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:
En raison de l'impact sans précédent de la pandémie de la COVID-19 ainsi que des mesures de confinement afférentes sur l'économie canadienne et la vie des citoyens canadiens, les législatures et les tribunaux accordent des assouplissements importants aux entreprises et aux particuliers, notamment eu égard à :
certains délais de dépôt et de paiement, notamment pour les déclarations d'impôt, les paiements et remises ainsi que les dépôts en matière de propriété intellectuelle; et
As a result of the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures on the Canadian economy and the lives of Canadian citizens, the legislatures and courts have granted wide-ranging relief for businesses and individuals from, among other things:
certain filing and payment deadlines such as for tax filings, payments and remittances and intellectual property filings; and
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.
Dans l’affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies relative à Nemaska Lithium, la Cour supérieure du Québec rend une décision intéressante en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour une débitrice de résilier des contrats auxquels elle est partie et sur son obligation, le cas échéant, de payer à son cocontractant les frais qu’il doit encourir pour reprendre possession de biens loués.
In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Nemaska Lithium, the Québec Superior Court rendered an interesting decision regarding the possibility for a debtor to disclaim agreements and its obligation, if any, to pay its counterparty the costs it must incur to repossess leased property.
Background: Nemaska Lithium disclaims a housing modules rental agreement
The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that unpaid post-filing suppliers, which had neither sought a court-ordered charge to secure their post-filing claims nor availed themselves of their right to stop supplying goods or services to the debtor, cannot claim an implicit priority on the proceeds of sales of assets in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.
Background: going-concern sales of optometry clinics
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