This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.

What happened?

It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Dudley (Liquidator) v RHG Construction Fitout & Maintenance Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1355, which serves as a reminder of the steps to be taken before commencing a ‘mothership’ preference claim proceeding.

This week’s TGIF considers a refusal by the Federal Court to declare void or terminate a DOCA on the grounds of alleged prejudice & injustice or due to omissions in the administrator’s report to creditors.

Background

R Developments Pty Ltd (the Builder) operated a residential construction business and entered into a contract for the construction of a residential property in 2012.

This week’s TGIF considers the circumstances in which a special purpose liquidator will be appointed to investigate claims the liquidator has already determined are ‘not viable’ in the decision in Williams & Kersten Pty Ltd v Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq)

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decisions in Carrello, in the matter of Caneland Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1144, and Carrello, in the matter of Gembrook Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1143. The Court provided guidance as to how a liquidator of an insolvent corporate trustee should ensure payment of their remuneration and expenses out of trust assets.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Cremin, in the matter of Brimson Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1023, which confirms that liquidators should approach the Court before taking steps to realise trust assets.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application for removal of liquidators where creditors argued that the liquidators had not properly discharged their duties and were not independent.

Background

On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.