In a recent decision in the Admiralty Court before Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison, the Court considered the application of the recently enacted section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the conclusions reached on that provision are perhaps less surprising given its wide remit, the decision raises some interesting points for contract lawyers on the formation of contracts and the reasonableness of their terms.

Introduction – Section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act)

A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that a secured creditor who consents to employee creditors being paid out of the charged asset pool is entitled to be subrogated to the priority rights of those employee creditors.

1.1 Facts

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) was the only secured creditor of Akron Roads Pty Ltd (Akron), holding fixed and floating charges over all of Akron’s undertakings and assets. In 2010, liquidators were appointed to Akron.

While announcements have been made, and measures extended, to help corporate Britain, directors faced with the difficult decision of whether to trade on through the crisis could suddenly very exposed once again.

Insolvency relief extended to 31 December 2020

On Sunday, the Federal Government announced that it will extend until the end of the year insolvency relief measures which were put in place from March 2020 as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic which were due to expire on 25 September 2020.[1]

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "CIGA") came into effect. As anticipated in our previous article the CIGA was fast-tracked through Parliament and some amendments were ultimately made prior to it becoming law.

The decision of Mr Justice Morgan in A Company (Injunction To Restrain Presentation of Petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) (judgment anonymised) which was handed down on 2 June 2020 will be of interest to tenants and landlords alike in the current climate. The judgment, which follows the decision in Travelodge Ltd v Prime Aesthetics Ltd [2020] EWHC 1217 (Ch) will be of huge precedent value to commercial tenants that have been impacted by coronavirus and have been unable to meet their rent obligations as a result.

Following the Government's announcement in March that the hotly anticipated changes to the UK's insolvency regime would be rushed through Parliament with further, temporary, provisions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, insolvency practitioners and business professionals alike have been awaiting further clarity on what the Business Secretary's comments mean for businesses both in the current climate and more generally.

As businesses seek to adapt to deal with the financial impact of COVID-19, boards of directors have been faced with the difficult decision of having to file for insolvency or take steps to preserve business continuity and live to fight another day. Understandably directors' duties is a topic that has come keenly into focus with directors wishing to ensure that, whatever steps they take, they do not incur personal liability.

The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill