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

Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.

Background

This case involved a winding up petition presented against Bridger & Co Ltd (the Company) on 15 June 2023. The petition debt arises out of a funding agreement between the parties. The Company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition on various grounds. The court declined to make an injunction.

Decision

The judgment helpfully confirms the position on three issues in these types of proceedings:

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

This case concerned the immunity of receivers from claims, where the Court had approved the sale of assets over which they were appointed.

Background

Following a dispute between two shareholders of Blackpool Football Club Limited (BFCL), receivers were appointed by the court over certain assets related to Blackpool Football Club, including the shares held by the majority shareholder in BCFL, Denaxe Limited (Denaxe).

During the marketing process, the receivers concluded the best way forward was to sell the assets as one complete package.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) presented winding up petitions against Fabcourt Developments Limited, Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited, Hall Contracting Services Limited and Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (the Companies).

The SoS may present a petition for a company to be wound up where it appears that it is expedient in the public interest and if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so.

Background

Since 2021, soaring wholesale energy costs have caused concern for businesses already battling a difficult economic climate with wider inflationary pressures, such as higher interest rates.  

The government's mini-budget on 23 September 2022 cancelled the planned increase in the corporate tax rate (the proposed increase from 19% to 25%). This will assist those companies which are profit-making, but without support to reduce the cost base, this provides limited relief to others.

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Ltd (in liquidation) Lock v Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator) and another [2021] EWHC 2970 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that to reverse a liquidator's assignment of claims to a third party, the claimant must satisfy a 'formidable' test.

Background