by an insolvent corporate trustee in its capacity as trustee may not be "property of the company".

For more than 30 years, Victoria has stood apart from the rest of Australia in how it treats the assets of an insolvent corporate trustee. That may have changed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Re Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2017] VSC 127.

The recent Federal Court of Australia decision of The Owners – Strata Plan No 14120 v McCarthy (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2017, demonstrates the dangers of errors in a bankruptcy notice.

In McCarthy, the Court found that when a debtor disputes the validity of a bankruptcy notice on the ground of a misstatement of the amount claimed, the debtor’s notice does not need to identify the misstatement with complete precision to render the bankruptcy notice invalid.

Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz (No 2)

Significance

In a previous Legal Insight, we foreshadowed potential guidance from the ASX on the interaction between the new insolvent trading safe harbour laws and the continuous disclosure obligations of a public company.

A garnishee order is a common form of enforcing a judgment debt against a creditor to recover money. Put simply, the court directs a third party that owes money to the judgement debtor to instead pay the judgment creditor. The third party is called a ‘garnishee’. A garnishee order is a legal notice the court issues that allows the creditor to collect the amount from either: