Key points
- Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
- Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
- The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment
The facts
Key Points
- Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
- Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation
The Facts
Key points
- Principles applying to exercise of liquidators’ powers are the same as those prior to legislative changes
- Views of creditors influenced by personal considerations to be disregarded
- The overriding requirement is for liquidators to exercise their professional judgment in the best interests of creditors
The facts
Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?
Key Points
- Test for personal service of bankruptcy petition same as for claim forms
- Document to be handed to debtor or contents explained and left “with or near” debtor
- Rule 7.55 can be used to remedy any irregularity in service if necessary
The Facts
Key Points
- Court considers the impact of the Spanish Insolvency Act on guarantees governed by English law
- Court holds that the liability under the guarantee was not extinguished
The Facts
Key Points
- An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
- The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
- The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution
The Facts
Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.
Key Points
- Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
- Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation
The Facts
The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.
Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"
The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.