In Kisimul Holdings Pty Ltd v Clear Position Pty Ltd, a decision seemingly inconsistent with established law, the Supreme Court of NSW earlier this year held that an omission in the affidavit supporting a statutory demand did not amount to “some other reason why the demand should be set aside”. The NSW Court of Appeal has now reversed the decision, restoring a degree of certainty in this much-litigated area of law.

The Law

Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 782

Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966(Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).

In the matter ofMustang Marine Australia Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1074, Brereton J of the New South Wales Supreme Court held that there is no principle that before instituting proceedings a liquidator must be satisfied of the material facts that constitute its cause of action, and that absent such satisfaction the proceedings are an abuse of process. As long as proceedings are instituted for bona fide relief claimed and are not doomed then there is no abuse of process.

FACTS

On 4 September 2014, the Government introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 to the House of Representatives (Bill).  The Bill is intended to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) so as to limit the entitlements payable by the Government to those employees made redundant due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer. 

In Sharpe v WH Bailey & Sons Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 921, Justice Gleeson found that the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) (FDM Act) did not operate to prevent an individual from pursuing their rights under the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth), even though those rights may have been related to a farm mortgage.  In doing so, Justice Gleeson confirmed that the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) will have priority over the FDM Act where the requirements of section 5 of the FDM Act are met.

FACTS

Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in the matter of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 696 confirms that where a receiver is required to make a payment under Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to a priority creditor (such as employee entitlements), the secured creditor (who appointed the receiver) may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of that priority creditor in the winding up of the company.

The Law

The recent appeal decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in ASIC v Franklin (liquidator) and ors [2014] FCAFC 85 reinforces the importance of the independence of liquidators and also provides further guidance on the contents of declarations of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (known as a “DIRRI”) by administrators.

Summary

A statutory demand is normally the first step that is taken by a creditor in the winding up of a company on the grounds of insolvency. 

The process of serving a statutory demand, and any subsequent winding up proceedings, can be an effective and legitimate process used by creditors to recover amounts owed by a debtor company (company).[1]