This week’s TGIF considers State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) and Ors [2016] VSC 654, in which Special Purpose Liquidators were appointed despite a potential conflict arising from their firm having conducted compliance audits of the companies.

Background

In Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and another, the Privy Council recently held that anagreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court can arise through an implied term but there must be actual agreement (or consent). However, simply agreeing that an agreement should be governed by foreign law did not amount to agreement to the corresponding jurisdiction.

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.

In the decision of Re Arcabi Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2014] WASC 310 the court considered:

• the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) to goods being held on a bailment or consignment basis by a company in receivership and liquidation; and
• the receivers’ rights to be indemnified for costs and expenses related to investigating and protecting the property of third parties.

What is the significance?