This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.

Key takeaways

In Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.

Key Takeaways

On 27 February 2024, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited (CB&I), part of the global McDermott construction and engineering group (the Group). This is the first English restructuring plan to be approved after the Court of Appeal judgment in Adler (see our Alert) and follows the guidance in that case.

Background

On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's sanction of Adler Group's (Adler) restructuring plan (the Plan) (see our alert). This much anticipated judgment provides clarity on the court's discretion to sanction a plan where there are dissenting classes of creditors.

Background

The Plan envisaged:

The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.

The judge had failed to recognise that:

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

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

After a weekend that saw the tech ecosystem unite to fight for its future, on Monday 13 March 2023, the Bank of England (the Bank) effected the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd (SVB UK) to HSBC. It used the resolution powers for stabilising failing banks granted by the Banking Act 2009 which were introduced following the 2008/9 financial crisis.

Resolution powers

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.