The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.
The High Court today granted special leave to the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133. The appeal is likely to be heard later this year.
Significance
The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down this week in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 offers welcome certainty to administrators, receivers and liquidators in relation to their obligations with respect to post-appointment tax liabilities.
Significance
Introduction
With the March quarter day fast approaching it is likely that there will be more businesses becoming insolvent. Some of those businesses will have an interest in Jersey property. For example as owners of Jersey property or holders of a lease of retail premises situated in the Island.
IMMOVABLES
There are two principal insolvency procedures by which a lender can bring about the realisation of a property in Jersey, namely dégrèvement and désastre.
A debtor who fears that his property is going to be taken for his creditors either by way of a dégrèvement or by way of a désastre can apply to the Royal Court for a "Remise de Biens". A remise grants a debtor time to get his affairs in order and effect an orderly sale of all or some of his property thereby enabling him to retain that which he can afford.