In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

By an Amended Special Case, Derrington J reserved for consideration by the Full Court of the Federal Court the following question: “Is statutory set-off, under s 553C(1) of the Act, available to the [appellant] in this proceeding against the [first respondent’s] claim as liquidator for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act?” By majority, the Court of Appeal (Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman and Stewart JJ) held that s 553C(1) of the Act does not entitle the creditor to such a set-off.

Background

In Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd, [1] the Court offered a timely warning to liquidators of the dangers of adopting and acting on an incorrect understanding of the ownership of contested property. The Court ordered damages against the liquidator personally, despite his position as agent for the company in liquidation.

Background

Jabaluka Pty Ltd (Jabaluka) was the Trustee of the Morgan Unit Trust, which operated an IGA Supermarket (the Supermarket) from 22 September 2010 to 13 March 2020. This case concerned an application by the Liquidator of Jabaluka (the Liquidator) under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for an order that the Liquidator be appointed without security as receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the Morgan Unit Trust.

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered a case on appeal which asked the Court to expand the common law duty of directors in a significant way. The Appellant sought to argue that common law director duties should require directors to have regard to the interests of creditors even in circumstances where their company is solvent.

Background

The Full Federal Court, overturning Flick’s J decision at first instance ([2020] FCA 1759), found that the bankrupt’s main purpose in transferring their property was, in substance, not to prevent, hinder or delay this property becoming divisible amongst his creditors in breach of s 121(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

On 29 June 2022, the Federal Court of Australia made an order vesting an interest in a half share of land in Aaron Kevin Lucan in his capacity as trustee (the Trustee) of the bankrupt estate of Christopher Williams (the Bankrupt Estate).

In Brooks, in the matter of Tease Hair & Spa Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Federal Court made orders in favour of the Liquidator, pursuant to section 90-15 of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations)) and section 47 of the Trustee Act 1989 (Tas) allowing the Liquidator to realise trust property for the benefit of creditors.

Background

In the matter of Squirrel Limited (In Liquidation), the Court considered an application for summary judgement against a director for insolvent trading. In doing so, the Court considered the principles underpinning a director’s duty to prevent insolvent trading and the compensation payable as a result.

Background