A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104:

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) has been laid before the UK Parliament today, Wednesday 20 May 2020.

The Bill, if passed, will implement some significant changes to UK insolvency law and at the same time effect a range of temporary measures to assist with corporate governance during the Covid-19 situation.

Moratorium for protection from creditors

As part of its response to the COVID-19 situation, Companies House has announced that it will accept the filing of statutory insolvency documents via emailed PDF attachments.

This measure applies to companies registered in Scotland, as well as England & Wales and is yet another practical example of the steps being taken to try and alleviate the administrative burden on insolvency practitioners.

It is perhaps not as well-known as it should be that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 sections 195 – 198 provides a six-week moratorium – effectively a postponement or period of protection from action to recover debts - to individuals, partnerships and trusts facing financial distress or liquidity issues.

The moratorium provides breathing space to allow parties to be protected from their creditors while they take advice and consider what debt relief options might be available to them.

A party can normally apply for the moratorium once in any 12-month period.

The Australian Parliament has passed legislation granting temporary relief for businesses from statutory demands and liability for insolvent trading. Individuals will also be granted temporary relief in relation to bankruptcy notices.

Introduction

The Australian Parliament has passed a suite of temporary insolvency measures to combat the economic impacts of coronavirus. The changes, which are expected to come into effect shortly, will provide temporary relief from statutory demands and liability for insolvent trading.

Wrongful trading rules, which can result in directors being personally liable for losses incurred as a result of continued trading, are being temporarily suspended in recognition of the large number of businesses being impacted by COVID-19. While this news will be welcomed by businesses across the UK, directors should not be complacent about their responsibilities.

It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.

Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Suspicion of insolvency

The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues