En una nota que redacté ya hace algún tiempo decía que, excepcionalmente, y aunque la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC) parece excluirlo al disponer que la legitimación activa corresponde a quien aparece en el título como «acreedor» (art. 538.2), ha interpretado la jurisprudencia que puede ser el propio condenado o demandado quien inste la ejecución si tiene interés jurídico en el cumplimiento.

This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.

What happened?

Se exponen brevemente los posibles obstáculos a la ejecución de la resolución (sentencia o decreto del letrado de la Administración de Justicia) que pone fin al procedimiento de liquidación del régimen económico matrimonial de gananciales y se ofrecen los criterios para su superación. 

1.ª ¿Es la sentencia que pone fin al procedimiento con oposición un título ejecutivo?

El artículo 728.1 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC) regula este presupuesto de las medidas cautelares de una manera flexible, ya que, como ha recordado la jurisprudencia, no requiere (como hacía el Anteproyecto de LEC) que la sentencia condenatoria que en su día se dicte sea «de imposible o muy difícil ejecución», sino que se limita a exigir que puedan producirse situaciones que «impidieren o dificultaren la efectividad de la tutela».

Sin embargo, la jurisprudencia que lo ha interpretado ha sido rigurosa en la delimitación de sus requisitos.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (No 4) [2019] FCA 604 where the Federal Court granted an application by liquidators of a company to electronically publish notices required to be sent to creditors as part of their initial reporting obligations in a winding up, to save costs and time, in cir

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Erskine as liquidator of North Shore Property Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v 72-74 Gordon Crescent Lane Cove Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 62, where a determination was upheld that Courts should not go behind a deed of release entered into by a liquidator without a valid basis for doing so.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.